Religion

[Awdz]

So there's lots of buzz about Jesus' wife in the news lately. My gut reaction to the finding was, "So? The bride of Christ has been mentioned in the bible - the church." It is kind of interesting, though, to muse about those "missing years" before Jesus' ministry started, and whether to be fully human involved knowing a woman as wife and losing her. Thoughts?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Alpha1]

No. It's a horrible thing. We grow through danger, through experience, through pain.

 

Basically what you’re saying is that some level of evil is good. If it’s allowing people to grow, how is it a “sin”? It’s almost as bizarre as the thought that Satan is necessary for free will, but he needs to be punished for eternity anyways.

 

I'm not an expert on the afterlife by any means, but since it's full of people, I would say so.

 

What about the part where they’re cleansed for up to a year?

 

And I don’t think there is for a couple of reasons. Here’s a few that seem to show my point.

 

Chapter 4 MISHNAH 17. “HE USED TO SAY: MORE BEAUTIFUL IS ONE HOUR [sPENT] IN REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS108 IN THIS WORLD, THAN ALL THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME;109 AND MORE BEAUTIFUL IS ONE HOUR OF THE EVENTEMPERED SPIRIT OF THE WORLD TO COME110 , THAN ALL THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD.111”

 

Aboth (fathers) “[…]for it is said, O that I were as the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me;64 now which are the days’ that make up ‘months’65 and do not make up years? The months of pregnancy of course.66 It is also taught all the Torah from beginning to end,67 for it is said, And he taught me, and said unto me: ‘Let thy heart hold fast my words, keep my commandments and live’,68 and it is also said, When the converse of God was upon my tent.69 Why the addition of70 ‘and it is also said’? — In case you might say that it was only the prophet who said that,71 come and hear ‘when the converse of God was upon my tent.69 As soon as it, sees the light an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all the Torah completely,67 as it is said, Sin coucheth at the door.72”

 

Perfect conditions do not better people make. Even in concrete, flowers can grow.

 

Well, I’m not arguing that it can never happen, but why would you choose to try to grow them like that? Another example is GMO’s. Which ones are going to turn rotten from the environment?

To what extent is this due to the soul anyways?

 

“Children who carry a variant of a so-called "resilience gene" get along much better with their troubled parents -- those who have substance abuse, mental health or criminal problems -- than those without the gene, a new study suggests.”

 

Because choice is important, because those who choose to be Jewish are just as beloved.

But it wouldn't be their will. It would be the will G-d forced on them through manipulating who they were. They would have to be someone completely different, their lives would have to be completely different, he would have to change on a fundamental level who they were, and that is a disgusting, mentally abhorrent thought.

 

Noble, we’re talking about altering genes before the breath of life is given.

You’ve also entertained the idea of reincarnation before. You would have a different set of genes and environment.

 

The Ammonites, from what inscriptions we have, would rather have gone the way they did, than to be altered into something like that. It would be a horror to them. They likely would have preferred death.

 

So what if they did? For example, Muslims taught evils in madrassa schools would have led a totally different life if they were born elsewhere.

 

Because they are useful in human development. He could have just as easily removed the ability to question, but then, you wouldn't be Alpha.

 

Are these parasites useful?

 

“This single-celled pathogen infects over half the world's population, including an estimated 50 million Americans. Each of Toxoplasma's victims carries thousands of the parasites, many residing in the brain.”

 

I’ve read that it can affect human behavior.

 

Sorry, that doesn't work with the Jewish view of G-d.

 

It is estimated that there have been over 100 billion people who have lived, and I’m sure many of them never lived past ten if you look at the life expectancies before modern medicine. This is like a gardener who lets his garden go to pot. It also raises questions similar to Christianity. What’s the point of this life if those dying at a very young age go on to the afterlife anyways?

 

And what else would we use that for, if we didn't have those error experiences tot he same level we do, Alpha? Do you know what horrors we would create?

 

You’re going to have to elaborate on this one.

 

That's just insulting, Alpha. Seriously. And this is why I try not to talk to you, because you pull things and then i get reported for being offensive or insulting. So, after this, to avoid that happening again, I shall say have a pleasant day and leave you be.

 

I’m sorry. I should have stuck with an example in the Tanakh. The flood is a good example. How does that fit in with your bike analogy?

 

Relating to this, I dislike when people try to be PC about religion. Is Islam a religion of peace? I don’t think so. However, I don’t agree with prejudice against Muslims. So what I’m saying is that it’s the religion, not you. Also, if I had to rank these Abrahamic religions, I would put Judaism first.

 

Yes, you do.

 

What about someone with FAS or mental retardation due to iodine deficiency? I could go on. How could this be remotely possible without being a biological system?

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=102169531

 

“The smarter the person, the faster information zips around the brain, a UCLA study finds. And this ability to think quickly apparently is inherited.”

