Page 6 of 74 FirstFirst 12345678910111656 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 1473
  1. #101  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson:
    A lack of belief is unbelief - as opposed to disbelief, which is entirely different.


    Surely, but I never said that I lacked belief. Lacking belief in the 'Christian God' (or in certain interpretations thereof) does not equate with a lack of belief in some concept of God(s)/Creator(s).

    How's that for semantic bantering?

    *shrug* Some might call it semantic bantering. I just saw it as being precise in meaning. OTOH, I've been in arguments with atheists who claim that theist and atheist are the only possiblities on the theism issue. To me, it's more like the old elementary school number line (except that there's more than one possible number line).

    Anyway, I was referring to your comment regarding the illogical God that defines your lack of religion.

    Ahh, but a lack of organized religion does not necessarily mean a lack of belief in anything, and a lack of belief in an illogical/inconsistent God does not necessarily mean a lack of belief in God(s)/Creator(s). And no, I'm not likely to go into specifics at the moment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #102  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Hey K.C., welcome to the party. If you hadn't been in the other room all that time, flirting with your husband, you could have added some of that much needed "quality K. Cannon attention"!
    I won't tell him you said this...

    That was one of the times I was referring to. He can't be tainted though, as it also says of God that he is "Good, all of the time."What Lucifer was trying to prove to God was that even Job, one of his most faithful servants, was only loyal to God because he had been blessed. God knew better and allowed Lucifer to test Job. Now Job lost everything material, but he never lost his love for the Lord. Lucifer lost the argument.
    Right--I didn't mean that God's being was tainted by the discussions-just that he had deigned (dained?deined?) to have them.

    I know people who won't eat sushi (raw fish, yuck!), but will scarf down cracklin's (If you don't know, don't ask). I've eaten both, but I won't eat escargot! (I do like home-made goose liver pate', so if you're French, don't berate me!)
    I grew up poor, so I'll try anything once!
    I'll get my Aunt Zela to send you some of her famous Liver Nips...

    Originally posted by ****-richardsonJesus never stated that belief in His resurrection was a pre-requisite to heaven.
    The famous John 3:16 "...that anyone who believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." Although the verse doesn't specify "that anyone who believes in [his resurrection] shall not perish."

    From bobbymikeI think a lot of people get disappointed because it's not particularly easy to 'get' Christianity without a 'leap of faith'. You can't just 'think' your way into faith, it also has to 'feel' right. Left brain plus right brain.
    Which is why I love Hannah Whitall Smith's book so much.
    P.S. Love the new pic!
  3. #103  
    Crazy double post!
  4.    #104  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Surely, but I never said that I lacked belief. Lacking belief in the 'Christian God' (or in certain interpretations thereof) does not equate with a lack of belief in some concept of God(s)/Creator(s).
    Unbelief in certain interpretations of the Christian God would qualify for my speculation (if, in fact, that illogical God were "true" - a tenet I don't believe, but is outside the scope of my musings regardless). At any rate, I understand where you're coming from. Let's ammend my speculation to deal only with those who profess an unbelief in God, regardless of its manifestation.

    And no, I'm not likely to go into specifics at the moment.
    You should. There aren't many God-ish interpretations that interest me, but one that separates God from emotion definitely holds a fascination.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  5.    #105  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Right--I didn't mean that God's being was tainted by the discussions-just that he had deigned (dained?deined?) to have them.
    If the premise that God cares for and deals with humans directly is true, then there is little difference in dealing with Satan. Anything less than infinitely good is infinitely less, regardless of degree.

    The famous John 3:16 "...that anyone who believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." Although the verse doesn't specify "that anyone who believes in [his resurrection] shall not perish."
    Do you mean that it (the verse in question) doesn't specify whether someone who doesn't believe in His resurrection shall perish?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  6. #106  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson:
    You should. There aren't many God-ish interpretations that interest me, but one that separates God from emotion definitely holds a fascination.


    Well, I wouldn't say separate from emotion necessarily. Emotions do exist, but I don't think emotions necessarily preclude making rational decisions or things having a rational order. Even if emotions are simply neurochemical reactions that we interpret in given ways, they're there for a reason (fight or flight, propagation of the species, etc.). When it's all solid and formed and my religion of Tobology is ready to go, I'll let you know.

    Do you mean that it (the verse in question) doesn't specify whether someone who doesn't believe in His resurrection shall perish?

    No it doesn't, but John 3:18 and 3:36 say that (well, not the resurrection per se, but him).

    edit: added parenthetical
    Last edited by Toby; 07/17/2001 at 01:29 PM.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7.    #107  
    Originally posted by Toby
    No it doesn't, but John 3:18 and 3:36 say that (well, not the resurrection per se, but him).
    The first mentioned belief in Jesus only, not resurrection (obviously, as the resurrection wasn't known at this point in the gospel). The second mentions obedience, as opposed to belief. Nevermind. I saw your addition after I posted.

