Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
therein lies my point. Each dfinition I've heard for this God is different, so why would any rational person believe soemthing whose definition changes depending on who you are talking to. Words have meanings and these meanings have value. It bugs me when people say "oh God is the universe" because it just puts so much extra baggage on what you're talking about when you say "god" when the "universe" is a perfectly good word. Same for you, when you say that somehow your God is not supernatural, well then you diluted the meaning of the word "god" so it has no value, at least not the value or language gives it
Sure, maybe scientists gave us global warming, maybe they didn't, but science itself certainly didn't. But if you wnat to say it did, science also gave us penicilin, it cured small pox (from which you'd be dead by now if we didn''t have a cure) and it mapped the world and proved it wasn't flat.
You're barking up the wrong tree, TLS. and you are immoral as well for believing in agod that sets up ultimatums while squashing rational thought and skeptisim
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible - that is, the Septuagint - predated Jesus, actually. It was compiled by Alexandrian Jews, IIRC. No, it did contain some books that are not in the current Hebrew Bible, but they were current at the time and were subsequently excised. None of those books are particularly proto-Christian, though the Maccabees did contain arguably Jewish national sentiment. These books are still in usage of some Christian faiths, but others have followed Judaism and rejected them.
What did reformulate the Old Testament as you say into predicting the coming of Christ was basically rearranging the order of books, so all the history is put at the front and the prophecy makes up the rest of the book, with the other stuff in the middle.
It's not that simple, simply put. Aside from that being the history that gives context to Jesus' actions, a lot of what the Old Testament has - the psalms and proverbs - are still considered in some sense relevant. As too are the prophets as they predict the Messiah; and it's popular to draw ethical conclusions from other stories and so on. There are also readings of the Old Testament which see a lot of it as allegories for the events of the New Testament - the most famous and popularised example is the idea that the snake in the Garden of Eden is Satan, and the reference there to Eve's son smiting the snake's head with his foot refers to what Jesus is gonna do to Satan when the time comes (hence a rather obvious reference in the Mel Gibson movie, if anyone's curious as to why Caviezel crushed a serpent with his foot in that picture. No? Nobody? Moving on...)
I am trying to read and appreciate what you are saying (and I do!) but it still sounds like there's a lot of picking and choosing going on, otherwise all the OT would still be used.
Reformed refers to the Reformed churches. Try looking up "Reformed theology."
Everything in Reformed theology has epistemic warrant.
Where in the Bible do we find statements like God's goal is "all (as in each and every) shall or should be saved." Nowhere. God's goal is to create a people for Himself. The target audience is the elect. They are the ones who shall be saved.
Deviations are there in order to be stumbling blocks for some. Reformed theology can account for this directly from Scripture. Have you forgotten what Paul himself wrote about in the last days, God shall even cause a deception to fall upon some?
Did God plant evidence to "find them guilty." No, He planted evidence to confirm them in the guilt. There is a judicial quality to his hardening. Even the most radical Supralapsarian agrees to the fact that the decree to reprobate considers the reprobate as sinners, not as people apart from the guilt of sin itself. To say otherwise is to misrepresent Reformed theology.
As to your final paragraph, please give me your rational. Stating it and demonstrating it are not synonymous. It amounts to "If God decides to save some and not others" then He's evil. Really? Is that an external or internal critique.
If an internal critique,you need to demonstrate the problem by crafting an argument that position is inconsistent with,let's say,what the Bible says about sin,built, salvation, election, and reprobation. If an external critique, you need to craft an argument that your way is to be preferred.
From my perspective, you've done quite a good job of peforming mental gymnastics to make the rules of the God game work in your favor. You were obviously an Arminian before you came to where you are now, and it takes quite a few mental gymnastics to believe most of what Armiinians teach,for when you stack Arminian theology up to what the Bible actually says, it doesn't match. Reformed theology has always been based on exegetical theology. We don't check out our minds to the Magisterium, Holy Tradition, or to the latest philosophical fads.
Oh, absolutely. In fairness to Christians today though, it's follow the leader. Leviticus is basically irrelevant, but the New Testament's the one that tells them it's irrelevant. I suppose it's relevant to know what the now-irrelevant thing is to appreciate its former relevance... ahem.
This is unfair (albeit typical). You check your minds out to your own dogmas rather than the dogmas of the Catholic Church, or, alternately, they work within the doctrines of their rather distinct tradition. The swagger of 'my faith has greater intellectual validity than your faith!' isn't something that goes very far when confronted with frighteningly rigorous intellects, particularly the faith of Aquinas. You tried reading Summa Theologica? Hefty going, I assure you.