 

 

[NobleOwl]

There is no point for an omnipotent omniscience god to teach anyone anything. He chose to create things flawed and stupid in the first place. It would be better if he just made perfect stuff in the first place instead of convolutedly fixing the failed stuff he created for no reason.

 

The point is growth. If we could grow humans perfect, with no flaws from vats, it wouldn't make it morally right to do so.

 

The point is, those all indicate a paradox about God being the single omnipotent, omnipresent Creator of the universe. It appears that you accept that paradox, yet you automatically disdain any other even when it fits with God building a better relationship with the created, as though you know everything there is to know about God - which no human (other than Jesus) can. I'm saying there's more going on than we understand, but that fits with us developing a better relationship with God.

 

I don't view any of them to be a paradox. If you could explain how you see a paradox, I'd like to hear it.

 

How God reaches out to each individual may be very different from one to the next.

 

So in your view, someone can believe that Jesus was a sinful, maybe even bad person, and still reach G-d?

 

Well since God created time and thus exists beyond it, Jesus did exist then; human form is simply another way God is revealed to us. I understood the text to make the point that there is no other god but the One, and never will be.

 

Ah, you believe G-d exists beyond time. That explains a lot.

 

If God cannot take physical form, what exactly was the burning bush to which Moses spoke before confronting the pharoah? What was the piller of fire and cloud that led the Israelites out of Egypt? Are you saying it was not God that appeared before them?

 

Not at all, I'm saying they weren't physical forms.

 

So now you are saying that they were all adopted, those about whom you previously said, "That doesn't mean that they weren't a threat."? That is, all the ones that were not casualties in the fires, etc., since the cities were not evacuated before the attacks.

 

Infants were not threats. Infants were adopted. It all came down to age. You specifically mentioned infant.

 

That would be a direct conflict with Deuteronomy 7:2, which forbade any covenant with them, instead directing utter destruction of those peoples.

 

Ah, but that was after the refusal, and only some were "utterly destroyed."

 

This is directed at those familiar with sacrifice of unblemished animals for forgiveness of sins. If being willing to obediently give up prized possessions equates to forgiveness, then being obediently willing to give up everything one has, including one's life, should equate to much greater forgiveness - and this forgiveness was requested to be used on our behalves. God loves us enough to give us a reason to keep trying even when we may think it's hopeless.

 

Except blood was NEVER REQUIRED, it was a "cheap" option. When it was relied on too much, like you're suggesting, we're placed in an exile state. Using someone's life like that, is like saying someone should kill themselves so someone can buy a car with the insurance money.

 

According to the law, when there is a temple, blood sacrifices are the preferred way. You have said yourself that your messiah cannot come now because he could not fulfill the law without being able to perform the rituals in the temple. If the author of the letter understood blood sacrifice as the only way to true forgiveness, perhaps that is because that was what was taught by the temple leaders at the time.

 

INCORRECT! Blood sacrifices, are not an never have been, the preferred way. They are the cheapest way, the "pay a fine way." I have never said that at all. The messiah could come now, technically, since he has to RESTORE the Temple. Blood sacrifice was never taught as the only way. Ever. The dedication repeated every year, makes multiple references to sacrifices to being the cheapest way, and multiple psalms sang in the Temple refer to it.

 

Because Alpha1 could use your exact words to refute you in the same manner that you did me. In both cases, I think it is wrong to assume limitations on the capacity in which God may operate.

 

Can you point out how, please? I don't assume limitations, I assume when G-d say something, he means it.

 

So there's lots of buzz about Jesus' wife in the news lately. My gut reaction to the finding was, "So? The bride of Christ has been mentioned in the bible - the church." It is kind of interesting, though, to muse about those "missing years" before Jesus' ministry started, and whether to be fully human involved knowing a woman as wife and losing her. Thoughts?

 

Well, he would have been expected to be married. The messiah is supposed to have children.

 

Basically what you’re saying is that some level of evil is good. If it’s allowing people to grow, how is it a “sin”? It’s almost as bizarre as the thought that Satan is necessary for free will, but he needs to be punished for eternity anyways.

 

Um....what? Danger does not equal "evil." I never said danger was sin. I never said Satan was necessary for evil (He's not) or that he has to be punished for anything (he doesn't) or that any punishment would be for eternity. (That would be evil.)

 

What about the part where they’re cleansed for up to a year?

 

Cleansed of their sins, yes.

 

Chapter 4 MISHNAH 17. “HE USED TO SAY: MORE BEAUTIFUL IS ONE HOUR [sPENT] IN REPENTANCE AND GOOD DEEDS108 IN THIS WORLD, THAN ALL THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME;109 AND MORE BEAUTIFUL IS ONE HOUR OF THE EVENTEMPERED SPIRIT OF THE WORLD TO COME110 , THAN ALL THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD.111”

 

And that shows your point how?

 

Well, I’m not arguing that it can never happen, but why would you choose to try to grow them like that? Another example is GMO’s. Which ones are going to turn rotten from the environment?

 

There's no way to number that, but as to why -- because it makes it more beautiful.

