Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

So, which parts of the Old Testament does Jesus say you must ignore and which parts does Jesus say you must adhere to?

He doesn't say you must ignore it. You no longer "have to observe" the Jewish feasts and ritualistic observances. Or make sacrifice to atone for sin, if you are in him. However it is "faith" based.

Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeying the Law and doing its works, or was it by hearing [the message of the Gospel] and believing [it]? [Was it from observing a law of rituals or from a message of faith?]Galatians 3:1-3

But the man who has doubts (misgivings, an uneasy conscience) about eating, and then eats [perhaps because of you], stands condemned [before God], because he is not true to his convictions and he does not act from faith. For whatever does not originate and proceed from faith is sin [whatever is done without a conviction of its approval by God is sinful].
Romans 14:22-23

So, within which part of the New Testament does Jesus say homosexual sex is immoral and a sin?

For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
Romans 1:26-28

A further question naturally follows from the concept that Jesus swept away the OT rules (except the ones you think he didn't). If one set of rules was needed for people a thousand years before he was born and then another set of rules was needed at that point which required wholesale eradication of the previous rules, what was so different about those people that they needed different rules - and what exactly do we have in common with the people 2,000 years ago that we still need to be governed by the second set of rules?

Now if perfection (a perfect fellowship between God and the worshiper) had been attainable by the Levitical priesthood--for under it the people were given the Law--why was it further necessary that there should arise another and different kind of Priest, one after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one appointed after the order and rank of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:10-12

Hebrews 7: 18So a previous physical regulation and command is cancelled because of its weakness and ineffectiveness and uselessness--

19For the Law never made anything perfect--but instead a better hope is introduced through which we [now] come close to God.

20And it was not without the taking of an oath [that Christ was made Priest],

21For those who formerly became priests received their office without its being confirmed by the taking of an oath by God, but this One was designated and addressed and saluted with an oath, The Lord has sworn and will not regret it or change His mind, You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.(C)

22In keeping with [the oath's greater strength and force], Jesus has become the Guarantee of a better (stronger) agreement [a more excellent and more advantageous covenant].

23[Again, the former successive line of priests] was made up of many, because they were each prevented by death from continuing [perpetually in office];

24But He holds His priesthood unchangeably, because He lives on forever.

25Therefore He is able also to save to the uttermost (completely, perfectly, finally, and for all time and eternity) those who come to God through Him, since He is always living to make petition to God and intercede with Him and intervene for them.

26[Here is] the High Priest [perfectly adapted] to our needs, as was fitting--holy, blameless, unstained by sin, separated from sinners, and exalted higher than the heavens.

27He has no day by day necessity, as [do each of these other] high priests, to offer sacrifice first of all for his own [personal] sins and then for those of the people, because He [met all the requirements] once for all when He brought Himself [as a sacrifice] which He offered up.

28For the Law sets up men in their weakness [frail, sinful, dying human beings] as high priests, but the word of [God's] oath, which [was spoken later] after the institution of the Law, [chooses and appoints as priest One Whose appointment is complete and permanent], a Son Who has been made perfect forever.(D)

 

[Famine]

I'm sorry, but the square brackets everywhere seem to rerender your post into complete gibberish. I'm sure you're making a point, but I have no way to respond to it because I simply cannot read it...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm sorry, but the square brackets everywhere seem to rerender your post into complete gibberish. I'm sure you're making a point, but I have no way to respond to it because I simply cannot read it...

It is from the Amplified Bible which gives additional amplification(meaning) of the Greek or Hebrew text from which it was translated.

 

[Danoff]

And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
Romans 1:26-28

Is this a commandment from God? Or is it a man's narration? The source is critical here. Does God think it is a "fitting retribution" or does the author?

Either way, does this suggest that this is in any way your responsibility to punish or prevent? Or does it merely suggest that these people will suffer the consequences of their own actions - leaving you no part in it whatsoever.

 

[Sureboss]

I always cringe at the "un-natural" word in the context of homosexuality, are people so blind as to not see the evidence that most of the animal kingdom (and especially our "branch" of it) commit homosexual acts. It's the most obvious reason (with so much evidence for it) as to why the religious texts are so ridiculously outdated and wrong.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Is this a commandment from God? Or is it a man's narration? The source is critical here. Does God think it is a "fitting retribution" or does the author?

I would have to say "all of the above".

Either way, does this suggest that this is in any way your responsibility to punish or prevent?

No.
GOD doesn't need any self appointed Judges, Juries, or Executioners.

Or does it merely suggest that these people will suffer the consequences of their own actions - leaving you no part in it whatsoever.

