Theology III

[Azrael]

as in? are you asking if I believe Jesus was born with original sin as in Adam and eve?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Try this again on me, Gwai, and talk slowly. If you reject Universalism, but believe in Original Sin, then everyone is affected by Original Sin, thus, sinners. (except Jesus, kind of a special case) Thus, no choice, yes?

If you don't believe in Original Sin, and reject Universalism, then it would, theoretically, be possible for someone to choose not to sin?
Completely? Anyone on that list, yet?

Here I lay out two options.

The first is Original Sin - Universal Salvation = sinners + Jesus

The second is no Original Sin and no Universal salvation = people who can choose not to sin.

Originally Posted by Azrael

yeah Jesus is on that list!

Jesus wasn't affected by Original Sin (as I understand it) so could choose to commit sin or not, but He didn't start as a sinner.. My question is, "Does everyone have that choice, and if so, has anyone taken it, yet?"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I don't quite understand. My beliefs are, of course, also based on study.

What part of what you studied convinced you that your current beliefs are correct?

Originally Posted by Curufin

Ah, an explanation of my pantheism! I guess this comes a bit from my upbringing, to be honest. When I was a little girl, before we started going to the Presbyterian church, and after we stopped going, my mother and father would get me and my brother up early in the morning (before dawn) and we would ride our bikes to the park nearby and watch the sun rise over the trees as we fixed breakfast. It was one of the most spiritual experiences of my life, watching the world come alive like that. I guess it was in those times that I began to see God/the Creator as everything around me. God was not just something distant and remote, but something in everything around me. God was in the birds that sang as the sun rose, in the rustle of the wind in the trees, in the rabbits that scampered along in the fields. The beauty of the world around me could be explained to my heart and soul in no other way than that the world itself - and everything in it - was divine, and no different than the Creator who created it in the first place. This was backed up by the Quaker theological teachings that claim that there is 'That of God in everyone' - which is easily morphed into 'That of God in everything'.

Interesting . . . I've had somewhat similar experiences, in terms of observing nature becoming a spiritual experience. I see the sun, for instance, as very symbolic of God. It creates life on Earth, the Earth circles it as the soul surrenders to God, it is light as Jesus is the "light of the world," etc. The vast distances of the sky and space symbolize the eternity and infinity of God. The greatness of the sea symbolizes the impenetrable depth of the wisdom of God. Etc. etc. I have had spiritual experiences involving messages from God through nature, so I can relate.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Thats a very broad and difficult question. Perhaps you could specify which moral values you're most interested in? I'd be glad to answer, but I'm not exactly sure how to approach this question.

Well, stealing for example. Is your belief that stealing is wrong based on human intellect, spiritual revelation, or some other source? What is the basis for your beliefs about morality?

Originally Posted by Curufin

Of course I see rape and pedophelia as wrong. I should have added 'between consenting adults' to my answer. I feel that sex between consenting adults is a beautiful gift. And you notice that I do not specify the gender of those consenting adults.

Sure, that doesn't surprise me in the least. Note that I only mentioned pedophelia and rape, things I expected we'd have commonality on, rather than homosexuality. But as I said, we both see sexuality itself not as bad. It's only when it's abused that something bad occurs, when someone uses it wrongly. We just disagree on what constitutes an abuse of sexuality.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Try this again on me, Gwai, and talk slowly. If you reject Universalism, but believe in Original Sin, then everyone is affected by Original Sin, thus, sinners. (except Jesus, kind of a special case) Thus, no choice, yes?

A good example of how this works is a person who has a genetic anger problem. He inherits it, but he also cooperates with it of his own Free Will. That's the case with all sinners. Sin is inherited, but we also cooperate with it and freely choose it. We're responsible for all sinful actions we commit because we choose each and every one of them. Even though we have Original Sin whether we want it or not. Original Sin creates a propensity to evil, but we make that evil a reality through our own free choice, thus showing that we truly are Adam's children in spirit as well as in flesh.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Oh, Gawd almighty, where on EARTH do I begin? Hector? Lief? Somebody?

I'll start. Add what you want .