 

Noble, we’re talking about altering genes before the breath of life is given.

 

That wouldn't make it right. That' no better than changing a fetuses traits in utero.

 

You’ve also entertained the idea of reincarnation before. You would have a different set of genes and environment.

 

To a degree. It would depend. The soul grows, you'd need to learn, in different experiences, the soul learns different things.

 

So what if they did? For example, Muslims taught evils in madrassa schools would have led a totally different life if they were born elsewhere.

 

Changing them, would make them dolls, little playthings you change, rather than something you love unconditionally, to something cheap and plastic.

 

Are these parasites useful?

 

Yep, there's research going on with them right now. I want to say in Massachusetts?

 

It is estimated that there have been over 100 billion people who have lived, and I’m sure many of them never lived past ten if you look at the life expectancies before modern medicine. This is like a gardener who lets his garden go to pot. It also raises questions similar to Christianity. What’s the point of this life if those dying at a very young age go on to the afterlife anyways?

 

You don't know what effect those lives had on others, how they might have changed history, even dying at a few days old. I know a child who died at five, but she had a profound effect on multiple people's lives and led her mother to found a scholarship fund -- that will help many people.

 

No man is an island, Alpha.

 

I’m sorry. I should have stuck with an example in the Tanakh. The flood is a good example. How does that fit in with your bike analogy?

 

It doesn't, because you're not talking about one person, but I'll go to another example.

 

A judge's son kills twelve people in cold blood -- the only thing the judge can do is sentence him to death, if he is just.

 

What about someone with FAS or mental retardation due to iodine deficiency? I could go on. How could this be remotely possible without being a biological system?

 

Scientifically? It's been theorised as possible with computers, they aren't biological -- the evolution of nanobots is a fascinating example.

[Kestra15]

[Awdz]

I don't view any of them to be a paradox. If you could explain how you see a paradox, I'd like to hear it.

 

1. G-d came from the remnants of a prior universe before this universe was started.By this God is not the only Creator that ever existed.

 

2. G-d exists in all places in all time, at the same time, in a state of temporal grace. (Sort of like the TARDIS, but more expansive)This avoids answering where God came from, unless you allow that God created God.

 

3. G-d is the universe, and created Himself. This sounds hokey, but the idea is basically emergent consciousness from complexity, as reflected in Emergent Consciousness from the Early Universe to Our Mind, published by the University of Padua, in quantum physics. You do not consider self-creation from nothingness a paradox?  It is a classic example of paradox.

 

So in your view, someone can believe that Jesus was a sinful, maybe even bad person, and still reach G-d?

In my view, it is possible. I believe that on death, we are confronted with a more complete understanding of God - analogous to the blind men finally seeing the whole elephant. At that time we have the choice to accept God as revealed to us and trust God in all things, or to reject God. Thus someone who in this life does not believe Jesus is God may, on death, see that Jesus is indeed God and finally accept the truth about how God was revealed to the person during the person's life. However, if they are too hung up on the way they've always insisted things must be, they may choose to reject God after all. This goes for Christians as well as non-Christians; extremists and hate-mongerers exist in all parts of the world.

 

Not at all, I'm saying they weren't physical forms.

So you are saying that God can exist as light but not as matter? Light is energy and can be argued to be a physical phenomenon.

 

Infants were not threats. Infants were adopted. It all came down to age. You specifically mentioned infant.

*shrugs* Infants that survived the initial onslaught/burning cities and were found in time.

 

Ah, but that was after the refusal, and only some were "utterly destroyed."

Can you point me to where it describes the effort at negotiations being made?

 

Except blood was NEVER REQUIRED, it was a "cheap" option.

Okay, so what was the "expensive" option? And what were those of modest means expected to do?

 

I have never said that at all. The messiah could come now, technically, since he has to RESTORE the Temple.

How then could the messiah keep all of the laws before the temple is restored? There would be a period before it was restored that he would not be able to perform some of the rituals because they must be performed in the temple.

 

Can you point out how, please? I don't assume limitations, I assume when G-d say something, he means it.

Let me back up to what I was originally trying to say. God chose what aspects to reveal of Himself through Jesus, with the goal of helping us grow nearer to God. God knows the end of time but is not going to reveal it through Jesus because God knows that would distract us from developing a better relationship with God. So when Jesus says that not even the Son knows, Jesus is saying God will not reveal that information through His physical form on earth. It follows along the same lines as Jesus's growing in wisdom as His physical body grew.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Slaskia]

With the recent rioting and what not in the middle-east supposedly over the anti-Islam film, there have been calls by certain clerics in Eqypt and by leaders in the UN to basically 'criminalize' blasphemy against Islam.

 

Now, if they do this...will they do the same for other religions? It be only fair....

Edited September 26, 2012 by Slaskia

[Alpha1]

There are several Jewish views.

