Theological Opinions

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We are as free as God.

But you say we don't really choose - that God chooses for us. So I ask you, who chooses for God, if we are as free as God?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you say we don't really choose - that God chooses for us. So I ask you, who chooses for God, if we are as free as God?

We are as free as God in that we are free to act according to our personalities, just as he has the freedom to act according to his. We cannot act outside of our personalities, and God cannot act outside of his. We can all only be who we are, and freedom to be anything other than who we are is meaningless freedom.

God's role as "author" may be like his role as "creator". The fact that we exist because we are created does not mean that God exists because he was created. The fact that we are predestined does not necessarily mean that God is predestined. Perhaps he is predestined, perhaps not. Perhaps he predestines himself eternally through infinity? I don't know. My point is that the rules that apply to men don't always apply to God.

In Romans 11:33, it is written, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"

His paths are indeed beyond tracing out. I am not in a position to guess whether he predestines himself, is not predestined at all, or other. God does not chart his course for us in the scripture. He describes our course, in a limited though highly practical way. The scripture talks about us, and it says we are predestined. Trying to draw a link between us and God in this matter is hopeless. I know of no scripture that talks about the predestination or free will of God, and based upon 11:33, I'll just have to assert that we don't know. If you have a better answer based on some other scriptures, I'd be interested to hear.

[Lief Erikson]

Bump.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In the end, everyone who rejects the Christ will die.

And this is supposedly a good God. Riiight.

God is merciful, but anyone who doesn't believe in him will die; God is righteous, but murders without a reason visible (or, from you, because of blood connections over a 2000 years period). And God is good. Very convincing..

And I'm wondering, why would God care whether I believe in him or not? Say someone on the one hand donated a lot to the community and poor, and on the other persuades others that God doesn't exist; even curses God. Why would God care as long as he's a good person?

I wouldn't say that cruelty is only there to show God's good qualities. However, that is one of the positive things that comes from it.

Then what are the reasons?

God wants to reveal several aspects of his nature. One can better understand his nature if one sees it contrasted against what it isn't.

Again emphasizing God's good qualities, then?

If we comprehend evil better, we will be able more fully to understand God's nature. Those who are born of God will end up becoming the Bride of Christ, a role so astounding in its implications that it's mind-boggling. That they should be better able to understand God's nature is good.

So: there's evil to help us know God, in order to 'end up' (after death?) doing something very important, astounding in its implications, as you say. What is this thing?
If it's to clean the world from evil and cruelty, it could've been done before, at the creation. And I wonder why it wasn't? Then there would be no need for God to suffer as Jesus either. Or all the mass murders you promised in the future.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

And this is supposedly a good God. Riiight.

God is merciful, but anyone who doesn't believe in him will die; God is righteous, but murders without a reason visible (or, from you, because of blood connections over a 2000 years period). And God is good. Very convincing..

And I'm wondering, why would God care whether I believe in him or not? Say someone on the one hand donated a lot to the community and poor, and on the other persuades others that God doesn't exist; even curses God. Why would God care as long as he's a good person?

Good question. Here's the answer. On the Day of Judgment, people will be judged based on their works. If they have done what is right, they will live. If they have done what is evil, they will die. So in the end, what God does care about is that people are good.

Here's the catch. Everyone has sinned. By rights, on the Day of Judgment, everyone would go to hell. So if we're judged by works, yet we all sin, how can we live? The answer lies in the way that Jesus saves people. When people confess Christ and believe in him, he actually enters them and begins cleaning out their lives from the inside. He purges them completely clean so that all they do is good, and they do no evil. A completely pure, innocent creation is the final product. The transformation begins here on Earth (and I promise you, if you look at some of the testimonies of hard-core, drug-addicted criminals who are examples of shining, utterly transformed lives, I think you'd be forced to agree) and ends in heaven. When it ends, those who believe in God are purified. They are utterly changed so that they can stand innocent on the Day of Judgment. Their faith in Christ was what enabled him to enter them and work this change, so belief in Christ is necessary and central to good life. One cannot do what is right without this.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

(or, from you, because of blood connections over a 2000 years period)

Once again, I have not forwarded that argument. Israel cursed itself, and such curses have spiritual power, even if they are not from God. Israel's people said, "may his blood be on us and on our children!" That was not God who spoke the curse, but the people of Israel, and it was not necessarily God's power that enforced the curse either.

Also, God must punish evil if those who commit it reject his mercy. He also punishes Israel's sin before the Gentiles, for Israel is his made up of his chosen people.

I have not argued that Israel is being judged for the death of Christ. That is something I'm uncertain about at present, so I'm not making that claim.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Then what are the reasons?