Yes.
Fortunately, as is the case with everyone, I don't have to answer for what someone else does, only what I do. Thats plenty enough, in and of itself.

While Paul the author of the letter from which these statements come, has singled out that particular activity in those verses, there is more under the same banner, such as:


Romans 1:28-30 (Amplified Bible)
28And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

29Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,

30Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.


Galatians 5:19-21(Amplified Bible)
19Now the doings (practices) of the flesh are clear (obvious): they are immorality, impurity, indecency,

20Idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger (ill temper), selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party spirit (factions, sects with peculiar opinions, heresies),

21Envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 4:30-32(Amplified Bible)
Let all bitterness and indignation and wrath (passion, rage, bad temper) and resentment (anger, animosity) and quarreling (brawling, clamor, contention) and slander (evil-speaking, abusive or blasphemous language) be banished from you, with all malice (spite, ill will, or baseness of any kind).


Colossians 3:5-9(Amplified Bible)
5So kill (deaden, [a]deprive of power) the evil desire lurking in your members [those animal impulses and all that is earthly in you that is employed in sin]: sexual vice, impurity, sensual appetites, unholy desires, and all greed and covetousness, for that is idolatry (the deifying of self and other created things instead of God).

6It is on account of these [very sins] that the [holy] anger of God is ever coming upon the sons of disobedience (those who are obstinately opposed to the divine will),

7Among whom you also once walked, when you were living in and addicted to [such practices].

8But now put away and rid yourselves [completely] of all these things: anger, rage, bad feeling toward others, curses and slander, and foulmouthed abuse and shameful utterances from your lips!

9Do not lie to one another, for you have stripped off the old (unregenerate) self with its evil practices,



While some may be able to escape the first mention, of which you question, I doubt anyone can truthfully escape every part of the whole list.

 

[Duke]

Exactly, so that ought to tell you something.

I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch the Invisible Pink Unicorn, either. So by your criteria, I should believe She exists too. (Bless her pointed little hooves...)

And how is a religion NOT an "ism"? You declined to explain that one.

BTW on a whole, death should be repeatable enough for you, however you will, as far as you know, only die once. Tell me how will you apply repeatability to that?

Life AFTER death is what's not repeatable. No one can be proven to have lived in spirit after their body has died physically. No one. Death is highly repeatable - just not more than once per person. But everyone does it, with no observed exceptions in recorded history.

Where do you think those 5 commandments came from?

I think they came from men who decided that they could form the basis for a stable society, but who also thought they needed to terrify the locals into following them somehow.

Prove otherwise. I'm not the one claiming they came from a supernatural power. And saying the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God doesn't count, because lots of people/books have done that as well, with equal validity.

I've read parts of all. Only one has something different that I have seen. A Cure, not just a treating of the symptoms.

So living nonviolently in harmony with others and the natural world would not also be a cure for sin? Sounds like it would be a cure to me. It also sounds like Buddhism. That's just one alternative off the top of my head.

You only get to call your religion the one "Cure" for sin because it was only your God who defined sin in that particular way. It's a rigged game. I'm not playing.

Your self elevated idea of the dimension of Logic is not wholely powerful enough to examine the subject...

To the contrary, I've already explained how I chose and it has nothing to do with feeling....

It transcends logic...

You continue to insist your choice of god was rational and not based on feeling, but you also say logic is not adequate to examine the topic. The two concepts are mutually exclusive - so which part of your statement is the incorrect part?

The purpose of a "Search", is to "Find".

Well, then, to further answer your question, every time I acquire more accurate and more complete information about the real world, I "Find". So I both "Search" and "Find" every day. It's great! I love it!

There's a policy you can get that will do that, including "eternity".
It's "free", but its not "cheap".

Then why do bad things happen to true believers? Is God off duty? Did they forget to send their premiums in on time? Is He trying to avoid paying the claims because cash flow is a little tight this quarter and the stockholders are upset?

I'd love to see the actuary tables that describe statistically how well God insures those who believe in Him. Oh, wait, those are "tests of human faith", not "failures of God's insurance coverage".

Its up to the reader to determine.
Read the book for yourself Duke, OJECTIVELY, or minus all your predetermined judgements.

You've said this repeatedly, as if I have never given it a chance. It's not like I was always an atheist. I was baptized an Episcopalian. My grandfather was a lay minister. I began questioning at a young age, but I was not raised as an atheist.