1. G-d came from the remnants of a prior universe before this universe was started.

2. G-d exists in all places in all time, at the same time, in a state of temporal grace. (Sort of like the TARDIS, but more expansive)

3. G-d is the universe, and created Himself. This sounds hokey, but the idea is basically emergent consciousness from complexity, as reflected in Emergent Consciousness from the Early Universe to Our Mind, published by the University of Padua, in quantum physics.

 

You’ve only presented a paper for the third one.

 

Most neuroscientists and physicists don’t think a quantum explanation for consciousness is necessary, much less a consciousness emerging before evolution developed it after billions of years.

 

From her work:

 

“The striking point is that this value of n eqauls the number of superposed tubulins-qubits in our brain, which undergo Orch-OR, leading to a conscious event. Then we make the conjecture that the early universe and our mind share the same organization, encompass the same quantum information, and undergo similar conscious experiences.”

 

How is it going to have an elegant organization of quantum gates and qubits at the end of inflation that would give it attributes like omniscience and omnipotence? I also get the impression that the universe had a moment of consciousness, but it wasn’t ongoing. The qubits of the quantum gravity register get entangled and begins to organize like cellular automata.

 

What aspects of consciousness arise from quantum events? All of them? Can you explain why the brain has many integrated parts and parallel processing?

 

Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Damage to a region in the visual cortex can lead to a loss in conscious visual perception, but they can still accurately know location or movement of an object.

 

Trying to add a god into the picture just seems like Deepak Chopra stuff to me.

 

Um....what? Danger does not equal "evil." I never said danger was sin. I never said Satan was necessary for evil (He's not) or that he has to be punished for anything (he doesn't) or that any punishment would be for eternity. (That would be evil.)

 

We were discussing threats from other people, so I assumed it meant they would be doing bad things if left to their own devices. From what you’re saying, it’s good for evil bad things to happen.

 

I know you don’t. I was just letting you know that I thought it was rather bizarre in a similar way that Christians attempt to explain Satan.

 

Cleansed of their sins, yes.

 

Wait a minute… why does it take up to a year if he’s omnipotent?

 

And that shows your point how?

 

Repentance is unnecessary and well-doing doesn’t require effort there.

 

Right before that, it says: MISHNAH 16. R. JACOB104 SAID: THIS WORLD IS LIKE UNTO A VESTIBULE105 BEFORE THE WORLD TO COME; PREPARE THYSELF106 IN THE VESTIBULE, SO THAT THOU MAYEST ENTER THE BANQUETING-HALL.107

 

It’s a reward. How would it be suggestive of a dangerous world like this one? It’s much more similar to the Adam and Eve story.

 

There's no way to number that, but as to why -- because it makes it more beautiful.

 

A vulture waiting for a starving child to die is beautiful?

 

That wouldn't make it right. That' no better than changing a fetuses traits in utero.

 

Yet it’s always okay for a pregnant woman to kill it? I don’t see why it would matter when the fetus has no choice on its genetics anyways.

 

To a degree. It would depend. The soul grows, you'd need to learn, in different experiences, the soul learns different things.

 

You wouldn’t be an identical twin of your former self. That’s for sure. I don’t see how you can reconcile reincarnation with some of the things you’ve said about personality and intelligence being the same in the afterlife or how changing genes will change these people into something they are not.

 

Changing them, would make them dolls, little playthings you change, rather than something you love unconditionally, to something cheap and plastic.

 

Life in plastic, it’s fantastic. ; )

 

Didn’t you say that God guided human evolution?

 

Yep, there's research going on with them right now. I want to say in Massachusetts?

 

Noble! I meant: is it good that they could possibly alter behavior in humans?

 

Here’s one on increased impulsive behavior.

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/9/72

 

“Latent toxoplasmosis, protozoan parasitosis with prevalence rates from 20 to 60% in most populations, is known to impair reaction times in infected subjects, which results, for example, in a higher risk of traffic accidents in subjects with this life-long infection.”

 

It has also been linked to an increase of suicides and neuroticism.

 

“The results were clear. Women with Toxoplasma infections were 54% more likely to attempt suicide – and twice as likely to succeed. In particular, these women were more likely to attempt violent suicides (using a knife or gun, for example, instead of overdosing on pills). But even more disturbing: suicide attempt risk was positively correlated with the level of infection. Those with the highest levels of antibodies were 91% more likely to attempt suicide than uninfected women. The connection between parasite and suicide held even for women who had no history of mental illness: among them, infected women were 56% more likely to commit self-directed violence.”

 

You don't know what effect those lives had on others, how they might have changed history, even dying at a few days old. I know a child who died at five, but she had a profound effect on multiple people's lives and led her mother to found a scholarship fund -- that will help many people.

 

Was it better for the child to die? What about the rest like multiple suicides in families? This seems too much like the belief in miracles in the hospital setting while completely ignoring the possibility that it’s just a chance event and ignoring all the bad outcomes.

 

No man is an island, Alpha.

 

So why would you create people that are painfully introverted?

 

It doesn't, because you're not talking about one person, but I'll go to another example.

