If God looked upon the Earth on the 6th day and said it was very good...

[pianowelsh]

Im fed up of making points that people dont read. I clearly addressed the points but you fail to see my conclusions.   I think its clear that sin is crossing the boundary. ie when God says NO we do it anyway. Anyway as for it measn different things at different times and places..i Disagree.. the Holy spirit convicts of sin righteousness and judgement.  You know if conscience when you sin because you feel guilt. Mindue sin in a specific way long enough and you stop feeling guilt..the bible calls it searing your conscience and its not a good thing to make a habit of.   Regarding the substiutional death of Christ He died to take the punishment of sin which we deserve, So that those who trust in him are no longer condemed with the world because their sin has been taken away and placed on Jesus Christ. You are right however to say that this dosent wipe the slate clean. Even with all our sin taken away we are then left with nothing BUT as the book of ROmans explains Christ imputed his righteousness to us (or transferred his goodness to our account) so that we can be of right standing before God. This is a work of Gods unmerited favour and has nothing to do with the intrinsic goodness or otherwise of the person who would put their trust in Christ.  It is an act of faith on our part to call on the name of the Lord, HE saves HE makes the payment HE justifies and sanctifies.
When I sais argument I meant to say you brought up a point for discussion over which theologians of all persuasions argue.  I believe I was quite clear on that one. The bible dosent teach on what happens to babies who ahve not developed the power of speach or intellect.  BUt all I will say is that Babies cry when they are hungry, they recognise their mother etc. God is not limited in the way we are to phyiscal utterances etc and we can be sure that God has in mind a plan for the littl'uns even if He dosent make it known to us in scripture. As Christians our concern must be for those who we are told about ie everyone other than babies who 'must call on the name of the Lord to be saved'.  I have no clue what you were referring to when you were talking about 'the milk of human kindness' . The only thing that I can offer is that if we think as humans we can be kind we have NO understanding of the levels of kindness God shows us. Our kindness is EVIL compared to the love and kindness he shows us. Our persective of God is as humans too limited to make negative judgements of his character. The fact your breathing today Alistair has nothing to do with your age or fitness - it is entirely due to the kindness of God. He sustains all things out of kindness to us. God dosent need people for companionship or the earth to amuse himself with. He was quite happy with himself before the world was even created..he isnt dependant on us or our believing in him or our doing things for him etc..He is totally self sufficient and on another level form us.  We are tiny to God and yet he does hear and he does answer those who call on his name He is compassionate to the poor and destitute the lowly in spirit and contrite in heart. BUT he resists the proud.
The children issue is really off topic so Im not going away down that route. Nor am I going to argue where scripture dosent make comment because there are things which are too difficult for men and women to understand which are best left in the heart of God. If you want to persue that line of thought I think a different thread might be the place... im sure others will discuss it with you.

[prometheus]

It's you, not them.

There is a clear difference between the view of god in Christianity and the view of god in Judaism.

This is just utter ignorance. You are the religious person here. You should know what you are talking about. But the only thing you do is "my religion is true because it says so." and then start a rant in the way described earlier.

The language used in the bible and by Jewish people to talk about the spirit of god has nothing to do with the purely Christian concept of the holy spirit. In Judaism there is just one god and only one personality.

And that's the way Moses would have believed if he existed.

Obviously the Jewish people do not recognise Jesus as the messiah. But even their messiah is 'just a man'. There will be nothing divine about him. He will be a pure human. So there is no son either.

Yes, it seems that the holy trinity was concieved quite some decades after the pentecost supposedly took place. You may not like it but as a religious person you will just have to deal with that. It's a fact. You can't ignore reality.

So either Moses was a Christian and Christianity gave birth to Judaism. Or Moses never believed in the trinity and Christians got the idea later. Either from god himself or they just made it up.

Otherwise you will make even more of a fool of yourself, also in the eyes of other theists. And worse, if you continue thinking this way you will drive yourself really insane. Stop it, for your own sake.


It is not accepted that Moses is the author of Genesis. The author is unknown. Just as with all the other books in the bible. I suggest you read timothy42b
's posts or actually research it yourself without concluding what you should find beforehand. Very hard to do for someone with a drastic belief as you. But to know something you will need to put in some effort. Don't accept the dogma slammed in by whoever slammed it in you.


As for the death threats, you claim that most people on this forum should be punished with death, please stop them. Stop the Taliban-like intolerance.

[ahinton]

Im fed up of making points that people dont read. I clearly addressed the points but you fail to see my conclusions.

I have read every word that you have written and done my best to understand it fully, regardless of whether I may end up agreeing or disagreeing with it.

I think its clear that sin is crossing the boundary. ie when God says NO we do it anyway.

Firstly, I should remind you that I did specify that I do not believe that "sin" does not exist. Secondly, you claim that God talks to you and you can hear Him when he does so, whereas I and others cannot make the same claim, so the "God says NO" thing doesn;t work universally.

Anyway as for it measn different things at different times and places..i Disagree.. the Holy spirit convicts of sin righteousness and judgement.  You know if conscience when you sin because you feel guilt. Mindue sin in a specific way long enough and you stop feeling guilt..the bible calls it searing your conscience and its not a good thing to make a habit of.

You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I'm trying first and foremost to understand something here, not to find something with which I want to disagree for the sake of so doing. Of course you are right to introduce the instance of conscience, which is certainly a factor, but this factor relates here not to "sin" itself but to each individual's perception of what does and does not constitute "sin" and how serious different "sins" are; not only do we all have different consciences but also each individual's own conscience is a non-constant, always developing (or at least hopefully so!) in order to remain commensurate with one's new experiences and thoughts. Since we do not all share precisely the same conscience, there can no, it seems to me, be any kind of universal definition for "sin" which makes every conceivable human activity amenable to strict categorisation as "sinful" or "not sinful". You ignored my Delius example; try this one instead. Some people might think it a "sin" to make scans of copyright music freely available without the permission of the copyright owner, whereas others think that it is some kind of universal human right to do this; irrespective of which view is correct, they obviously cannot both be correct!