I don't claim to know all the answers; I only believe I know a few. To say, "I won't believe there is anything because I can't see it," is vanity.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

So: there's evil to help us know God, in order to 'end up' (after death?) doing something very important, astounding in its implications, as you say. What is this thing?

We will be the Bride of Christ. In the scriptures, Paul talks about us judging angels and the world. We shall join God on his throne. He is to be our Bridegroom. Knowing God better is more than just an intellectual stimulation. It is an experience that envelops us in this life and builds us endlessly.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

If it's to clean the world from evil and cruelty, it could've been done before, at the creation. And I wonder why it wasn't? Then there would be no need for God to suffer as Jesus either. Or all the mass murders you promised in the future.

Jesus' crucifixion and ascension was the only way God could clean the world of evil and cruelty without annihilating us all. You're right though, that it could have been done at creation (or better yet, God could have planned the world so that it never happened at all). However, God in his wisdom believed that the suffering we experience here is well worth the gains. We don't have the broadness of vision that he does, so this is not something we're in a position to argue.

Rather, we can come to know Christ and see for ourselves that he is good, honest and loving. Coming to know him, one develops trust in him as he proves himself trustworthy. Just as when you get to know a friend better and better over time, you develop faith in them, so it is with God. Seeing the strong goodness in God as he interacts with men is strong evidence that he is worthy of trust on such matters as pain.

[Nurvingiel]

There's curses in the Bible? How... occult.

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

I don't mean to interupt but I have a question. What does it mean to be Jewish? Do you have to believe in God and the Torah and all or is it a cultural reference too? In which case, how did the culture and religion become separate? Thanks for anyone who wants to attempt to answer this

I think it is both. Cultural, perhaps even racial and then it is a religion as well.

Jews don't actively try to convert others (like many Christian sects do). Converts are few. So to be Jewish is a cultural thing as well.

You actually don't have to believe in all of Judaism to be Jewish, for to be Jewish also means that you are decended from the ancient Israelites.

I will quote Wikipedia's entry. This is their Historical Background for the word "Jew" I shall bold some the things that relate to your question (although you should read it all ). The last sentence sums it up.

At least for three thousand years, the Jewish people have lived in the Land of Israel, where they developed a monotheistic religion and enjoyed periods of self-determination. As a result of foreign conquests and expulsions, the Jewish diaspora has formed. Most of the Jews were expelled from their national homeland by the Romans in the year 135 and since then had a troubled existence surviving discrimination, oppression, poverty and even extermination (see article Anti-Semitism), but sometimes also cultural, economic and individual prosperity.

Throughout the years the Jewish religion, Judaism, was the prime binding factor among the Jews, although it was not strictly required to be followed in order to belong to the Jewish people. Since the rise of modern nationalism and other changes among the peoples around in the 19th century, Jews too have undergone a transition, as a result of which gradually more people saw themselves as an ethnic or ethno-religious community within the nations around. Participation in all aspects of social life could now increase. Particularly from Eastern and Central Europe, where antisemitism was worst, a Jewish national movement had evolved, Zionism, that contributed to the growth of the Jewish population in the Land of Israel, at that time Palestine province of the Ottoman Empire, later the British Mandate of Palestine and eventually to the foundation of the State of Israel.

The Hebrew name Yehudi (plural Yehudim) came into being when the Kingdom of Israel was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. The term originally referred to the people of the southern kingdom, although the term Bnei Yisrael (Israelites) was still used for both groups. After the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom leaving the southern kingdom as the only Israelite state, the word Yehudim gradually came to refer to people of the Jewish faith as a whole, rather than those specifically from Judah. The English word Jew is ultimately derived from Yehudi (see Etymology). Its first use in the Bible to refer to the Jewish people as a whole is in the Book of Esther. In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There's curses in the Bible? How... occult.

The occult exists and has some real power; the Bible acknowledges that fact. The Bible teaches that such power is evil, however.

Here is one critical difference between people who operate in the occult and people who follow God. God's followers are conduits for God's power that accomplishes God's will. Users of magic use power to work their will, and the power they wield is not from God. I don't believe that the curse the Israelites leveled at themselves when crucifying Jesus was a curse from God, but was more along the lines of magic witchcraft from Satan.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

I think it is both. Cultural, perhaps even racial and then it is a religion as well.

Jews don't actively try to convert others (like many Christian sects do). Converts are few. So to be Jewish is a cultural thing as well.

You actually don't have to believe in all of Judaism to be Jewish, for to be Jewish also means that you are decended from the ancient Israelites.

I will quote Wikipedia's entry. This is their Historical Background for the word "Jew" I shall bold some the things that relate to your question (although you should read it all ). The last sentence sums it up.

thanks

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The occult exists and has some real power; the Bible acknowledges that fact. The Bible teaches that such power is evil, however.