A judge's son kills twelve people in cold blood -- the only thing the judge can do is sentence him to death, if he is just.

 

I don’t think so because you can pretend that God is trying to teach them all to ride bikes.

 

Did all of Sodom and Gomorrah commit murder? I find it strange that out of them, Noah, his sons, and their wives happen to all be righteous enough. It appears like it was only due to association.

 

Scientifically? It's been theorised as possible with computers, they aren't biological -- the evolution of nanobots is a fascinating example.

 

I could have worded it better. Is the soul limited to the speeds in which information between neurons travel? With computers, I’m sure I can find an article about speeding up the process.

You act as if the soul will be bound by all these electrochemical signals. Does that also mean that people with bipolar disorder and a lower happiness potential will be limited?

 

[Awdz]

With the recent rioting and what not in the middle-east supposedly over the anti-Islam film, there have been calls by certain clerics in Eqypt and by leaders in the UN to basically 'criminalize' blasphemy against Islam.

 

Now, if they do this...will they do the same for other religions? It be only fair....

I highly doubt they'd treat other religions equally. I'm not sure how many governments in the Mideast are theocracies, but when the government holds up just one religion, the others tend to get trampled.

[AngelKitty]

With the recent rioting and what not in the middle-east supposedly over the anti-Islam film, there have been calls by certain clerics in Eqypt and by leaders in the UN to basically 'criminalize' blasphemy against Islam.

What a load of crap. I try to be respectful of people's religions, even when I'm criticizing them, and I defend their rights to practice peacefully. But I'm not going to sit down and shut up just because some religious people don't like what I have to say, and nobody else should have to either.

 

Why yes, I am feeling grumpy right now. Why do you ask?

[philpot123]

Dang I missed a good talk. Just want to hop in on a few points...

 

 

No, it becomes a way that is obvious that he is not omniscient.

 

If you're taking the New Testament to be authoritative on doctrines relating to God and Jesus, the answer lies in the fact that Jesus had two distinct natures present in one person. He possessed a fully human nature in union with a fully divine nature. Jesus' divine nature possessed all incommunicable attributes of God: His omniscience, His omnipotence, His perfection, etc. In His human nature, He possessed human characteristics and limited knowledge, thus His capacity to grow in wisdom and understanding. How those two work together is rather inexplicable, but it's certainly not a contradiction.

 

Because in Hebrew, it uses two words, which mean physical and spiritual -- unless you believe that Jesus had the same physical form at the time of creation....

 

I believe if you're going to take Trinitarian doctrines at face value, yes, that's the logical conclusion. God has always existed as One deity, three distinct persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has always been this way, as evidenced in John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus has always been Jesus, God has always been God, but they are the same deity.

 

Is, or is not, the basis of Christianity, that one must "be saved" by Jesus to reach G-d?

 

We are saved through faith in the atoning work that was done through Christ's death, yes.

 

This problem is a big one -- the sins are never counted against them. They're "covered," and in some verses "hidden," not treated with proper consequence.

 

That's not entirely true. The idea is that the proper consequence has already been paid. It is only by God's grace that we can take part in that salvation. And the idea that a Christian should never learn from their sin contradicts the scriptures that point to the doctrine of Progressive Sanctification, that is, we become more and more like Christ the further along we are in our walk with God. As our desires become more in tune with God's desires through His grace, we fall into less and less sin. One illustration I've heard is that our salvation and righteousness are like money in the bank, and our path of sanctification is our withdrawals. We're becoming more and more of what we already are in Christ.

 

So in your view, someone can believe that Jesus was a sinful, maybe even bad person, and still reach G-d?

 

This wasn't aimed at me, but in my belief, no. Christology is an important aspect of Christian faith, and if you believe things about Christ that contradict what scripture teaches, you aren't worshiping Christ.

 

Ah, you believe G-d exists beyond time. That explains a lot.

 

What is the Jewish belief in that area?

 

Not at all, I'm saying they weren't physical forms.

 

What were they if not physical forms?

Edited October 2, 2012 by philpot123

[Awdz]

This wasn't aimed at me, but in my belief, no. Christology is an important aspect of Christian faith, and if you believe things about Christ that contradict what scripture teaches, you aren't worshiping Christ.

I believe God came to earth as Jesus to draw us nearer to God. In the end, it is not about how much anyone says, "Jesus is Lord," it's about whether the person is willing to accept and trust in God. When we die, I believe each one of us will have a more full understanding of what God is, see the many ways in which God has reached out to us, and see that Jesus is God. Thus the only way to God, ultimately, is to accept that Jesus is God.

 

If that goes against what a person insisted their whole life, it is highly unlikely that they will accept it; however, with God all things are possible, so even if someone believed that Jesus was "a sinful, maybe even bad person", they get to have the choice.