Regarding the substiutional death of Christ He died to take the punishment of sin which we deserve, So that those who trust in him are no longer condemed with the world because their sin has been taken away and placed on Jesus Christ. You are right however to say that this dosent wipe the slate clean.

Why on earth should Christ have to do that - especially on behalf of those who do not believe in Him and His work? He has to take responsibility for everyone's wrongdoings, believers and non-believers alike? Is such a thing fair to Christ, of all people, who was one of the great men of history? - and what would be the point if, as we clearly agree, such an act of ultimate sacrifice would not "wipe the slate clean?

Even with all our sin taken away we are then left with nothing BUT as the book of ROmans explains Christ imputed his righteousness to us (or transferred his goodness to our account) so that we can be of right standing before God. This is a work of Gods unmerited favour and has nothing to do with the intrinsic goodness or otherwise of the person who would put their trust in Christ.

So believers and non-believers alike can just go around committing as much or as little wrongdoing as may suit them at any given time, conscience or no conscience - and it'll all be all right in the end because Christ will somehow contrive to rectify it all as you describe in the words of the Book of Romans by balancing our account in order that we are all thereafter able to be "of right standing before God"? Excuse me, but in which bit of this did the last shred of logic get thrown out of the window?

When I sais argument I meant to say you brought up a point for discussion over which theologians of all persuasions argue.  I believe I was quite clear on that one.

Fair enough.

The bible dosent teach on what happens to babies who ahve not developed the power of speach or intellect.  BUt all I will say is that Babies cry when they are hungry, they recognise their mother etc. God is not limited in the way we are to phyiscal utterances etc and we can be sure that God has in mind a plan for the littl'uns even if He dosent make it known to us in scripture. As Christians our concern must be for those who we are told about ie everyone other than babies who 'must call on the name of the Lord to be saved'.

This is precisely my point; those who have sufficiently developed minds of their own can choose whether or not to "call upon", or "turn to", God, whereas those who are too young to have begun to get near that stage cannot do so; "turning to God" has to be an active, conscious decision, so those who do it have to be capable of understanding what it is that theychoose to do and why, as well as being mentally advanced enough to make such a decision. That's all i was saying.

I have no clue what you were referring to when you were talking about 'the milk of human kindness'. The only thing that I can offer is that if we think as humans we can be kind we have NO understanding of the levels of kindness God shows us. Our kindness is EVIL compared to the love and kindness he shows us.

Then I'm not sure how I can explain it better. I wrote
"...very small children are simply incapable of making decisions and doing any such thing of their own volition, yet you would have us believe that all those, regardless of age or ability, who do not "turn to God" will be rejected. Christ himself was compassionate; anyone who genuinely believes and accepts this kind of thing is surely not. If this is an example of the "milk of human kindness", then it seems to me to be a case of God creaming off the good Christians from the top and chucking the rest away down the drain. I wouldn't even want to be associated with a God like that, frankly."
In other words, the notion that anyone be automatically rejected because they have not "turned to God", irrespective of whether or not they may ever have been capable of doing so, is inherently unkind and, it seems to me, an example of the very opposite of Christian compassion. Even in older children and adults, these things are complex and serious issues that need appropriately serious thought, whereas you seem to prefer the simplistic, black-and-white, just-adopt-the-faith route. Which bit of what I wrote do you not understand?

Our persective of God is as humans too limited to make negative judgements of his character.

But I'm not seeking to "judge God's character"! My remarks above are not a criticism of God's character at all but a reflection on a notion contrived in His name that seems to me to embrace negative discrimination and unkindness.

The fact your breathing today Alistair has nothing to do with your age or fitness - it is entirely due to the kindness of God. He sustains all things out of kindness to us. God dosent need people for companionship or the earth to amuse himself with. He was quite happy with himself before the world was even created..he isnt dependant on us or our believing in him or our doing things for him etc..He is totally self sufficient and on another level form us.  We are tiny to God and yet he does hear and he does answer those who call on his name He is compassionate to the poor and destitute the lowly in spirit and contrite in heart.

This is what you believe and, as I've said before, you're just as entitled to believe any or all of it as others are not to believe any or all of it and as I and others are to try to keep as open a mind as possible on any or all of it. Despite this fact, you always seem to write it as though you and those who think like you speak the truth and anyone who thinks differently does not; I would not dream of being so dogmatic - it could be construed as rather rude, apart from anything else.

BUT he resists the proud.

That's abit short-sighted of Him, isn't it?! (sorry, now I DO sound as though I'm judging His character!); after all, aren't you proud to be a good Christian? Don't we artists take pride in what we do to the best of our ability (however much we always wish that we could do it better?)...

The children issue is really off topic so Im not going away down that route.

Why and how is it so? I don't want either of us to make too big an issue of it, to be sure, but I would say that it's as on topic as anyone else involved in the issue of turning to or away from God.

Nor am I going to argue where scripture dosent make comment because there are things which are too difficult for men and women to understand which are best left in the heart of God.