I have read the Bible, and in fact without predetermined judgments. I found it to be: a primitive attempt to explain the unknowns of the world, a series of obscure directives that actually might help a primitive society avoid extinction in a life without refrigeration and medicine, and what could be the basis for a decent moral code of ethics. Unfortunately, partly due to the vast amount of unknown to cover, and partly due to the need/desire to enforce conformity to the ethics with unopposable power, this useful framework was buried under a mountain of supernatural mumbojumbo in order to fool the natives.

Arguing about the mumbojumbo and missing the point of the framework seems to have occupied a huge number of the natives ever since.

Again, after the fact, its easy to claim.
The truth is our (USA) whole system is based in and of Judeo-Christian principles.

Which are perfectly derivable from basic human rights without any need for God being involved. You are selling the Fathers (and our Constitution and the US itself) short if you believe they were all united in Christian Brotherhood. And that's an entirely different topic, covered elsewhere on this forum.

I doubt your English Teacher claimed to be "the Son of GOD".
That could make a difference.

Why? I can claim to be the Son of God - anybody can. Just because you've never seen Me perform a miracle doesn't mean I'm NOT the Son of God. What relevance does a claim have about anything?

To my knowledge Zeus has done nothing to help me. Neither does he appear that interested.

How do you know? Perhaps Zeus has been the one helping you through your life, and you just don't recognize him. If so, you could be in for a rough afterlife, I'd bet.

You cannot know GOD relationally through "feelings", no more than you can know your wife. Feelings develop "out of" the relationship. You can be infatuated prior, but theres no real relationship yet.
Your trying to put the cart before the Horse.

So I need to start a relationship with a complete stranger in order to know them? I don't get it. I started a relationship with my wife because the more I learned about her, the more I liked. We felt intellectual and emotional connection so we started dating and then we got married. That doesn't sound like putting the cart before the horse to me.

And in this case you cannot know him relationally, without the additional dimension of the "Holy Spirit". Its part of the Cure.(Being born again) He is a "Spirit" being. You did not have that dimension when you were born physically.

Saying I have to trust/believe in God before he will reveal Himself to me so I can know Him sure sounds a lot more like putting the cart before the horse to me. If that were the case I would have married the cute girl I liked in 8th grade before I realized what a jerk she was.

Thats why you cannot understand what I'm talking about, because you don't have it. You still only have the dimensions you had at physical birth. So you have determined what I'm saying doesn't exsist or is impossible.
I understand that perfectly, because for years I didn't even know I had it(Holy Spirit) due to my ensconced insistence that it had to be something intellectual. In reality relationships(like with your wife) are based generally on a small part of that.

My relationship with my wife is based entirely on intellect. I think she's smart, funny, and I like the way she does things for the most part, and vice versa. We've built a relationship built on mutual trust and respect for each others' thinking. It's not like either of us said "You know what, I'll marry this person first and just have faith that it will be right."

I just did. Thats all I can attest to and its "first hand" not second. There are millions of others who can as well.
I know it to be as real as anything else to date and anyone can have it that wants it and is willing to receive it.

Based on what? ...your feeling that it's real. Otherwise, you could demonstrate to the rest of us that it is real. Honestly, it would all make more sense if you would just accept that as a premise and move on.

 

[Danoff]

While some may be able to escape the first mention, of which you question, I doubt anyone can truthfully escape every part of the whole list.

It certainly does appear that the bible claims sex shouldn't be fun whatsoever. But where are these lessons derived from? This is a second-hand account of Jesus's teaching? Or an interpretation of the OT?

Regardless, this is clearly not the direct word of God. It is the word of man - whom you are trusting to speak to your God for you. This one particular preacher is claiming to know what God wants - but as we all know, men are fallible. I'd prefer to get my rules directly from the source.

 

[Joel]

It certainly does appear that the bible claims sex shouldn't be fun whatsoever. But where are these lessons derived from? This is a second-hand account of Jesus's teaching? Or an interpretation of the OT?

Regardless, this is clearly not the direct word of God. It is the word of man - whom you are trusting to speak to your God for you. This one particular preacher is claiming to know what God wants - but as we all know, men are fallible. I'd prefer to get my rules directly from the source.

I'd like to stress that I agree with you. The bible never said sex shouldn't be for fun. It requires 1. Pleasure (kinda a given ) 2. Emotional Intimacy 3. Openness to procreation.

No where did it say you can ONLY have sex to have a baby. "Openness to procreation" simply means no rubbers.

 

[Sureboss]

I doubt they had rubbers when the bible was written, maybe they just wrapped it up in banana leaves?

 

[Exorcet]

I always cringe at the "un-natural" word in the context of homosexuality, are people so blind as to not see the evidence that most of the animal kingdom (and especially our "branch" of it) commit homosexual acts. It's the most obvious reason (with so much evidence for it) as to why the religious texts are so ridiculously outdated and wrong.