Originally Posted by Azrael

I did talk to my friends (also becoming a youth pastor) grandfather whose a pastor and he said that most youth of today are more into the bible then being a denomination, to tell you the truth why does their need to be denominations its a relationship with God not a popularity contest.

The most basic negative reason we need a denomination (note a denomination, not many) is that if we all read the Bible on our own without any Church Council explaining correctly (with the guidance of the Spirit) how key doctrines are to be interpreted for everyone, we'll all come to very different and often contradictory conclusions about what it means. When we come to contradictory conclusions about how to interpret it, it becomes hard to say what Christianity is. The more denominations you have, the more divisions between people and ideas, and the more it becomes hard to see what Christ meant his followers to believe. The non-denominationals who just read the Bible without any denomination multiply this problem enormously, for they come up with ideas and reject ideas that no one else has. Each non-denominational family pretty much becomes its own private little denomination, which makes the divisions in Christianity even greater and the true meaning of Christ for any debated doctrine or scripture even harder for people to learn. That's the enormous damage that comes from not having Christians united in one single unchanging doctrine that existed from the very beginning of Christianity. You have to have one denomination and only one, to achieve this unity of Christian message, stable and all true.

The most basic positive reason all Christians should be in only one denomination (the one that preserves the doctrines that go back to the beginning of Christian history), is that that way all Christians would have available to them all that Christ wanted them to have on Earth. The Catholic Church, you see, has teachings that only gain depth as time goes on- they don't change. The Church's teachings go back to the dawn of Christianity. They are visible not only in the Bible but in the teachings of the Early Church, and they carefully base themselves on Scripture and a Tradition that goes back to the dawn of Christian history. When the Spirit inspires the council and they come to a conclusion, the Church falls in line rather than fragmenting into an ocean of dissenting opinions that make the will of Christ hard for people to make out. Submission is part of what Christianity is all about, submission not only to Christ in heaven but also to the Body of Christ on Earth, which is Christ in the world. In the Catholic Church is unity of doctrine and belief, unity of one true message that goes back to the beginning of the Church, back to Christ himself. The apostles taught their successors that message and they passed it on- the writings of the Early Church are full of Catholicism. This protects unity to the truth.

If everyone comes up with their own contradictory opinions rather than submitting to one council to which Christ reveals the truth, lots of people will stray from the truth on various points, and time only increases the fragmentation process. That's what has happened in Protestantism, and it is extremely sad. We need to all be united to one truth, not fractured into countless factions over what the truth is. This is the way the Early Church had of achieving this, and that method has not changed all the way up to today.

You can see the Early Christians doing this with the councils in the Book of Acts. They had a council recorded there, I think in chapter 5 (though I could be wrong about that), where the leaders of the Church assembled and decided, with Peter's leadership, that they would accept the Gentiles. Immediately that became the Church's policy and everyone fell into line with it rather than fracturing, because they submitted to the Church. Some Jews said that Gentiles entering still had to be circumcised, and Paul roundly condemned this view. That was the normal Church procedure- state the truth in a council and expect everyone to fall into line, and if they don't, excommunicate dissenters as heretics rather than allow their divisions and falsehoods to proliferate in the Church.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, what's really absurd is the common myth that atheism is the rational perspective. You see, atheism is 100% blind faith. No one can prove a negative. No one could even provide the smallest bit of evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence against the existence of a God, and there never can be, so atheism is 100% blind. On the other hand, if any religion has even the smallest fragment of evidence supporting it, then it's more rational then atheism is, because even the smallest shred of evidence for a belief in some God (such as one person muttering that he has a strange feeling in his spine that he feels might be God watching him-- an absurdly small evidence) is more than an atheist ever can have to support his belief that there is no God. It's extremely absurd that atheism is seen as the viewpoint of the rational. It's the blindest faith that any can be. There is no evidence whatsoever to support it, and any religion that exists that claims to have any evidence whatsoever to support it is going to be more rational.

I'll respond to your post sometime today, Curufin, probably. I'm just a bit distracted and what you wrote will take some thinking.