So are you saying here that if scripture - by which, of course, you seem to mean only Christian and pre-Christian Bibllical scripture - doesn't provide a clear-cut answer to a question then you'll duck the question for that reason alone rather than try to figure out an answer for yourself? - you know, "mind of your own" and all that? Are you suggesting that the writers of all that scripture decided for themselves at all times what could be understood by men and women and what was "too difficult" for those men and women to understand? - if so, that's a pretty authoritarian stance on the part of those writers, is it not? - and, for that matter, a similarly authoritarian stance for you to adopt in supporting such an idea? If I misunderstand you here, please correct me.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i think people mistake God for being authoritarian by the way He gave his law (through Moses only - and He did not let them all come up on the mountain to recieve it - but had to wait).  unfortunately, i think it is the times in which we live.  we are no longer really interested in authority as a good thing.  it has been misused too many times.  so, we don't trust authority.

but, God, in His power and might and still mercy - shows us how to respect authority, our elders, government, husband/wife, and even parents and those over us (ie teachers, etc).  today, it seems that people are viewed as 'weak' if they do not challenge the establishment in some way.  and, i have to say that i am often tempted and sometimes fail miserably to give respect to those who deserve it.

the bible says that we should pray for our leaders and those in government to make wise decisions.  george washington, himself, often went to private places alone and prayed for inspiration, help, and guidance.  but, sometimes, as we all do, our leaders do an action and then pray about it afterwards.  the result isn't quite the same.   

as i see it, we have the opportunity to use the strongest power known to man and the universe together. God's spirit.  if you pray - you have the mightiest power in small words.  words of love and thoughtfulness.  the bible is not just about God's anger.  it is about his love.  He thinks of the smallest things even, on our behalf, and works great things for us daily - if we turn to him and pray.  repentance is the first step to knowing God.  then, reading his word with an open mind.  then, asking him for understanding.  without this - you can't really understand the bible - because you are approaching it with a lack of respect.

ps i'm using the word 'you' freely and not accusing anyone at all. in fact, i do think there is a choice that people make.  to know God.  or to be free of any sort of authority in their life.  and, also, that God is not real to them YEt.  but, as pianowelsh and i like to say - why wait?  why wait until you see God face to face.  there is a scripture that says something about 'seek Him while he may be found...' that means that perhaps in His anger won't be the time to find Him.  but, in times of rest and peace.  it is much harder when a decision has already been made by God to get the intercession.  but, Christ gave us this intercession so that we can USE it now!

pss i think prometheus is kind of right about how jews used to pray.  they WOULD pray (and probably still do) directly to the Father.  this is sort of unusual for us today - as Christians - because we are used to knowing that Jesus Christ died and was ressurrected on our behalf and interceeds for us.  so we tend to ALWAYS pray to Jesus.  we feel he is the benevolent one 'beseeching God' in our behalf.  and, yet - when Jesus gave us the Lord's prayer - it went like this " Our Father, who art in heaven...hallowed be Thy name...'  so Jesus himself tells us that it's OK to pray directly to the Father, too - and to include 'in Jesus name' at the end of our prayers directed to Him.  showing appreciation for the love of both of them towards our salvation.  neither of them acts alone.  They work together in harmony and love.

[ahinton]

the bible says that we should pray for our leaders and those in government to make wise decisions.  george washington, himself, often went to private places alone and prayed for inspiration, help, and guidance.  but, sometimes, as we all do, our leaders do an action and then pray about it afterwards.  the result isn't quite the same.

Well, let's not blame what's left of the infinitely translated Bible for getting it wrong on this one! I think that many people these days would be incited to such prayer only in order to pray that the said leaders be voted out of office as soon as possible. Would George Washington have done that had he been alive today? I doubt it - he'd surely instead have leant on his PR machine to ensure that whatever he was about to do could be bent to look good to the electorate and then he'd get another department of the same outfit to ensure that he had just the right amount and sort of publicity about having prayed for guidance in order to maintain his credibility with the religious voters and no more.

That's not meant to be interpreted as any kind of anti-American jibe, by the way.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Im fed up of making points that people dont read.

I read all your points but I admit it is a struggle. 

On the other hand, prometheus's points are easy to understand, whether we agree or not.  This is because making the effort to write clearly forces you to think clearly. 

[timothy42b]

Are you suggesting that the writers of all that scripture decided for themselves at all times what could be understood by men and women and what was "too difficult" for those men and women to understand? - if so, that's a pretty authoritarian stance on the part of those writers, is it not? - and, for that matter, a similarly authoritarian stance for you to adopt in supporting such an idea? If I misunderstand you here, please correct me.

Best,

Alistair

I think that pianowelsh does indeed suggest that, and in fact goes further.  This goes to the definition of what "inspiration" means.

For a lot of people, inspiration means that God dictated the Bible word for word, very probably in the English of the King's James Version.  As such, ancient people had to be given scientific knowledge that would not be discovered for thousands of years, and in the NT were able to speak authoritatively about history, geology, biology, medicine, etc.  There is no possibility there understanding was limited by their times, their culture, their education, or their personal psychology.  They were 100% certain of everything they wrote. 

And yet, God chose ordinary people to inspire, and multiple versions were produced, all slightly different. 

My view of inspiration is quite different.  I think inspiration is available to everyone who sincerely makes the effort, whether in Jesus's time or today, and the struggle to be correct is exactly the same.

As such, I see no compelling reason to close the canon.  The ancient church codified the canon around 397 at Nicea, on the basis of consistent theology plus some connection to the apostles.  However, Paul wrote most of the NT, and he never met Jesus.  He did meet Peter, who did know Jesus, and considered Peter to have got it all wrong.  So even that far back our apostolic standards were not absolute.   

[pianowelsh]

Im sick of this! The ignorance of some so called 'theists' on this forum is incredible. The question asked was in relation to Holy scripture. It therefore seems totally ludicrous that the predominant thrust of the comments made here have been by athiests and agnostics who claim knowledge of scriptures belonging to religions they have little or no understanding of.  Im sorry But I answer scriptural questions form scripture - I do not consider that an unreasonable thing to do.  You do not have to agree with scripture MANY do not. Thats not my problem. Im just telling you what it says and indeed what 'typical' not wacky or way out, Christian responses are to the origional question raised. I do not care whether you think I am off the wall or whether you think what I believe is foolish. Scripture says that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing but to them who are being saved it is the power of God.