 

If someone who denied Jesus in life accepts Him at death, I'm not going to condemn that person for growing closer to God along a different path than I chose, especially when their salvation is between them and God.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[philpot123]

I believe God came to earth as Jesus to draw us nearer to God. In the end, it is not about how much anyone says, "Jesus is Lord," it's about whether the person is willing to accept and trust in God. When we die, I believe each one of us will have a more full understanding of what God is and see that Jesus is God. If that goes against what a person insisted their whole life, it is highly unlikely that they will accept it, but with God all things are possible, so they get to make the choice.

 

I'm not going to condemn someone for growing closer to God along a different path than I chose, especially when their salvation is between them and God.

Are you saying that you believe that all people have a second chance after death to accept the reality of Christ's divinity?

 

True, salvation is between them and God, but the Bible is very specific about where salvation comes from if they don't believe that, I can't Biblically say that they have salvation, or a relationship with God. As I said, I don't believe one can hold to the idea that Jesus was just a sinful person and be saved. The basis of Christianity is the fact that Christ did what we cannot; He lived a sinless life and paid substitutionary atonement for our sins, and we can only come to God by grace, through faith in Him. No, I can't condemn someone, only God can do that, but I can point to scripture verses that contradict certain theological positions. Whether or not someone accepts those verses as literal or authoritative is another matter entirely

[Awdz]

Are you saying that you believe that all people have a second chance after death to accept the reality of Christ's divinity?

I'm saying that our lives on this earth are preparation for a final, informed choice at our death about whether to love/trust/obey God and become fully human.

 

It goes back to my belief about original sin: We were created to have free will. However, to truly have free will, we have to be able to make an informed choice with consequences. We (humanity) made a choice to disobey God without really understanding the ultimate consequence (most likely eternal suffering with the results of our choice or death of our souls), and were removed from Paradise to this world to learn about the ramifications of our choices.

 

I have seen enough horrible outcomes from choices people make, thinking they know best but not knowing nearly enough to do what is right, for me to believe that trusting the Omniscient is the way to go.

 

Add to this that we are interconnected with one another: what one does affects many or all of us. One person's actions can undo what many have worked to build, or leave destruction that generations following have to deal with (this is how I see the sins of the parents being transferred to their offspring - they get to deal with ongoing family feuds, emotional problems stemming from abuse, etc.).

 

Thus, to prevent ruination of God's plan for us as interconnected free-willed beings, only those who are willing to obey God return to Paradise and grow further into what God intends for us to be. What happens to the rest is between them and God.

 

In a way, I sort of see this life as a classroom. Until we can read and write, we cannot move on to creating poetry, novels, scripts, etc. Until we learn to trust and obey God, we cannot move on to become fully human. And just as different folks respond differently to different methods of teaching, I believe God reaches out to each one of us in many ways: in the manner that allows us to grow closest to God, but also in ways that let us see how others grow closer to God in different paths.

 

In my view, Jesus is God coming to earth in human form to connect with us, teach us, in a different way than before. God showed us that no matter what we do to reject God, even to horrific torture and abandonment, God still loves us and wants for us to trust/love/obey God; also, that no one can prevent God from being present with us. That the grace (undeserved love) of God is still available to us, is the best news of all.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[philpot123]

I'm saying that our lives on this earth are preparation for a final, informed choice at our death about whether to love/trust/obey God and become fully human.

 

It goes back to my belief about original sin: We were created to have free will. However, to truly have free will, we have to be able to make an informed choice with consequences. We (humanity) made a choice to disobey God without really understanding the ultimate consequence (most likely eternal suffering with the results of our choice or death of our souls), and were removed from Paradise to this world to learn about the ramifications of our choices.

 

I have seen enough horrible outcomes from choices people make, thinking they know best but not knowing nearly enough to do what is right, for me to believe that trusting the Omniscient is the way to go.

 

Add to this that we are interconnected with one another: what one does affects many or all of us. One person's actions can undo what many have worked to build, or leave destruction that generations following have to deal with (this is how I see the sins of the parents being transferred to their offspring - they get to deal with ongoing family feuds, emotional problems stemming from abuse, etc.).

 

Thus, to prevent ruination of God's plan for us as interconnected free-willed beings, only those who are willing to obey God return to Paradise and grow further into what God intends for us to be. What happens to the rest is between them and God.

 

In a way, I sort of see this life as a classroom. Until we can read and write, we cannot move on to creating poetry, novels, scripts, etc. Until we learn to trust and obey God, we cannot move on to become fully human. And just as different folks respond differently to different methods of teaching, I believe God reaches out to each one of us in many ways: in the manner that allows us to grow closest to God, but also in ways that let us see how others grow closer to God in different paths.

 

In my view, Jesus is God coming to earth in human form to connect with us, teach us, in a different way than before. God showed us that no matter what we do to reject God, even to horrific torture and abandonment, God still loves us and wants for us to trust/love/obey God; also, that no one can prevent God from being present with us. That the grace (undeserved love) of God is still available to us, is the best news of all.

What about verses that seem to indicate we cannot make a choice after our death? And our only "choice" is what we experience in this life? Hebrews, It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after that the judgment?