Lief, you need to seriously understand that the burden of proof does not lie with those who reject something that no one can give them evidence to support actually exists!
It lies with those that make the claim! The burden of proof, empirical evidence. Not sightings in a dark night, nor 'miracles' when no third person is around to witness it, no contradictory, incomplete texts written by obscure authors. Evidence! Evidence! EVIDENCE. Where is your evidence? Where is it? Give it to me! Now. Show me that God of yours. ONE TINY SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Anything!

I'm waiting...

That's how simple it is. That's why there are athetists in this world. That's why atheists, like me, reject the notion of a God not because it is impossible that there is a God but because there is not a shred of proof that could stand the scrunity of science. There is absolutely zero evidence. Nada.

Atheists reject the notion of a God because the claim that there is a God is not supported by evidence!
You've turned logic on its head.

1. Believers of Christianity claim there is a God.
2. Atheists reject this claim until evidence is given to support the claim.

It's that simple. I can't accept something as profound as the existence of a God without any substantial, verifiable proof! Nor should anyone else. But we are all the product of our culture(s). It is very, very understandable to me that people believe in a God. On the other hand I can not believe in something because tradition, family, friends, society in general, believe it. I need to be shown proof. And when modern science comes along and shows the progress of evolution, the origins of our Earth, of our solar system, of how the human brain works: Then I have something verifiable. That is something I can read about and analyze. Evidence in all directions. And reasonable, logical analysis of this evidence. That is something to believe!

But a God.. the Bible.. a multitude of inconsistencies and impossibilities.. it is not reasonable to believe it.

Being an atheist is as rational as can be. It is simply asking for the same reasonable, satisfying, logical evidence that can expected in all walks of life. It isn't a rejection of messages of hope, or messages of goodwill, nor is it a rejection of morality. That is why I say that morals and ethics are man-made. Until you can show me that something else than men and women are responsible for the development of these things, I have no choice but to believe that they are that... man-made.

I can't rely on an age-old book that I do not know the authors of. I can't rely on a book that has been amended countless times, and is still being amended, and still hear that it is the words of God, and then believe it word by word, put blind faith into it. I can't do that. That would defy reason. That would defy everything my instincts tell me. That would be wrong! Do you understand why this defies reason? Why I can not believe every word of the Bible just because the Bible itself says that I should. Is that not a reasonable approach? Is it not reasonable to reject a book when its teachings have been time and time again contradicted by our advances in knowledge of science and of the world?

Is that irrational? Is it irrational to ask for evidence? For evidence. Not ifs. Not buts. Evidence. No ifs. No buts. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.

Show me evidence of a God and I will definitely be the first in line with an open mind.

But until then... the Earth spins around on its own axis, and gravity pulls us down, down, down and the atmosphere would disappear if this gravity seized to 'work' on us and the clouds and the warmth and life would disappear. And no human beings, no God, no Almighty.
Just like it was before we developed into homo sapiens, just like when our species die. Long before the sun swallows us whole the intense radiation would kill all life on our beloved planet Earth, and even if we were to find a way to move further out in our solar system, the Sun would still catch up with us, until finally the solar system collapses on itself and this system of one sun and Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all wiped out. It is nature at is most brilliant, at its most beautiful, yet at its cruelest and saddest.
This is our faith I believe. And I say believe because I can not know it. There is no book to tell me that this is the absolute truth. But it is the only evidence around. Our understanding of suns and planets and solar systems tell us this. That our Sun will expand and by time it will engulf us all. We 'see' this with our telescopes and instruments. These are measurable things. These are things that everyone can relate to.
Evidences, however strong and however weak, however comprehensive and however incomplete; evidence nonetheless.

Evidence.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Coffeehouse. Wanna be a camp counselor?

I think you'd like this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Quest

[Lief Erikson]

The problem, Coffeehouse, is that atheists make a claim of their own that they need to present evidence to support. I agree that Christians should provide good reason to believe that God exists in the way they say he does. And there are good reasons- I can point you to a lot of posts here where I or other people here have already talked about some of the evidence.

But that's all beside the point. Christians need to back their claims, and Atheists need to back THEIR claims. Atheists claim that there is no God. They believe there is no God. They need a reason for their belief that there is no God, or else their belief is entirely blind, irrational faith.