I hope henrah that you were able to rationally take my explainations as to the origins of Genesis and the amplifying/clarifying of the creation narative, and derive some more understanding of that passage.

I assure you for those who are in any doubt that I do read posts carefully. However I would be lying if I said that after the second of third double negative inserted into a meaningless paragraph of twaddle I dont occassionally misunderstand the meaning which some individuals seek to communicate.

I have no problem in telling you that some scholars including those who write the NKJV and NIV study bible translations and commentaries DO conisder that Moses was the author of Genesis. Whether this view is exhaustive - I sincerely doubt but it is an authoritative and significant view point and as such deserves respect.

Im just thankfull to God today that He is infinitely more patient infinately more longsuffering and infinately more gracious than I feel right now. To God be the glory!

[wesball94]

Henrah,
     God was talking to Himself about His creation, nobody actually saw it, I'm very sure Adam and eve knew, and, for the last one, Adam lived over 900 years (not as old as Methusela, though), so I'm pretty sure he told priests and they wrote it down.
     These are all the answers to your questions!

[ahinton]

The ignorance of some so called 'theists' on this forum is incredible. The question asked was in relation to Holy scripture. It therefore seems totally ludicrous that the predominant thrust of the comments made here have been by athiests and agnostics who claim knowledge of scriptures belonging to religions they have little or no understanding of.

I think it a little unfair to brand non-believers on this forum as ignorant and lacking in understanding of Biblical scripture, at least in principle and to the extent that it is not necessary for someone to be a Christian in order to have or acquire sufficient understanding of what is written in the Bible in the versions to which we have current access. Whilst I have no doubt that some such people may indeed lack sufficient understanding, personal atheism or agnosticism is not of itself a bar to understanding what is written in those scriptures.

Im sorry But I answer scriptural questions form scripture - I do not consider that an unreasonable thing to do.

No, indeed it is not, so there is no need to apologise.

You do not have to agree with scripture MANY do not. Thats not my problem. Im just telling you what it says and indeed what 'typical' not wacky or way out, Christian responses are to the origional question raised. I do not care whether you think I am off the wall or whether you think what I believe is foolish. Scripture says that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing but to them who are being saved it is the power of God.

I think that where this issue develops into overheated arguments and becomes contentious is twofold. Firstly, there is the issue that the Bible as we know it today contains at least some omissions and contradictions, the history of its coming into being is more complex than that of a single volume created at one time by a single author and then published and there and the various other anomalies incumbent upon its survival and metamorphosis through the major social, linguistic, economic, political, psychological, scientific, geographical, geological, etc. changes over its two millennia of existence; all of these taken together are bound to raise doubts and questions about interpretation - indeed, it could hardly be otherwise. These inalienable facts do not, of course, mean that the Bible is some kind of antediluvian irrelevance - very far from it, in my view - it is a serious and important work of literature - but I can see how conflicts will and do arise between those who still take its evey word without question and those who prefer to think more deeply about how to best to approach and comprehend what we read today in the Bible as we know it; it is a pity if such differences develop into positions of undue entrenchment and animosity. Secondly, these issues sometimes get out of hand when insufficient difference of emphasis is recognised by those who are considering and commenting upon scriptural texts per se and those who are considering and commenting upon the wider issues of religion in general and Christianity in particular; in other words, when people answer non-scriptural questions with scripture, the waters can sometimes get muddied. When confusions arise between these two approaches, matters can again get overheated, as we have seen - and that, too, is a pity.

I hope henrah that you were able to rationally take my explainations as to the origins of Genesis and the amplifying/clarifying of the creation narative, and derive some more understanding of that passage.

I cannot speak for "henrah" here but, since you mention the creation narrative, it is important to recognise that, however clearly or otherwise that may be expressed in the Bible, it does not necessarily follow that any such account/s must therefore be taken literally, letter by letter, twenty centuries later other than by those whose personal beliefs prompt and warrant then to do so.

I assure you for those who are in any doubt that I do read posts carefully. However I would be lying if I said that after the second of third double negative inserted into a meaningless paragraph of twaddle I dont occassionally misunderstand the meaning which some individuals seek to communicate.

I do not think that you'll find any double negatives here...

I have no problem in telling you that some scholars including those who write the NKJV and NIV study bible translations and commentaries DO conisder that Moses was the author of Genesis. Whether this view is exhaustive - I sincerely doubt but it is an authoritative and significant view point and as such deserves respect.

Interesting as it obviously is in itself, I am by no means convinced that the precise identity/ies of the author/s of Genesis is/are necessarily as important as the text contained therein and how it can best be interpreted two thousand years later.

Im just thankfull to God today that He is infinitely more patient infinately more longsuffering and infinately more gracious than I feel right now.

I hope that this leaves you feeling abit more gracious than you reckoned to be when you wrote that!

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I think it a little unfair to brand non-believers on this forum as ignorant and lacking in understanding of Biblical scripture,

I think he was talking about Timothy and Thalbergmad. Nonbelievers aren't theists.

I don't understand Pianowelsh response to my point. You did claim there was ambiguity and thus Jesus could be interpreted as not being a false prophet. That's all you said yo counter me. If you personally don't believe the bible is ambigious then how is it possible that you don't think Jesus is a false prophet?


And about the bible being clear in interpretation. Most Christians believe one needs the holy spook to be able to understand the bible anyway. And they claim this is written in the bible. For 1500 years all Christians believed one needed the illumination of the holy spirit to give you the wisdom to understand the bible.