I don't know, it doesn't make any evolutionary sense. If homosexuality became a majority, it could end the human race (aside from possible cloning or voluntary reproduction). I tend to think of it as a disorder, though I have no problem with homosexual people. I will admit that I haven't done in depth research on the subject.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch the Invisible Pink Unicorn, either. So by your criteria, I should believe She exists too. (Bless her pointed little hooves...)

Not necessarily. But if she does of what relevance is it.

And how is a religion NOT an "ism"? You declined to explain that one.

In regaurd to "Theism" it is.
I was referring to those that came along, as I said in the late 19th century and early 20th which were in opposition to a deity faith system.

Life AFTER death is what's not repeatable. No one can be proven to have lived in spirit after their body has died physically. No one. Death is highly repeatable - just not more than once per person. But everyone does it, with no observed exceptions in recorded history.

You didn't answer my question either.
How can you apply your stringent repeatable "Logic" to your only die once situation, and come to a conclusion on the afterward. You will obviously have to use something else.

I think they came from men who decided that they could form the basis for a stable society, but who also thought they needed to terrify the locals into following them somehow.

Thats laughable.
One man brought them down off the mountain. Everyone else was participating in an orgy and building a Golden calf to worship. They already had an acceptable to man society.

Prove otherwise. I'm not the one claiming they came from a supernatural power. And saying the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God doesn't count, because lots of people/books have done that as well, with equal validity.

Lots of things have some validity. But how much?
However to even consider man came up with it, is even more far out, than GOD coming up with it.

So living nonviolently in harmony with others and the natural world would not also be a cure for sin? Sounds like it would be a cure to me. It also sounds like Buddhism. That's just one alternative off the top of my head.

What it sounds like and reality are two different things.

You only get to call your religion the one "Cure" for sin because it was only your God who defined sin in that particular way. It's a rigged game. I'm not playing.

By all means compare. Every other religion is dos and don'ts. This one says "forget it, you can't do it anyway" you're not powerful enough on your own. No problem I'll cover you on it and I'll give you the power to enable you to have a fighting chance.
I've found that to be a "repeatable truth".

You continue to insist your choice of god was rational and not based on feeling, but you also say logic is not adequate to examine the topic. The two concepts are mutually exclusive - so which part of your statement is the incorrect part?

You use parts of both, just like you do marriage.
I disagree. They are not mutually exclusve. They are both important dynamic dimensions of life, but each has its limitations.
Men are generally logic influenced and women are generally emotionally influenced. When united together they help balance one another. However the process can appear more madness than method sometimes.
I happened to use mostly "Logic" in my examination.

Well, then, to further answer your question, every time I acquire more accurate and more complete information about the real world, I "Find". So I both "Search" and "Find" every day. It's great! I love it!

Well I hope eventually you will find GOD.

Then why do bad things happen to true believers? Is God off duty? Did they forget to send their premiums in on time? Is He trying to avoid paying the claims because cash flow is a little tight this quarter and the stockholders are upset?

Dominon is a BIG responsibility.
Adam and Eve plunged all mankind into some serious trouble with one Bad decision.
Consequently we're left with some serious problems to deal with.
We have an "Adversary" and that situation is referred to as warfare. In war there are casualties.
Thats the simplest way I can explain it.
I would say that if Christians actually did what we're instructed to do this would be less common.

I'd love to see the actuary tables that describe statistically how well God insures those who believe in Him. Oh, wait, those are "tests of human faith", not "failures of God's insurance coverage".

Ultimately, you must remember that even if you're a casualty in the temporal, you are still a victor in the Eternal. Eventually we are all a casualty in the temporal.

You've said this repeatedly, as if I have never given it a chance. It's not like I was always an atheist. I was baptized an Episcopalian. My grandfather was a lay minister. I began questioning at a young age, but I was not raised as an atheist.

Interesting.

I have read the Bible, and in fact without predetermined judgments. I found it to be: a primitive attempt to explain the unknowns of the world, a series of obscure directives that actually might help a primitive society avoid extinction in a life without refrigeration and medicine, and what could be the basis for a decent moral code of ethics. Unfortunately, partly due to the vast amount of unknown to cover, and partly due to the need/desire to enforce conformity to the ethics with unopposable power, this useful framework was buried under a mountain of supernatural mumbojumbo in order to fool the natives.

Even with cold beer and anitibiotics I don't see where things are really that much different. Human nature is still Human nature.