Here is one critical difference between people who operate in the occult and people who follow God. God's followers are conduits for God's power that accomplishes God's will. Users of magic use power to work their will, and the power they wield is not from God.

I assume you're referring to Witchcraft.
Practitioners of Witchcraft are merely conduits for power of the world around them. This power ultimately comes from the One, who is commonly seen in manifestations as the God or the Godess.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe that the curse the Israelites leveled at themselves when crucifying Jesus was a curse from God, but was more along the lines of magic witchcraft from Satan.

Witchcraft does not obtain magic or power from Satan because Witches don't even believe Satan exists.

Do you mean that Satan cursed the Isrealites? If it wasn't God, who cursed the Isrealites?

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good question. Here's the answer. On the Day of Judgment, people will be judged based on their works. If they have done what is right, they will live. If they have done what is evil, they will die. So in the end, what God does care about is that people are good.

But, as you said earlier, God decides what people do since we don't have Free Will (tm). He decides that a person shall do evil, the person does evil, and God condemns him/her to eternal suffering. Doesn't sound like a very fair deal to me. Almost as if God condemn parts of himself.

Jesus' crucifixion and ascension was the only way God could clean the world of evil and cruelty without annihilating us all. You're right though, that it could have been done at creation (or better yet, God could have planned the world so that it never happened at all). However, God in his wisdom believed that the suffering we experience here is well worth the gains. We don't have the broadness of vision that he does, so this is not something we're in a position to argue.

Why 'the only way' if God is omnipotent? Though of course it must be the only way, since that's how God did it.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good question. Here's the answer. On the Day of Judgment, people will be judged based on their works. If they have done what is right, they will live. If they have done what is evil, they will die. So in the end, what God does care about is that people are good.

Alright.

Here's the catch. Everyone has sinned. By rights, on the Day of Judgment, everyone would go to hell. So if we're judged by works, yet we all sin, how can we live?

Here we disagree, and perhaps I disagree with God: I don't think that death in the punishment for every little sin. If God exists it would be more logical IMO to judge the person by how much good and bad deeds he did. If he has done more good than bad... I can't really see why he should be murdered by God.

Jesus' crucifixion and ascension was the only way God could clean the world of evil and cruelty without annihilating us all. You're right though, that it could have been done at creation (or better yet, God could have planned the world so that it never happened at all). However, God in his wisdom believed that the suffering we experience here is well worth the gains. We don't have the broadness of vision that he does, so this is not something we're in a position to argue.

I don't claim to know all the answers; I only believe I know a few. To say, "I won't believe there is anything because I can't see it," is vanity.

So in other words... you don't know. I accept that; but questions that cannot be answered by religion are exactly the thing which makes religion hard to believe in. Not only that it can't be proven, it doesn't fit the world I see around me.

In my opinion, it's much easier and logical to believe in a neutral God...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

First, I'm assuming that God knows more than people do, and until a person creates a universe I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Now given that assumption, I think a good analogy is me explaining something to my 9 year old daughter. She hasn't taken physics yet, and doesn't understand about potential energy, but I could still explain that it's dangerous standing under a huge rock that is unstable looking. She would understand well enough to make an informed decision.

And besides, if you look at the reasons WHY Eve decided to go with what the serpent tempted her to do, it doesn't list "she didn't understand what death meant" as one of the options.

One doesn't need to fully understand nuclear fusion to know that nuclear bombs will be harmful.

she understands because your nine-year-old has seen things fall, you don't need to know physics... the concept is not completely foreign as death would be to an inhabitant of eden

i imagine if you asked someone in the 1800s if they had any fear of nuclear radiation, they would probably have said no

imagine if your nine-year-old had never seen an electric stove before, or any appliance that created heat, and had never seen anyone burned... you decided to test her respect for your authority by turning on one of the burners, saying to her "don't touch that, it will hurt you", then leaving... what would you think if, while you were gone, curiosity overcame the girl and she touched the red hot? is that really a fair situation to judge her over?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What is it to accept God into one's heart? Accepting God into one's heart is accepting goodness. When Adam sinned, all men fell with him. Accepting Jesus into our hearts restores us, for he saves men from sin. Sin cannot hold those whom Jesus has entered. Jesus begins transforming them here and finishes the work in heaven. He undoes the evil created by Adam.