So much for a clear and ambigious bible.

[pianistimo]

line upon line.  precept upon precept.  something like that.  just like piano lessons.  you don't go in and ask to play the most difficult piece of music.  i think God is a teacher.  He first teaches us by letting us look at His creation.  we are like babies (even when teenagers and young adults).  we think we can take care of ourselves.  but, then somecrisis happens in our lives - or perhaps no crisis - but just a lot of questions.  we start talking and then - surprisingly God suddenly talks back to us in one form or another.  at first, we can't believe it.  we think it is 'chance.'  so then, we try it again.  it's like falling backwards into someone's arms.

[thalbergmad]

we start talking and then - surprisingly God suddenly talks back to us in one form or another.  at first, we can't believe it.  we think it is 'chance.'  so then, we try it again.  it's like falling backwards into someone's arms.

You can get help for this, it is not too late.

The next you are talking to God, can you please ask him for this Saturday's lottery numbers.

Thal

[pianistimo]

if God says to work six days a week - winning the lottery isn't going to improve your chances for total relaxation in the kingdom.  while we sit by and fan ourselves - there's going be people waiting in line to be flamed.  and, because of the fact that everyone had an equal chance here - the chances for being in the kingdom are much greater than the lottery.

ps i'm joking about never buying lottery tickets.  my son attempts to win his college tuition by asking me repeatedly to get lottery tickets.  i can't wait until he's 18.  then - he can waste his own money.

[ahinton]

line upon line.  precept upon precept.  something like that.  just like piano lessons.  you don't go in and ask to play the most difficult piece of music.  i think God is a teacher.  He first teaches us by letting us look at His creation.  we are like babies (even when teenagers and young adults).  we think we can take care of ourselves.  but, then somecrisis happens in our lives - or perhaps no crisis - but just a lot of questions.  we start talking and then - surprisingly God suddenly talks back to us in one form or another.

"Us", Susan? This is where you and others like you keep doing this kind of thing. "Us" isn't everyone - or, if it is, there's a whole lot of very deaf people around - but why?

at first, we can't believe it.

Let's get to the first first...

we think it is 'chance.'  so then, we try it again.  it's like falling backwards into someone's arms.

...and finding, too late, that no one is actually there - bad for the spine, is that. Have you been doing too much dancing, Susan? (and no, I'm not talking about the polar variety)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

if God says to work six days a week

...then i didn;t hear Him (no change there, then) and I've been overdoing it...

winning the lottery isn't going to improve your chances for total relaxation in the kingdom.  while we sit by and fan ourselves - there's going be people waiting in line to be flamed.

There's a perfectly good place for that already - it's called Pianostreet (and no, the flaming, when it occurs, is far from being any fault of the ever-patient Nils)

and, because of the fact that everyone had an equal chance here - the chances for being in the kingdom are much greater than the lottery.

You mean 13,999,999 to 1 instead of the round 14,000,000 that they cite over her in UK?...

ps i'm joking about never buying lottery tickets.  my son attempts to win his college tuition by asking me repeatedly to get lottery tickets.  i can't wait until he's 18.  then - he can waste his own money.

Try being a composer; there's a lottery for a career, ma chère!...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

I think he was talking about Timothy and Thalbergmad. Nonbelievers aren't theists.

I will not speak for Thalbergmad.

I have made it abundantly clear I AM a believer.

I am not always as calm about this as ahinton but I'll try to emulate him a bit.  I think it is rather unfair to accuse me of being ignorant of scripture.  I would have thought that an objective look would show that I have not only read it considerably more extensively than those I debate, but have also put effort into learning what the scholars say about the history of the Bible, the textual analysis, what the archaeology says about it, etc.

Although I was once Lutheran, in recent years I've come more and more to wonder if the greatest disservice Marty did us was what was once considered the greatest benefit:  giving the common man the Bible.  We  demonstrate over and over on this forum that the less people actually know about the Bible, the more positive they are that they can read and interpret it perfectly without any additional study, and that everybody else is wrong and going to hell. 

[ahinton]

I think it is rather unfair to accuse me of being ignorant of scripture.

The phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comes to mind...

I would have thought that an objective look would show that I have not only read it considerably more extensively than those I debate, but have also put effort into learning what the scholars say about the history of the Bible, the textual analysis, what the archaeology says about it, etc.

Although I was once Lutheran, in recent years I've come more and more to wonder if the greatest disservice Marty did us was what was once considered the greatest benefit:  giving the common man the Bible.  We  demonstrate over and over on this forum that the less people actually know about the Bible, the more positive they are that they can read and interpret it perfectly without any additional study, and that everybody else is wrong and going to hell. 

There are members here, just as there are far more people outside this forum, who have made detailed studies of Biblical scripture and who are intelligent enough to come to conclusions about its various aspects; as I have indicated before, it is not necessary to be a follower of Judaism or Christianity, or even of any religion whatsoever, in order to be capable of doing this and motivated to do it. Sadly, however, there have been more than enough posts on this and similar topics here to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the objectivity that you rightfully expect is notably lacking in some contributors.