Arguing about the mumbojumbo and missing the point of the framework seems to have occupied a huge number of the natives ever since.

I have to agree with you on this one.

Which are perfectly derivable from basic human rights without any need for God being involved. You are selling the Fathers (and our Constitution and the US itself) short if you believe they were all united in Christian Brotherhood. And that's an entirely different topic, covered elsewhere on this forum.

In reality thats pretty much the case.

Why? I can claim to be the Son of God - anybody can. Just because you've never seen Me perform a miracle doesn't mean I'm NOT the Son of God. What relevance does a claim have about anything?

Because it qualifies everything he said. It must be taken into account with all he said.

How do you know? Perhaps Zeus has been the one helping you through your life, and you just don't recognize him. If so, you could be in for a rough afterlife, I'd bet.

I don't think so.

So I need to start a relationship with a complete stranger in order to know them? I don't get it. I started a relationship with my wife because the more I learned about her, the more I liked. We felt intellectual and emotional connection so we started dating and then we got married. That doesn't sound like putting the cart before the horse to me.

I thought thats exactly what I said?? The feelings grow out of the relationship.
Learning about her, getting to know her, spending time with her.
Its the same process with GOD.

Saying I have to trust/believe in God before he will reveal Himself to me so I can know Him sure sounds a lot more like putting the cart before the horse to me. If that were the case I would have married the cute girl I liked in 8th grade before I realized what a jerk she was.

I see what your saying now. I 'd say its the exact same process. The reading of particularly the new Testament is the learning of. The only difference is the trusting commitment comes at engagement.

My relationship with my wife is based entirely on intellect. I think she's smart, funny, and I like the way she does things for the most part, and vice versa. We've built a relationship built on mutual trust and respect for each others' thinking."

So you just married her because she was intellectually stimulating?

It's not like either of us said "You know what, I'll marry this person first and just have faith that it will be right."

Ultimately, each others thinking aside, thats exactly what you did.

Based on what? ...your feeling that it's real. Otherwise, you could demonstrate to the rest of us that it is real. Honestly, it would all make more sense if you would just accept that as a premise and move on.

If I said that you don't really have a relationship with your wife, you just have something based on some feeling, would that make any sense? No it wouldn't. Maybe you could demonstrate it to us.
Thats what you keep telling me and its just as stupid. I know my wife and I know him just as well. Absolutely ,unequivically, unreservedly, positively, I do. Now you can continue to beleive anything you want, but I'm telling you its as real as rain! Just because you don't, doesn't mean I don't.

 

[Duke]

The difference is that I can introduce you to my wife, and you can actually talk to both of us together and separately, and she will answer your questions.

Have your God do that for me.

So, all of your insistence to the contrary, it still boils down that this feels like the right flavor of deity for you, so you took the leap of faith. Absolutely nothing you've said here has begun to convince me otherwise, and it's definitely NOT because I just won't understand.

More power to you, I guess, but I could never live that way.

 

[Danoff]

If I said that you don't really have a relationship with your wife, you just have something based on some feeling, would that make any sense? No it wouldn't. Maybe you could demonstrate it to us.
Thats what you keep telling me and its just as stupid. I know my wife and I know him just as well. Absolutely ,unequivically, unreservedly, positively, I do. Now you can continue to beleive anything you want, but I'm telling you its as real as rain! Just because you don't, doesn't mean I don't.

Duke put it nicely. A feeling is difficult to demonstrate. Existence - not so much.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The difference is that I can introduce you to my wife, and you can actually talk to both of us together and separately, and she will answer your questions.

Have your God do that for me.

Thats why he wrote the book.

So, all of your insistence to the contrary, it still boils down that this feels like the right flavor of deity for you, so you took the leap of faith. Absolutely nothing you've said here has begun to convince me otherwise, and it's definitely NOT because I just won't understand.

More power to you, I guess, but I could never live that way.

It don't know about feelings or flavors, but I know what it is and I know where I got it. It didn't come from Zeus or Buddah. I have know idea what they do or don't have, only what I have.

All I'm trying to tell you is, its the same process we discussed about your wife. You pursue it in the same way, and at some point, you like with her, take the leap of faith, and asked her to marry you. If you hadn't then you would never know her as your wife.

The only difference is it is a "spiritual relationship" not physical or to do with carnal dimensions. Thats why you receive the "Holy Spirit" to enable it, make it possible. Thats also why it is not a "feeling" or again, of a carnal dimension.

I beleive you when you say "NOT because I just won't understand".
You don't have a "Spirit" dimension to understand it with.
If you can live with your wife as described, then you can live with this.
In fact its much better in many respects and will improve the other.