    All in all, Jesus seems pretty accomidating to those who don't believe in His resurrection. Maybe the full implications of His resurrection aren't discernable to the human mind given the limitations space and time impose, and as such the only requirements for heaven are Jesus' own. That would make religion rather moot, as those commandments are reiterated in the dogma of all major religions, and even in "philosophies" or "ways of life" like Buddhism to a limited degree.

    The Bible is quite vague about the beliefs we are to have about Jesus and never mentions when we are to have them. Religion appears to be merely an attempt to narrow down the options.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  8. #108  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Do you mean that it (the verse in question) doesn't specify whether someone who doesn't believe in His resurrection shall perish?
    I mean the verse says only that we are to "believe in him" (as opposed to "believe he was resurrected") in order to not perish and have everlasting life.

    The Bible is quite vague about the beliefs we are to have about Jesus and never mentions when we are to have them.
    Are you proposing that the only "required" belief (for Christianity) is that Jesus was the Son of God and you are not "required" to believe in his resurrection?
  9.    #109  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    I mean the verse says only that we are to "believe in him" (as opposed to "believe he was resurrected") in order to not perish and have everlasting life.
    Ahhh.


    Are you proposing that the only "required" belief (for Christianity) is that Jesus was the Son of God and you are not "required" to believe in his resurrection?
    I'm hypothesizing that, given a liberal interpretation of the gospels, a person not may not even need to believe that Jesus was the Son of God to get to heaven. A person has to believe that Jesus was the Son of God to call themselves a Christian, but that belief may not be necessary to attain heaven - which opens the door for quite a few religions (and even people who don't follow any religion).
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  10. #110  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    I'm hypothesizing that, given a liberal interpretation of the gospels, a person not may not even need to believe that Jesus was the Son of God to get to heaven. A person has to believe that Jesus was the Son of God to call themselves a Christian, but that belief may not be necessary to attain heaven - which opens the door for quite a few religions (and even people who don't follow any religion).
    "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me."
    (P.S. I'm pulling these from memory, so my quotes may not be perfect.)
  11.    #111  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon


    "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me."
    (P.S. I'm pulling these from memory, so my quotes may not be perfect.)
    But even that quote doens't state that a belief of Jesus as the Son of God is necessary to get to the Father. It may be that quote is merely in reference to Jesus' teachings, e.g. the two commandments mentioned previously. If that is the case, then there are religions galore that teach the gospel of Christ. They're just practicing a sort of holy plagiarism.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  12. #112  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson:
    [...] If that is the case, then there are religions galore that teach the gospel of Christ. They're just practicing a sort of holy plagiarism.


    Except how many of them predate Christianity? Who determines who the plagiarist is?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13.    #113  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Except how many of them predate Christianity? Who determines who the plagiarist is?
    I'd say Jesus' was the revolutionary one (or at least the earliest and most publicized) with regard to his views on how God sees humanity and humanities response to God, but, regardless, I think the message is of importance on a level as great (or greater) than the messanger [added], although not necessarily in the long run. I.e., Jesus' death and resurrection may be what get us to heaven, and the implications of that are of an importance greater than following His teachings. But, given the limited experience the physical mind can comprehend, it is His teachings that are of greater importance in the here and now.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 07/17/2001 at 11:13 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  14. #114  
    I took it that what he meant was that you believed he was the Son of God, meaning that his resurrection is part and parcel of that. He actually had quite a few 'commandments' (I once heard a pastor go over 118 things Jesus said that could be construed as 'commandments'). He didn't disavow the Ten commandments, either.
    A straight forward interpretation of the Gospels, as opposed to a liberal one, leaves no doubt as to what a person must believe in to get to Heaven.
    Basically it don't matter where you come from as long as you end up at the foot of the cross. That's what pisses so many people off. They get irked because there is only one way. People can get quite upset about being the lack of other choices, or what they perceive as Christian arrogance (which I freely acknowledge that some people have)
    Is there another way to Heaven? I can't say nay or yay for sure, but I know I want to get there and I'm not willing to risk my salvation (or my kids) by fooling around. I learned long ago though, that you can't force, or cajole people into the gospel, you can only invite them (the old free will thing).
    Then again I'm Assembly of God, and we spend a minimum of an hour a service singing praises to the Lord before we get into scripture. We also believe that miracles do happen and that God can speak through people in tongues and all that 'old time' stuff. Is it the right way, or the only way? I believe it's working for me and mine, and that's enough for me.

    PS.
    K.Cannon wrote:
    "Which is why I love Hannah Whitall Smith's book so much.
    P.S. Love the new pic!"


    What book?, and the picture was actually for you as you said you liked the one of Martin!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #115  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    What book?, and the picture was actually for you as you said you liked the one of Martin!
    A Christian's Secret of a Happy Life See thisor this

    I'll admit that it is a very simplistic way of explaining Christianity in a way that some wouldn't like--simply faith.

    Thanks for the picture--you've got some beautiful boys and gosh do I feel for your wife! (She's the minority!! )
    Last edited by K. Cannon; 07/18/2001 at 09:02 AM.
  16. #116  
    "Thanks for the picture--you've got some beautiful boys and gosh do I feel for your wife!"