I fear that the problem goes even deeper than you suggest here. It is one thing to argue and quarrel over the intended meaning of this or that piece of Biblical scripture, but quite another to argue and quarrel over religious belief. What I have noticed from time to time here is that some people choose - sometimes quite vociferously - to ensure that their individual takes on particular Biblical texts are influenced by a narrow, inflexible and unquestioning attitude to religion - a belief set, if you like - that appears largely to be based on the notion that human intelligence and powers of reasoning are - and indeed should be - totally subjugated by all-powerful faith. Now I am not for one moment suggesting that faith is a bad thing; that would indeed be beyond ridiculous! What disturbs me is when what seems to masquerade as faith is allowed - or even made - to get in the way of actual thought. This is invariably a by-product of the most simplistic tenets of the "God is good, God is always right, God is the ultimate judge of us all, all must follow God or be eternally damned" school of non-thinking, adherence to which demands that humans leave their brains and their emotions outside Church rather as Muslims leave their shoes outside the Mosque before entering (except for far less good reason). When this leads some people into declaring (even if only after being pressed several times by others for their true view) that all that matters is that Christ will come again and those who follow Him will be saved and those who don't will not, we enter an unseemly world of discrimination against all humans who happen not to be practising Christians - not something which i can imagine Christ Himself relishing at all - were I to lapse into irreverence for a moment here, I might almost be tempted to suggest that, were Christ indeed to come to earth again, he might take one look at this kind of thing and ask God the Father for a seat on the first plane back. I cannot therefore help but conclude that, not only is what you are suggesting correct, it is also the case that it seems to matter not at all how extensively or often some people actually do read the Bible, their stances are somehow predetermined so as to ensure that they make of it precisely what they choose in order that their interpretations be commensurate with those stances.

A classic case of this is the recent debate about "sin", in which it was suggested that this is - and should be regarded as - some kind of finite, never-changing, wholly definable and categorisable concept rather than something far more complex and fluid that has, like everything else, metamorphosed in accommodation of all the social, scientific and other changes that have occurred over the centuries. "Conscience" was, for example, brought into the argument at one point - and quite reasonably - yet without any apparent allowance for it being something that constantly develops as a consequence of the infinite variety of human experience and is never precisely alike beween any two people in any case.

It seems to me that, whenever any arguments are put forward that reveal themselves as being based upon established narrow and inflexible viewpoints, all semblance of debate terminates immediately, as there is no arguing or reasoning or discussion of any kind with anyone who knows that they and their beliefs are always right and that everyone else other than like-minded people is always wrong.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

alistair makes some good points.  and, i want to say again that i never claimed to be a 'scholar' but i DO think the bible is for the common people.  why else would God have given his commandments to the entire nation of israel (a huge community of every age and type) and also when he walked the earth - Jesus disciples were common fishermen.  he wanted obedience by faith and not by works.  works can also be studying.  and by studying you do show yourself approved to other people - but to God - this approval comes by taking some of what he says by faith.  how do i know how long methusalah lived (or noah for that matter) - and yet - people scoff and say the bible is fiction. or that a flood which covered the entire earth could not possibly be true. 

well, that is something that the common person may take by faith - but it is also unlikely to those that do not believe that Jesus Christ walked on water.  go ahead.  laugh.  but, God is God.  He can do well whatever he pleases and it doesn't have to jive with our brains.

another part of faith is prayer.  you don't have to be extremely smart to pray. the commonest person can have an active relationship with God and be able to have help in time of need - and saving grace.  he heals all our infirmities by his stripes - and i can say that many times when i was sick or my children were sick or we needed healing from broken bones or whatever - that prayer was effective. 

[ahinton]

i never claimed to be a 'scholar' but i DO think the bible is for the common people.

I didn't personally say that it wasn't, but my point - where my emphasis is slightly diffrent from Tim's - was that, regardless of how much or how often some people read the Bible, their preconditioning sometimes determines how they choose to interpret some of its texts and that this factor is as lilekly among "common people" (whatever they are) as "uncommon" ones; the problem is therefore where someone with "faith" argues with a Bible scholar who has a diffeent faith or none that their interpretation of any given passage is correct because of their faith and that the poor scholar must have goten it wrong because he/she doesn't happen to share that faith. We've seen plenty of instances of this on this forum in threads about such matters.

how do i know how long methusalah lived (or noah for that matter) - and yet - people scoff and say the bible is fiction. or that a flood which covered the entire earth could not possibly be true.

According to Gershwin, Methuselah lived 900 years, so that must be right because he was an adopted American Jew! (Gershwin, I mean - not Methuselah). OK, now let's be serious again. I don't say that the Bible is "fiction" - nor do I "scoff" at it; what I do say is this:
1. it appears to be incomplete
2. it contains facts, some of which may have been better remembered by their chroniclers than others
3. it also contains flights of poetic fantasy and literary imagery (it is a work of literature, after all)
4. it must be read as the multi-author series of volumes that it is
5. it was written over two centuries ago
6. Biblical times were immensely different in every respect from our own
7. the "flood covering the earth" and other things presented in it do not stand up to scientific scrutiny if taken literally
8. Written and spoken language and vocabularies have, like all aspects of communication, changed out of all recognition since Biblical times.

well, that is something that the common person may take by faith - but it is also unlikely to those that do not believe that Jesus Christ walked on water.  go ahead.  laugh.

Why? I haven't heard anything that's funny-ha-ha...

but, God is God.

Well, I never suggested that He's James Bond or President Bush, did I?!...

He can do well whatever he pleases and it doesn't have to jive with our brains.

Ah well, my non-dancing lets me out of any risk there, then...#

another part of faith is prayer.  you don't have to be extremely smart to pray. the commonest person can have an active relationship with God and be able to have help in time of need - and saving grace.  he heals all our infirmities by his stripes - and i can say that many times when i was sick or my children were sick or we needed healing from broken bones or whatever - that prayer was effective. 

This is something about which we will hopefully discover more as scientific progress continues. Prayer is, as best I can understand it, a directed manifestation of nervous energy of the kind that neuroscience knows little about as yet, just as the same science cannot yet give more than a whisker of explanatory evidence for how a composer gets ideas, how emotions work, etc. It will be interesting to see what comes out of these investigations over the years, but it may take a long time before such phenomena are really well understood.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

and i can say that many times when i was sick or my children were sick or we needed healing from broken bones or whatever - that prayer was effective. 