Duke put it nicely. A feeling is difficult to demonstrate. Existence - not so much.

The Exsistence part is the difficult thing here. The feeling thing keeps coming up as a "only way to explain it".
Once you start to reference the "Spirit Realm", everything to the carnal mind takes on a "Spooky Connotation".

The only ones that truly understand what I'm talking about are Christians who know they have it and what it is. Some of whom have posted in these like threads and I have conversed with concerning these things.
They know exactly the reality of what I'm talking about.


But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.
1 Corinthians 2:13-15

 

[TrievelA7X]

Adam and Eve plunged all mankind into some serious trouble with one Bad decision.
Consequently we're left with some serious problems to deal with.

And why would God logically decide to hold everyone that ever exists responsible for 2 people's actions?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And why would God logically decide to hold everyone that ever exists responsible for 2 people's actions?

When he decided to give them "Dominion" or "the power to choose" with that came the potential consequences of the power of choice which also came upon everyone that decended from them.

I think the bigger question might be: Why did he give them the power of choice? In some ways its self evident. I don't know how you can have or establish real or true value without it. Thats why the "Law" that was given could not really suffice, since it was compulsory.

However as I pointed out earlier, he has not left us high and dry, we can choose back into his plan, although it will not be completed until after the physical life is over.

 

[Danoff]

But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.
1 Corinthians 2:13-15

That's absolutely 100% correct. I do not accept or welcome irrational thought. They are flawed to me. I am incapable of believing in the irrational because it requires a thought process that I reject.

How you have learned to trust irrationality is what I'm trying to understand.

 

[Duke]

Thats why he wrote the book.

[broken record] Prove it. [/broken record]

It don't know about feelings or flavors, but I know what it is and I know where I got it. It didn't come from Zeus or Buddah. I have know idea what they do or don't have, only what I have.

You know what you have because you've decided what you have. It's undefinable by any real means so it is a blank slate upon which you write your own definition, whether you understand/admit that or not.

All I'm trying to tell you is, its the same process we discussed about your wife. You pursue it in the same way, and at some point, you like with her, take the leap of faith, and asked her to marry you. If you hadn't then you would never know her as your wife.

It's not the same process. I knew my wife as an acquaintance, then as a friend,, then as a very close friend, then as a lover, then as a wife. By then it was no leap of faith, it was a repeatablly demonstrated relationship.

But God won't reveal himself to me UNTIL I'm ready to marry him, so to speak. I can't get to know God until I take the big plunge and decide to believe he already exists.

I didn't believe my future wife existed until I met her through some mutual acquaintances, at which point I could see that she was right in front of me and I could talk with her.

I beleive you when you say "NOT because I just won't understand".
You don't have a "Spirit" dimension to understand it with.

I'm not throwing away my rationality on the miniscule off-chance that I might get something undefinable which may not even exist and that I don't need anyway.

If you can live with your wife as described, then you can live with this.

My wife is not irrational. If she was, I would have figured that out earlier in the process and I wouldn't have married her. And there are a lot of things I "can" live with, but I usually need a compelling reason to do so.

I see nothing compelling about a spiritual dimension. I'm not lacking anything enough to make me yearn for it.

In fact its much better in many respects and will improve the other.

Why? As long as we're honest and fair with each other, my wife and I don't need anything to make our relationship better than we can do under our own initiative and power.

The Exsistence part is the difficult thing here.

Indeed. You wouldn't think demonstrating his own existence would be a difficult obstacle for an omnicient, omnipotent, supreme being to get past, but somehow it is.

That's absolutely 100% correct. I do not accept or welcome irrational thought. They are flawed to me. I am incapable of believing in the irrational because it requires a thought process that I reject.

How you have learned to trust irrationality is what I'm trying to understand.

I'm still struggling with why anyone would want to.

 

[Sureboss]

I don't know, it doesn't make any evolutionary sense. If homosexuality became a majority, it could end the human race (aside from possible cloning or voluntary reproduction). I tend to think of it as a disorder, though I have no problem with homosexual people. I will admit that I haven't done in depth research on the subject.

It's sex. A lot of people dabble in both. To suggest it is un-natural or a disorder goes against hundreds of pieces of well documented evidence. If we were the only species to be homosexual, you may have a point. But we aren't.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's absolutely 100% correct. I do not accept or welcome irrational thought. They are flawed to me. I am incapable of believing in the irrational because it requires a thought process that I reject.

How you have learned to trust irrationality is what I'm trying to understand.

It only appears to be irrational. In the fullness of true reality, or all dimensions it is more rational than carnal rationale.