Where is the evidence supporting Atheism? If I'm going to believe there is a God, I should have reasons or evidence to back that belief. If you're going to believe there is no God, you need reasons or evidence to back that. But there are none. So you should not be an atheist. Since you don't know of any evidence pointing either way, you should be agnostic.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

nor 'miracles' when no third person is around to witness it

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm

I can give you more than that, but that'll make a good starting point.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Try this again on me, Gwai, and talk slowly. If you reject Universalism, but believe in Original Sin, then everyone is affected by Original Sin, thus, sinners. (except Jesus, kind of a special case) Thus, no choice, yes?

I don't quite see how from sinners, one gets no choice. Or do you mean no choice about being sinners? If that's what you mean, then yes, certainly people have no choice about being sinners. Doesn't mean they don't have free will.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

No choice about being sinners. Yes, that was my point. Thanks, Gwai.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you're going to believe there is no God, you need reasons or evidence to back that.

It's so sad to see reason be so thoroughly corrupted.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's so sad to see reason be so thoroughly corrupted.

*poke* read my link.

[Coffeehouse]

Hehe I have now. Amusing Sis

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's so sad to see reason be so thoroughly corrupted.

I responded to 886 thoroughly. If you're not going to respond to my refutation except by saying, "no," there's nothing more we can say to each other on the topic.

[Coffeehouse]

I meant to say precisely what I said. Neither more or less.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's so sad to see reason be so thoroughly corrupted.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Here I lay out two options.

The first is Original Sin - Universal Salvation = sinners + Jesus

The second is no Original Sin and no Universal salvation = people who can choose not to sin.



Jesus wasn't affected by Original Sin (as I understand it) so could choose to commit sin or not, but He didn't start as a sinner.. My question is, "Does everyone have that choice, and if so, has anyone taken it, yet?"

thats a deep question...my answer from what i know of God's word so far. no, we all have sin in us to begin with and we all need Jesus's gift, but when leaf said we have a choice I think he meant when you become to develop super ego which happens around 7 or 8. at that point you understand right or wrong and you know if your action is a sin or not. Thats what I think when he said we have a choice. Correct me if im wrong or add if im missing....plz make it short i don't like reading your long responses leaf...their too far over my head lol and half way through i get lost lol

[Azrael]

hey im bored out of my mind anyone want to play a game? ether if you have a yahoo account a game on there like poker so alot can play oooor if you have halo for PC hehehhe i want to shoot you......or steal your flag lol

[Azrael]

opps wrong forum...going to teacup...thought i was posting there

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What part of what you studied convinced you that your current beliefs are correct?

See, here's where our religions differ, I think. I don't think that it's necessary for my 'studies' to convince me whether my religion is correct or not. What convinces me is whether or not it feels right. Whether it touches something inside me so that I know it is right beyond any shadow of any doubt. And that's something I can't really explain to you more thoroughly.

Well, stealing for example. Is your belief that stealing is wrong based on human intellect, spiritual revelation, or some other source? What is the basis for your beliefs about morality?

Stealing is probably a bad example because it overlaps with my political/socio-economic beliefs on property-rights. So let me try to just make this a bit more general.

The basis for my beliefs on morality is quite simple, really. If it hurts people, it's bad. Murder and rape are obvious examples of this, but other 'immoralities' would certainly fit as well. I don't think that a moral compass needs to be based on either religion or human intellect - I don't base mine on either one. It comes down to, for the most part - if it causes pain to others, don't do it. And I don't just mean physical pain - I mean emotional pain, psychic pain, mental pain, whatever. Causing gratuitious pain to another is wrong, and 'immoral.' It has nothing to do with me going to Hell if I act a certain way - it actually has nothing to do with me at all. It has to do with the world being a much better place if we do all we can not to hurt each other.

Sure, that doesn't surprise me in the least. Note that I only mentioned pedophelia and rape, things I expected we'd have commonality on, rather than homosexuality. But as I said, we both see sexuality itself not as bad. It's only when it's abused that something bad occurs, when someone uses it wrongly. We just disagree on what constitutes an abuse of sexuality.

For me, an 'abuse of sexuality' is impossible between consenting adults. If consenting adults want to do something with other consenting adults, then hey, whatever freaks their peaches.