When you broke your leg, did you just prey, or did you prey and go to the hospital as well?

Thal

[pianistimo]

thal, of course i went to the hospital.  and, i don't think most christians avoid hospitals because they think that faith and science are somehow in opposition.  this is a fallacy.  science simply discovers what God made beforehand.  but, an interesting thing...the doctor said that in two years i would need complete knee replacement.  also, he said that my leg was so badly shatterred under the tibea plateau that i shouldn't try to do so much physical therapy right after surgery because some of the bones might stick up and start grating on the bones above it.

ok.  so i go into the hospital - and it wasn't even set the first day.  i'm relatively in agony (although pain deadens itself after awhile).  and that night my roomie has some friends in to pray for her - because she had to have a knee replacement (large gash up the leg with staples - and then -put in traction right away.  i knew she was in agony and much worse than me).  so her friends pray for her and i say 'amen.'  so then, they come over and ask if they can pray for me.  i say i need all the help i can get and would they please!  so, the fellow puts his hand right over the place where my bone is broken and pray that they don't have to cut into my leg the next day and that it will heal straight and be stronger than before.

now, this sounds odd - but after they left i felt a sense of peace and a lingering 'heat' over the part of my bone that was broken.  i didn't have the anxiousness that i had previously about whether they were going to cut or not cut.  in fact, i was fairly sure that everything was going to turn out postively.  i can't tell you why - other than just trusting that God heard that prayer.  i come out of surgery and find they didn't have to cut - and got BOTH bones connected.  i broke the mid-tibea and upper (right behind the knee) fibula (thin bone).  how they connected both of these at the same time is beyond me.  but anyways - then i had to keep them connected by not falling again or moving suddenly.  so i had this thigh high cast on.  this fall happened in october and i was tired of the thigh high cast by thanksgiving - so i took it off in the tub. 

everyone was saying - what did you do that for.  you're going to break it again.  well - it occurred to me that the outcome could also be very bad if i left it 'static' in a cast and didn't move it.  it might atrophy and then i'd have  areally hard time.  so, of course,the first day or so - i'm fine  until i fall and ouch it was painful - but it freed up my knee.  before i had this stick straight leg.  so, then i sit and swing my leg on the chair every day.  pretty soon - a week or few days later i have to go to the doctor.  they were expecting the x-ray to be bad because i took off the cast.  but it was straight.  almost like an arrow on both bones.  today, you wouldn't even know i broke it - excepting that i can't run.

anyways - so all this time i ask for prayers from family, church, etc. and i feel that it is healing well - but not sure if the tibea plateau will make me have to get knee replacement (which is yuk for bicyclists).  so i think - ok - i'm going to take a chance and go cycling.  falling would be bad - but not exercising worse.  so i go out and cycle.  it actually helped my leg and today i think has healed pretty well.

the doctor did not tell me to do these things or on what day and time to do them.  but, i felt somewhat confident when each step came that it was going to be ok.  it's hard to explain to someone else.  but, it's almost like God helps you with whatever choices you make - to make them successful - when you ask Him for help.

that's my opinion - and i'm sure that others think it's totally doctors.  i don't tend to think so.  in fact, i make sure to praise the doctor - but in my mind praise God even more - because he can help the doctor work efficiently, too.  btw, i really liked the doctor, too and think he was a very capable man.  but, it's not ALL man.  God is the one that actuates the healing process. the doctor could not make the tendons and ligaments grow back together - as some were badly torn.  the pain told me that it was not a small break that i had.  and miraculously - the bones did not stick out of the skin.  otherwise - i would definately have had to have surgery with risk of infection being much higher.

[pianistimo]

i forgot to say, also, that my knee doesn't give me much trouble unless it's going to rain.  i'm sort of a weather forecaster now.

[thalbergmad]

If the power of prayer worked, you would not have to go to hospital at all.

Thal

[pianistimo]

God does help those who help themselves.  i think it's a combination of medical treatment and faith.  unless an accident happens in the wilderness or something.  then, i'd say that God could help whoever is there to use good judgement.  always good to know cpr and basic stuff, i guess.

slightly off topic, but i thought the parmedics were angels when they brought the air cast.  i was afraid that i'd have to be moved on a stretcher with nothing holding my leg.  but, they put this cast  carefully underneath and blow it up.  that was the best i felt until i was casted.  unfortunately they had to take it back when i got to the hospital.  i tried to talk them out of it.

[thalbergmad]

Oh, i see.

Faith is not sufficient on its own.

Thal

[pianistimo]

faith without works is dead.  i mean you could be dead if you decide that you don't need a doctor.  that might be a bad judgement.

[thalbergmad]

Best not to rely too much on the almighty then.

Thal

[pianistimo]

let's put it this way.  with God - whether you live or die now is not as important as living eternally in His kingdom.  once you relax and trust God - He takes care of you in this life and the next.

i don't think He wants us dead.  i think he wants us to use good judgement and also rely on Him for the actual healing process.  which would happen whether the bone was set or not.

[thalbergmad]

let's put it this way.  with God - whether you live or die now is not as important as living eternally in His kingdom. 

I ain't going to his kingdom.

Pianowelsh has explained this to me.

My tambo banging rating is not high enough

Thal

[timothy42b]

One opinion expressed, or rather dragged painfully out of some people, is that salvation comes ONLY through one belief, and everybody else will spend billions of years being tortured in hell.  There is one and only one path, and those of us who are on it get to define how narrow it is, and it is optional whether we express our sorrow for the rest, or grin in smug satisfaction.

As a Christian I will now speak heresy.  You may write to your bishops and have me excommunicated if you wish.