 

 

As far as making an uninformed choice, I disagree based on scripture. I believe everyone who sins does so willingly and knowing they are doing wrong, as per Romans 2:15, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

And also Romans 1:20, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

 

 

I agree completely that the greatest news is that God has made His grace available. Grace is, by definition, what we do not deserve. However, I would disagree with the idea that we ultimately have a choice in our own salvation. That is, we are not choosing to save ourselves. Apart from God calling us to Himself, we cannot be saved.

 

Romans 3:10-12 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

 

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

 

 

Do you have any scriptural support for the idea of a choice to receive God after death?

 

 

 

[Awdz]

What about verses that seem to indicate we cannot make a choice after our death? And our only "choice" is what we experience in this life? Hebrews, It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after that the judgment?

 

 

As far as making an uninformed choice, I disagree based on scripture. I believe everyone who sins does so willingly and knowing they are doing wrong, as per Romans 2:15, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

And also Romans 1:20, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

 

 

I agree completely that the greatest news is that God has made His grace available. Grace is, by definition, what we do not deserve. However, I would disagree with the idea that we ultimately have a choice in our own salvation. That is, we are not choosing to save ourselves. Apart from God calling us to Himself, we cannot be saved.

 

Romans 3:10-12 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

 

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

 

 

Do you have any scriptural support for the idea of a choice to receive God after death?

To me, the judgement is where we appear before God and, based on all life's experiences and what more we suddenly see when face-to-face with God, choose once and for all whether to wholeheartedly follow God or not. God knows our hearts, what we choose to do. Therefore, God judges accordingly what is best to do with us.

 

As for the informed vs. uninformed choice: if humans had never gone against God's instructions, how would they know what the ramifications were? In this life, most of us try to muddle through as best we can, but do not necessarily realize when what we do may be causing more harm than good.

 

There is a story of a woman helping out at a party who was handing out peanut butter cookies. One of the children declined, saying it would hurt him. She thought he was concerned about physical injury from it and told him it would not hurt him, so he ate one. Sadly, he had a peanut allergy and wound up dead within a half hour. The poor woman thought she was doing a good thing, sharing a yummy snack and calming the child's fears. By your reasoning, she was informed and therefore is a murderer.

 

If the short term gain appears good, and we do not see the long term issues, then we may be misled into thinking we are doing good when in fact we are not. There's debate over drilling for oil/gas in various areas. Drilling can provide jobs and corporate profits for a while. However, it runs the risk of contaminating the environment around it, with effects which may not be seen for generations. How are we to know now if the negative effects will happen? I believe that when we die, God shows us the full ramifications of our actions so that we can realize how little we know and how completely trusting in God is for the best.

 

Note that the only reason we have this opportunity is because God gives it. We have all, at some time, chosen to put ourselves first. God could justifiably destroy us for being disobedient at any time, but God chooses to teach us throughout this life, let us learn by exercising our free will and seeing the consequences. If we are developing the habit of turning to God in this life, the ultimate choice/judgement of our souls will be much easier for us.

 

I like the John 6:44 verse. Only those who cherish God will be drawn to Jesus, and "on the last day" Jesus will raise them up - sounds like when they die to me. In John 12:47-48, Jesus says He does not judge those who hear His word and do not keep it; the one who rejects Him will be judged "on the last day". If our choice to follow God or not is cemented well prior to death, why not judge them immediately where all the world can see and learn? Because there is hope until we are judged.

 

And on what are we being judged? How well we followed the law? There we are doomed; as stated in Romans 3:10-12 everyone has sinned. Only God can cleanse the sin from us; our only hope is to turn to God. Then, instead of judging strictly on adherence to the law, God will judge our hearts and thoughts. If, up until we are face-to-face with God, we have denied God's will in our lives, how likely are we to humbly accept the truth about God and God's will at that moment? If we have turned to God for guidance constantly throughout our lives, how likely are we to turn away from God then? So the sooner we begin to follow God and accept God's will for us, the more likely our hearts and thoughts may be found acceptable to God.

 

Paul talks in I Cor 15:35-49 about how from our physical bodies it is our spirit that is resurrected after death, much like a plant grows out of a seed. I believe that at the moment of death, we have the final choice to trust in/love God; then, by God's grace alone, may we be spiritually reborn like a seedling sprouting. If the seed remains within its pod rather than extending out of it, how can it grow? It will rot, or be eaten, or otherwise be destroyed. That is kind of how I envision the spiritual [post-physical] life of those who depend on their own devices rather than trusting in God: something much less than what God intends for us to be.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Kestra15]

So yesterday was my Spirituality in Healthcare, and I thought it would be interesting to put a few of their questions to this board:

 

- What is spirituality?

- How does spirituality compare to religion?

- Does spirituality have a place in healthcare?