As I have attempted to point out, the concept of marriage is irrational too.
It doesn't stop people from embracing it.
Simply on the the grounds that the potential benefit outweighs the rational risk.
So on those same grounds, faith is required to proceed.
Its the same principle or rationale.
That is how.

1 Corinthians 1 (Amplified Bible)
27[No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame.

28And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are,

29So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.

 

[Famine]

But God won't reveal himself to me UNTIL I'm ready to marry him, so to speak. I can't get to know God until I take the big plunge and decide to believe he already exists.

Indeed. You wouldn't think demonstrating his own existence would be a difficult obstacle for an omnicient, omnipotent, supreme being to get past, but somehow it is.

After all, he did it for Saul. Why not the rest of us?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

[broken record] Prove it. [/broken record]

undefinable by any real means so it is a blank slate upon which you write your own definition, whether you understand/admit that or not.

I didn't write the Bible, I just read it.

[It's not the same process. I knew my wife as an acquaintance, then as a friend,, then as a very close friend, then as a lover, then as a wife. By then it was no leap of faith, it was a repeatablly demonstrated relationship.

Reapeatable up to that point. There was nothing to take you to the conclusion of guaranteed continued reapeatability for life but "Faith".
[broken record] Prove it. [/broken record]

But God won't reveal himself to me UNTIL I'm ready to marry him, so to speak. I can't get to know God until I take the big plunge and decide to believe he already exists.

Not exactly. Thats what he wrote the book for.

I didn't believe my future wife existed until I met her through some mutual acquaintances, at which point I could see that she was right in front of me and I could talk with her.

You cannot see him, but you can talk to him.

I'm not throwing away my rationality on the miniscule off-chance that I might get something undefinable which may not even exist and that I don't need anyway.

Why didn't you employ that rational when it came to getting married?

My wife is not irrational. If she was, I would have figured that out earlier in the process and I wouldn't have married her. And there are a lot of things I "can" live with, but I usually need a compelling reason to do so.

Sounds like a rare find.
BTW did you know, that a wise understanding and prudent wife is from the Lord.
Don't get mad at me, I didn't say it he did.

I see nothing compelling about a spiritual dimension. I'm not lacking anything enough to make me yearn for it.

Well as they say, tomorrow is another day.

Why? As long as we're honest and fair with each other, my wife and I don't need anything to make our relationship better than we can do under our own initiative and power.

Isn't that an unobjective assessment.

Indeed. You wouldn't think demonstrating his own existence would be a difficult obstacle for an omnicient, omnipotent, supreme being to get past, but somehow it is.

I must beleive that if he does it the way he has chosen, there is likely a good reason for it.

I'm still struggling with why anyone would want to.

I'm still struggling with why you got married.

At this point will you not admit that you got married based on the following three things:

Logic, feelings, and faith.

 

[Joey D]

Why do you keep saying God wrote a book? To my knowledge a bunch of other people, who named chapters after themselves, wrote the Bible over the course of hundreds of years.

 

[Duke]

I didn't write the Bible, I just read it.

And your point here is...? What I'm saying is that your "spiritual" side was completely undefined until something was imprinted on it. And for some mysterious reason, that information was not put there directly by an allegedly omnipresent and omnipotent God. For some mysterious reason he had to use an old book written by men.

Doesn't that make you wonder at all that there is the remotest chance that the god is created by the book, not vice versa?

I have to go right now, but I'll edit in the rest of this later.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Doesn't that make you wonder at all that there is the remotest chance that the god is created by the book, not vice versa?

I agree...

We were not created in God's image, he was created in ours to suit us... to answer those questions you cant answer, to fill that void that cant be filled by our current knowledge, the ones that keep you up at night. We earn to have a purpose, to have answers for everything and god is a great thing that allows us all of the above.

 

[Sureboss]

I agree...

We were not created in God's image, he was created in ours to suit us... to answer those questions you cant answer, to fill that void that cant be filled by their knowledge then, the ones that keep you up at night. We earn to have a purpose, to have answers for everything and god is a great thing that allows us all of the above.

Edited.

 

[Duke]

I decided to just make this a new post rather than editing the older one above.

I didn't write the Bible, I just read it.

And your point here is...? What I'm saying is that your "spiritual" side was completely undefined until something was imprinted on it. And for some mysterious reason, that information was not put there directly by an allegedly omnipresent and omnipotent God. For some mysterious reason he had to use an old book written by men.

Doesn't that make you wonder at all if there is the remotest chance that the god is created by the book, not vice versa?