I personally believe that path works for me, but a loving God did not abandon the rest of his peoples, and he provided alternate paths. 

I cannot prove this but to think otherwise imposes artificial limits on Him.  You may if you wish, I cannot bring myself to do so. 

[pianowelsh]

Im not going to bang on and on about this youve all heard enough BUT it is true that God did indeed say his creation was very good. THEN through adam sin entered the world. now weve gone over and over sin again and again But there is no ambiguity with God on what sin is and isnt and to him its a VERY serious matter - we were not created to do it! in fact sin is so bad that God is determined to create a new heaven and a new earth, even though when he made it he said it was good..sin has spoilt everything...and that is why Jesus had to make payment for it...He didnt come to show us a better way of living, he didnt come to see what men were like - he already knew.  He came with one purpose only and that was to make payment for our sin that those who would look to him and call out to him would be saved.....Yep thats right HE came to earth because you and I sinned and he came because you and I deserve death, and he died and rose again so that you and I can recieve LIFE  - enough said

This may put some perspective on it???

I know Thal is often flippant about me saying that unless yo trust in Christ you wont enter the kingdom of God...but its not my words its Scripture which is breathed of God.  the whole world stands condemned.. But Christ died and rose that anyone and everyone who hears the message of the cross and believes will not perish but have eternal life..

The message is here..the response is in your court  - not mine.

Have a blessed easter one and all.

[prometheus]

God committed suicide to right a sin he created himself.

[thalbergmad]

I know Thal is often flippant about me saying that unless yo trust in Christ you wont enter the kingdom of God...but its not my words its Scripture which is breathed of God. 

Indeed i have and i apologise.

I am at the moment reading a book called "you always have me". It is about people who have experienced visions and who have claimed to have met Christ. It is rather moving and perhaps it might change my outlook.

I still reserve the right to have fun with pianistimo though.

Thal

[cmg]

I am at the moment reading a book called "you always have me". It is about people who have experienced visions and who have claimed to have met Christ. It is rather moving and perhaps it might change my outlook.

Thal

   Are my eyes deceiving me?  Can this be?  Well, why not?  Alistair was converted to composition by Chopin.  Myself to psychoanalysis by Freud.  Pianistimo to the piano by pole dancing.  Anything, in a world where carpenters are resurrected, is possible. 

I admire your open mind, Thal. 

However, I'm now anxiously awaiting that double concerto for Tambourine and Piano.

p.s. shamefully neglected to thank you for Sharwenka "Variations."  So, thank you, sir. Belatedly. 

[thalbergmad]

I always like to try and keep an open mind, but i admit that my reading of late has been very much on the non-belief/Christianity debunking kind, so i need to try and balance that out with something a bit more pro.

If Earl Scruggs and Sean Moyles can convert me from piano to banjo, i guess anything is possible.

Thal

[becca91]

If you don't mind - I have a reading recommendation. There are two: "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. They are really good. Strobel is about a journalist who was a devout athiest and began to do a story on Christianity. It's all about what he found through interviews.

[maul]

Clearly, you should watch this:

https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937

[timothy42b]

If you don't mind - I have a reading recommendation. There are two: "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. They are really good. Strobel is about a journalist who was a devout athiest and began to do a story on Christianity. It's all about what he found through interviews.

No, no, no!

Please!

Absolutely do not start with Strobel.  Although he is one of the better apologists, he is still an apologist.  Only true believers can read an apologist and get anything out of it.  He is better than McDowell but not by much.

If you have intelligence and integrity, reading something like this will make you run from faith.

If, on the other hand, you start with some of the feel good "chicken soup" type writings, you might realize some of the emotional benefits and want to learn more.  I don't know, perhaps Rick Warren?  I'm sure there is lots of inspirational stuff out there.  At some point you've got to read Spong, as well.  But don't start with Lee, there's a good chance you'll close the book in disgust and we'll lose you. 

Strobel follows the time tested formula of "I was an atheist and I researched it thoroughly trying to disprove God and to my surprise proved that there is a God and He is just like the Baptists thought all along."  It's pretty much the C. S. Lewis story all over again.  (CS went from being a lukewarm Christian to a fervent one and claimed that was an atheist conversion.  Since then the "atheist" conversion has been a standard story.  We haven't been able to confirm a single actual case.)  Strobel's research consisted solely of interviewing other leading Christian apologists.  He talked to no skeptics, and considered no other religion (not actually being an atheist, he didn't realize they are not anti-christian, they don't believe in ANY gods).  He's been a megachurch pastor for 20 or 30 years while writing these very profitable books. 

[maul]

Please start with a gun to the temple.

[thalbergmad]

Absolutely do not start with Strobel. 

Dawkins next.

Thal

[timothy42b]

Dawkins next.

Thal

The Platinga vs Dawkins article is good.  Although his logic is fatally flawed, he does an impressive job of presenting it. 

[pianowelsh]

Ive said what im going to say.  Mindue I wouldnt read Dawkins myself..he's changed his mind fundamentally on what he believes so many times - I dont think even he knows what he believes   I know we are ok Thal - i just wanted to make it clear for others who may follow the thread the position i was coming from..
Happy Easter guys!!

[prometheus]

Whose logic is flawed? And what did Dawkins change his mind on? And is changing your mind a bad thing? Or is it just confusing you?

Anyway, a book written by a scientist who has changed his mind; that can only be interesting. Can't it?

[timothy42b]

Whose logic is flawed? And what did Dawkins change his mind on? And is changing your mind a bad thing? Or is it just confusing you?

Platinga attacks Dawkins.

Platinga's logic has some obvious flaws.

Dawkins logic is pretty much unassailable, though I don't like all his conclusions.