One who rejects Jesus, then, rejects the mercy of God, for Jesus' suffering on the cross and his resurrection saved humanity. What is left for a just God to do with sinners who refuse his mercy? There can only be judgment. There is no other choice.

why is it necessary to have such a strong focus upon accepting or rejecting god?

does what you actually do during your lifetime have any weight at all?

what you, and other christians seem to be saying is that accepting god is all you need to do... as long as this acceptance is sincere, you can be as selfish in life as you want

i just don't get it

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

why is it necessary to have such a strong focus upon accepting or rejecting god?

does what you actually do during your lifetime have any weight at all?

what you, and other christians seem to be saying is that accepting god is all you need to do... as long as this acceptance is sincere, you can be as selfish in life as you want

i just don't get it

No, that isnt it.
"Acceptin' Jesus inta yer heart" is of course something christians do, but a lot protestants have gotten to the point where they think that's all there is to it.

As Lief said, you either reject or accept it, and if you accept it you have to change your thinking: you can no longer believe in other religion's gods, because the christian doctrine teaches that God is the only god etc...
Bieng christian doesn't mean bieng infallible to sin, and the "once you're saved, you're saved" idea of protestants is thoroughly wrong. (which by the way is confusing since they all go up to the front of the church and get "saved" every sunday...hmm..). But I'm not going to attack them, instead I'll explain.
Once a christian is baptized he has gone through the process of "bieng saved". He is now a christian and will not go to the flames if he lives his/her life believeing, communicating (praying), with God. But since he is not infallible, bieng a pretty much sinful and UNREPENTING of it kind of person, he is not guaranteed salvation from the flames, even though he was baptized and a christian. When he DOES sin, and wants to repent, repenting is done several ways, hopefull in more ways than one at a time. Confession, which I think we're all familiar with from films, and of course a "change of heart" must take place.
Now, this is the way Catholics, Anglicans (still hopefully), and Orthodox christians beleive. Some Protestans believe said above, I.e. Billy Graham is a very educated protestant and is familiar with the above theology.

However a lot of protestants believe that: Once you are a christian, you're saved for sure but you do need to repent, but still...
They don't believe in One Baptism for the Remission of Sins, they believe that "its all in your heart", and that bieng forgiven for your sins must take place in your heart and mind (which is not disagreeable, but it simply doesn't seem enough to me). They believe you should be baptized only if you want/need to.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Witchcraft does not obtain magic or power from Satan because Witches don't even believe Satan exists.

The fact that they don't believe in him does not mean that they don't get power from him. I can think my friend is an honest man and receive and spend money he gives me, without knowing he's a bank robber.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Do you mean that Satan cursed the Isrealites? If it wasn't God, who cursed the Isrealites?

I'd say they placed on themselves a Satanic curse.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

In my opinion, it's much easier and logical to believe in a neutral God...

Perhaps one could think that, if you don't know God. However, if you have a sister and she gets mad and hits you, you don't make assumptions about her personality based solely upon that one experience. You take everything into account. That includes all your knowledge of her past, personality, and of all the good things she does.

If you are not in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, don't hear from him or know him, then you're forming a judgment based on too small a data sample. If there is no other data to go on, then perhaps that's what you have to do. But if it's possible to know God and experience his love, yet you refuse to do that, then you're ignoring a large chunk of the available evidence about his nature.

I'll finish my response in a few hours. Class in four minutes- can't do it now!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, that isnt it.

i understand the sin/repent dynamic if you are a christian... what i don't understand is the need to accept the christian god and/or jesus to be saved

as i said, one could live the life of a mother teresa, but if they happened to be hindu, or buddhist, or muslim, or even agnostic in terms of their beliefs, they would not be saved

thus, living a "good life" alone is not enough... the focus is on how you act and what you believe, not just on how you act

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

imagine if your nine-year-old had never seen an electric stove before, or any appliance that created heat, and had never seen anyone burned... you decided to test her respect for your authority by turning on one of the burners, saying to her "don't touch that, it will hurt you", then leaving... what would you think if, while you were gone, curiosity overcame the girl and she touched the red hot? is that really a fair situation to judge her over?

I'm so glad you said that example, because I think that shows a huge (IMO) error you have about the garden of Eden thing. I would NOT say to my daughter, "Don't touch that, it will hurt you," because I wanted to test her respect for her authority. No way! I would tell her that because I love her and don't want her hurt!!!

In the same way, God's goal was love for Adam and Eve.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In the same way, God's goal was love for Adam and Eve.

and i would say that if he truely loved them he would have gone into an awful lot more detail about it

i know i do with my kids... i don't just say, "that is wrong" ... or even, "i am just saying this 'cause i love you, even if you don't understand" ... i explain to them the practical "why" behind it so they can see the reasoning for themselves... so that they can come to the understanding themselves... it is a much more powerful motivator (IMO )

the practical "whys" seem to be lacking in much of the biblical text

[Lotesse]

Any time I'm ever feeling really bummed out or tired & irritated, and I see brownjenkins has entered a post in one of these "God/ no god/ whatever" threads, and I read his posts, it cheers me up beyond belief. Brownjenkins, you're my moot-hero! Always cheers me up.