A
Amaris
Guest
So God planted evidence to prove their "guilt". I say "guilt" because their only crime is not believing in a god who won't show himself to everyone
so that they may decide with real knowledge and real choices, not upon threat of death for not choosing the right god among millions.
Instead of saving them, he made their burdens heavier.
What an asshole.
From your perspective you not only believe in something that has never been proven to exist, but you give allegiance and obedience to it, while telling others that they use mental gymnastics by not believing in the invisible being that you choose to worship.
Yeah, I'm really concerned.
J.
It is true that the Septuagint was produced by the Hellenistic diaspora, for use in an environment where Hebrew was not a common language. When referring to the translation, I was referring to the overall effort to create a Christian version of the Torah which used this as a source text. My views on it are also colored by the fact that since its creation Jewish scholars have generally held a dim view of it due to its associations with a different faith. Essentially, broadly speaking it's regarded as the Christian rather than Jewish version of the text, although it did start off in Jewish usage.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Sure, maybe scientists gave us global warming, maybe they didn't, but science itself certainly didn't. But if you wnat to say it did, science also gave us penicilin, it cured small pox (from which you'd be dead by now if we didn''t have a cure) and it mapped the world and proved it wasn't flat.
You're barking up the wrong tree, TLS. and you are immoral as well for believing in agod that sets up ultimatums while squashing rational thought and skeptisim
I'll let God judge my morality and my transgressions as He will judge all men. But I completely support your right not to accept Christ the Redeemer. Best of luck.
In other words:
"Live long and prosper."
-Spock to the Vulcan Science Academy, Star Trek (2009)
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Absolutely! (but I'll take the '66 version of Spock anyday)
Last edited:
Sure, maybe scientists gave us global warming, maybe they didn't, but science itself certainly didn't. But if you wnat to say it did, science also gave us penicilin, it cured small pox (from which you'd be dead by now if we didn''t have a cure) and it mapped the world and proved it wasn't flat.Hey JP, is that from the same scientists that gave us global warmimg?
You're barking up the wrong tree, TLS. and you are immoral as well for believing in agod that sets up ultimatums while squashing rational thought and skeptisim
I'll let God judge my morality and my transgressions as He will judge all men. But I completely support your right not to accept Christ the Redeemer. Best of luck.
I was mainly addressing your little dis against at science. You still didn't address that.
That said, I still think you haven'\t answered for the language that is being used in the bible, the language of fascism that is the supernatural offer of either accepting jesus or burning. It's a might makes right philosophy. Why is this a just way for god to govenm the universe. Do you have any empathy?
Accept Jesus as savior or be tortured is basically what some argue, and I'd agree that through that lens, religion isn't particularly attractive.
I hate to break it to you, but you just admitted to insulting us.
Ya think?
Seriously though, as I appreciate your thoughtful posts, I just can't get past this and many aspects of religion. Since there is no way to prove or disprove anything supernatural or that happens after death, religion is like an opportunistic virus that wedges it's way wherever it can, a spineless placebo. I also think it does a terrible thing to people who have accomplished something: the most religious will credit god rather than themselves. That's unforgiveale. On that note, people say that their lives and self esteem has been helped by their faith. That's BS. Sorry, it is. How does religion help? Bytearing down a person sense of self-worth and then rebuiding so that the faith is at the center of it. I also don't believe in the indoctrination of children. I'm sorry but I could go on.
Even if God could be demonstrated, and even if somehow the bible were true, he'd not be worth my time. I'd ask him why he is so vain and cruel.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I'm a supporter of science, just not bad science. I also think it's silly to look at science as a be all end all. Not saying you do that but some people do.
As far as your latter point, I disagree. I'm a believer in making my own choices in life and this is just one of them.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Sorry, that wasn't my intention! I was being serious in wishing everyone a Spocko, circa '66.
I agree there is a bad science, because the scientific process itself is carried out by flawed humans. However the process itself is sound, as it involves peer-review, independant verification, and indeendant study. This process might not be pperfect but I will say that it is the most consistently reliable way to assess reality that we have, or, even could have.
Supernatural claims, however, are more personal. If you believe in God, fine, but don't look down on someone because they require evidence. I think, no offence, you tend to do that. Unless your said supernatural claim can be tested, or verified somehow, it is strictly heresay and has no place in the classroom or public policy.
If you are so certian that Jesus is the way, surely you could actually provide evidence?
Supernatural claims, however, are more personal. If you believe in God, fine, but don't look down on someone because they require evidence. I think, no offence, you tend to do that. Unless your said supernatural claim can be tested, or verified somehow, it is strictly heresay and has no place in the classroom or public policy.
If you are so certian that Jesus is the way, surely you could actually provide evidence?
Similar threads