    Thanks for noticing, they get their good looks from me. Actually my oldest bears a striking resemblance to me at that age and the youngest looks like her dad at that age. They all have my stubborness.

    "(She's the minority!!)"

    In humans, yes. We have a beautiful female Rottie, one of our two cats is a female and we have a whole flock of chickens! So by sheer bulk weight (Jazzy the dog weighs almost as much as me) the match is pretty close, but by numbers they have us beat! And we know that one good woman is worth more than her weight in gold!

    She also doesn't want a girl (yet). She knows that girls **** heads with their moms during the teen years. Her mother and her get along great now, but it wasn't always so.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  17. #117  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [BShe knows that girls **** heads with their moms during the teen years. Her mother and her get along great now, but it wasn't always so. [/B]
    I'm sure I don't know what you mean...
  18. #118  
    Umm...sure, whatever you say. (I have two sisters BTW)
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19.    #119  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    I took it that what he meant was that you believed he was the Son of God, meaning that his resurrection is part and parcel of that.
    But that isn't stated in the verse.
    He actually had quite a few 'commandments' (I once heard a pastor go over 118 things Jesus said that could be construed as 'commandments').
    The only time Jesus used the word commandments in reference to anything other than the 10 was in reference to the two He laid out. If people followed the rest of His teaching, they were "blessed."
    He didn't disavow the Ten commandments, either.
    None of which state that a belief in the risen Christ is necessary for salvation.
    A straight forward interpretation of the Gospels, as opposed to a liberal one, leaves no doubt as to what a person must believe in to get to Heaven.
    There could hardly be considered a "straight forward" approach to interpreting the gospels. In fact, if one were interpreting the gospels literally, there is little doubt that a belief in the risen Christ is not necessary.
    Basically it don't matter where you come from as long as you end up at the foot of the cross.
    That may be, but when does that realization have to come? Doubting Thomas received proof.
    That's what pisses so many people off. They get irked because there is only one way.
    The pisser is trying to figure out which way that is. We've been hashing it out for close to 2000 years and have gained little (except for a sophistication with regard to argumentative techniqiues).
    People can get quite upset about being the lack of other choices, or what they perceive as Christian arrogance (which I freely acknowledge that some people have)
    Is there another way to Heaven? I can't say nay or yay for sure, but I know I want to get there and I'm not willing to risk my salvation (or my kids) by fooling around.
    But as Toby pointed out, an omnipotent God sees through the charade of "covering bases" - not that I'm accusing you of such. Honestly, I think the two commandment Jesus laid out are more than enough to cover the 10 Commandments of the Torah; sufficient enough to encompass His teachings and the example of His death; tough enough to follow, regardless of a person's religious affiliation.
    I learned long ago though, that you can't force, or cajole people into the gospel, you can only invite them (the old free will thing).
    Then again I'm Assembly of God, and we spend a minimum of an hour a service singing praises to the Lord before we get into scripture. We also believe that miracles do happen and that God can speak through people in tongues and all that 'old time' stuff. Is it the right way, or the only way? I believe it's working for me and mine, and that's enough for me.
    My intention is not to invalidate your Biblical interpretation. It is merely to validate others.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 07/18/2001 at 07:43 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20.    #120  
    This lengthy discourse is superfluous to the argument at hand.

    Originally posted by Toby
    but here's one that I had bookmarked one time that the question came up elsewhere.
    Just got to reading this. I'd love to pick his arguments apart. His big assumption (which would be incorrect if my interpretation of the Bible is close) is that a spot on belief of God is required to go to heaven. I have refuted #1, #2, #3, #6, #7a, and #13 (to a limited degree). #4 gets into circular logic, but as it stands is valid. #5 is mathematically correct, but there is no way to quantify life - not to mention that (mathematically) if only 1 reincarnated life is negative, the entire equation becomes negative as well - regardless of how many good lives were lived. I don't remember, but I don't think infinity is either positive or negative at any rate, so the argument may be moot from the get-go. #7b is speculative musings that are balanced out with a possible gain recieved from said rituals (e.g. meditation and prayer have been proven to lower heart rate and blood pressure - which may make a person more productive and possibly live longer, not getting into any possible spiritual benefits). #7c ignores all benefits religion has bestowed. #8 is speculative musings dealing only with the source and not the argument. Motivation for advancing an argument doesn't invalidate the argument in question. #9 is interesting in that the assumption that theism and atheism are not equally likely is refuted with the same logic. #10 is valid. #11 doesn't take into consideration what God may consider "just." If God believes in us, then it's only fair that we believe in God. God would then be "just" in sending unbelievers to hell. #12 is based entirely on the premise that following God's commandments merely to please God is not moral according to Christianity. Christianity does not make this claim. #13 works with the assumption that theists have the burden of proof, when, in fact, I have seen the burning desire to convert burn brightly from both camps - making the burden of proof fall on the shoulders of the evangalist in question.

    At any rate, Pascals wager is invalid only because #10 is true if God is omnipotent (or, more accurately, omniscient - which he could make himself were he omnipotent, as well as knowing how be omnipotent if the reverse were true).
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 07/19/2001 at 12:11 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.

Posting Permissions