[RWyvern]

I am not religious in any way. While I fully respect other's beliefs and have no issue hearing people speaking of it, I do not like it when it's forced upon me, telling me I need to 'repent my sins' and so on. To me, things just happen. There is no great mind behind all of it. I do not believe the universe was made in seven days, or that we are all descended from two people. It's all down to forces and the like.

 

I was never much up for Christianity, but the one thing that really put me off was a school I joined. Being autistic, I never went to a real school and did home schooling instead. My mother bought the various books and taught me herself. However, in order to get my Social Security ID and all that stuff she eventually signed me up for a home-schooling program to get the papers necessary. Unfortunatly, this school was highly religious. As I mentioned above, I do not like to have religion forced upon me. That just about did it for me.

 

Don't take any of the above personally. I have been attacked before for not believing in God, but I don't attack them for their beliefs. We are all human after all and think different thoughts. Just my $0.2 :3

Edited October 6, 2012 by rampaging wyvern

[NixAyum]

- How does spirituality compare to religion?

- Does spirituality have a place in healthcare?

(Disclaimer: All this post is coming from a nonreligious, nonspiritual person.)

 

1: I see spirituality as much less rigid than religion. Religion is more standardized, more for a group of people than an individual. With spirituality, there are less or no rules you have to follow and it's more about your feelings than about a teaching.

 

3: On a grumpier day I would say no, but now a very limited maybe. I would definitely leave it to the patient's decision, consent from all involved, and always alongside AT LEAST medical consultation.

[pinkieseb]

I'm what you might call Semi-Religious...

I dont believe God created the universe with the snap of his fingers.. I believe we evolved from apes etc. But i DO on the other hand believe God Rules heaven..

I just cant stand the thought of death, is there really NOTHING after it..

 

I HOPE heaven is real, I wanna see my dad again

 

 

Edit - Awh, probably shouldn't have posted that.. My eyes are watering D:

Edited October 6, 2012 by pinkieseb

[Kestra15]

3: On a grumpier day I would say no, but now a very limited maybe. I would definitely leave it to the patient's decision, consent from all involved, and always alongside AT LEAST medical consultation.

So you don't believe that we should consider your emotional needs if you come in for treatment, especially over an extended period of time? That I shouldn't consider your personal well-being? And why would you need a doctor's consultation for someone to attend to those needs?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Kestra15

[TikindiDragon]

I'm what you might call Semi-Religious...

I dont believe God created the universe with the snap of his fingers.. I believe we evolved from apes etc. But i DO on the other hand believe God Rules heaven..

I just cant stand the thought of death, is there really NOTHING after it..

That doesn't nescesarily make you semi-religious - it just means you aren't a fundamentalist Christian. Believe it or not most of the less-dogmatic churches (and even, to be fair, some of the dogmatic ones) accept the theory of evolution. 7-day creationism is actually rarer than you might think. Although I think it's more common state-side than it is here in the UK.

 

Certainly both the Anglican and the Catholic churches support evolutionary theory to a certain extent. I believe that many Baptists do also.

 

@ Kestra: I'd certainly argue that spirituality *does* have a place in healthcare. To a certain extent I would argue that religion does also. Not the spirituality/religion of the healthcare provider, but that of the person recieving it. Especially with serious/terminal illness it is often a person's belief system that helps them through. I believe in those situation it would do the patient more harm than good for their doctor to outright deny it.

[PointOfOrigin]

Coming form 95% Christian country and I never heard of creationism before I started researching religion in other countries. Take in mind that here we have a religion as a mandatory subject in all of our schools (and by a religion I mean Christian education). Even in those lessons creationism is never mentioned, and evolution along with Big Bang is accepted theory.

 

They also teach us that Bible shouldn't be read to the letter, and that in this case, for example, one day represents thousands of years.

 

To be honest I thought that was official church standing.

Edited October 6, 2012 by PointOfOrigin

[TikindiDragon]

Coming form 95% Christian country and I never heard of creationism before I started researching religion in other countries. Take in mind that here we have a religion as a mandatory subject in all of our schools (and by a religion I mean Christian education). Even in those lessons creationism is never mentioned, and evolution along with Big Bang is accepted theory.

 

They also teach us that Bible shouldn't be read to the letter, and that in this case, for example, one day represents thousands of years.

 

To be honest I thought that was official church standing.

For some reason Young-Earth Creationism only seems to have large numbers of adherants in the US. I'm not entirely sure *why* that is, but there you go.

 

Funnily enough the prevalence of YEC beliefs in the States does lead some people that have grown up surrounded by it to believe all Chrstianity is YEC. While the misconception is understandable given the circumstances I find pointing people to denominations that accept evolution is usually helpful.

[glass_kisses]

I'm raised atheist but both my mother and I are agnostic. All my best friends are religious but none of them are particularly the regular church going type.

 

What I'm curious to know is if most christians actually believe in heaven & hell. I went to a Christian primary school but most of my classmate didn't believe in either.

[KageSora]

A lot of them do. When your younger, you might not, but a lot of the religious adults I know of do believe it.

 

My parents sure do.