Reapeatable up to that point. There was nothing to take you to the conclusion of guaranteed continued reapeatability for life but "Faith".
[broken record] Prove it. [/broken record]

I never said there was guaranteed repeatability, just predictable. But we knew each other for a year before we started dating, we dated for 3 years before we got engaged, and we lived together for 3 years before we got married. There was very little "faith" involved in that aspect of it, except in the same way I have "faith" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Not exactly. Thats what he wrote the book for.

I've read the book, and with an open mind. He didn't reveal himself to me. I didn't get to know God - I got to know a myth designed to explain what was unknown when it was written and establish some form of control over society.

You cannot see him, but you can talk to him.

I've talked to God. I've talked to trees, too, but I've never gotten an answer from either. As I said, he only appears to people who already believe in him (or who are at least looking for something spiritual to believe in). I don't find that wondrous or coincidental - I find it highly illuminating.

Why didn't you employ that rational when it came to getting married?

Because I didn't need to! My wife and I had taken a lot of time to decide carefully that we were mutually compatible. I wasn't throwing anything constructive away on a flight of fancy that just might be true.

Sounds like a rare find.
BTW did you know, that a wise understanding and prudent wife is from the Lord.
Don't get mad at me, I didn't say it he did.

It's not a rare find if you know what to look for. Unfortunately it's all too rare to find rational people (of either sex) in general, sometimes. And I'm not getting mad at you, but I'm still baffled by the insistent reliance on a book, written by men with nothing other than itself as proof, that says all things come from God.

Well as they say, tomorrow is another day.

Yes, it is, and hopefully I'll learn something else interesting about the real world then, too.

Isn't that an unobjective assessment.

No. Being objective does not mean I need to accept every influence or direction from everything I encounter. My wife and I have a happy relationship. Anything that may be missing from it is within our own power to change, if we so choose.

I must beleive that if he does it the way he has chosen, there is likely a good reason for it.

Why must you believe that? Because someone told you to? Because you read it in the Bible? There's absolutely no evidence for it except your faith that it must be correct by arbitrary definition. I never cease to be amazed by the willful and willing suspension of disbelief. We're not talking about suspending disbelief for a few pleasant evenings while you read The Lord of the Rings for entertainment. We're talking about basing a way of life on something that you have no actual way of knowing exists - that you have simply chosen to believe.

I'm still struggling with why you got married.

I got married because I wanted to enter into a permanent partnership with my wife, where we invested in each other and were rewarded for our investments (intellectual, emotional, and physical). It was a personal covenant between the two of us, not between us and some deity.

At this point will you not admit that you got married based on the following three things:

Logic, feelings, and faith.

The first two, yes. The third one, no. Faith doesn't enter the equation. Predictability, yes - in same way that I can predict the sun will rise, or I can predict that my blue car will not be red when I see it next time. From what I saw in my time of getting to know her before we were married, and what I've seen since, there is nothing to make me suspect she is irrational, so I have no reason to predict she will become so.

Intellectually and logically we shared enough of the same views to be highly compatible, with enough difference of thinking to challenge each other and keep it interesting. That intellectual compatibility created feelings of joy when we were with each other. The feelings of intellectual joy create physical attraction, which creates yet more joy when we are with each other. But it is entirely based on intellectual attraction - the rest follows naturally.

It is quite possible to feel simple physical desire for a pretty girl without loving her in any way, and you may find you dislike her after 3 minutes of conversation. But intellectually loving a person makes them pretty no matter what they look like physically.

 

[cpp214]

The multi-quote function is proving to be invaluable in this thread

*runs back to his spot on the sidelines and ducks for cover*

 

[Danoff]

It only appears to be irrational. In the fullness of true reality, or all dimensions it is more rational than carnal rationale.

You mean in irrational dimensions.

As I have attempted to point out, the concept of marriage is irrational too.

Nope. Marriage CAN be irrational, and it can also be very rational. Just like a buying a shoe can be irrational, and can also be rational. It all depends on what your motivation is.


Let's take an example of irrational behavior. My parents are involved in a pyramid scheme because they desperately want to hope that they can get rich. This is irrational. There is no reason why a pyramid scheme will help them get rich - and I have proven to them as much (rationally). But they believe it anyway because they want to have hope (this would be analogous to faith). It's fundamentally irrational behavior. (the lottery ticket example is similar)

The analogy to what you've been telling me would be to say that I could simply define their hope-based-belief as rational. All that this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of rationality. It's not some flimsy word that we throw around that means "right". It means you have to use reason rather than emotion. So when you tell me that using emotion can be more rational - you're not making any sense whatsoever.