OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

are you asking me?

 

[Bleed S & G]

they are both Abraham's line. even though Abraham demonstrated a lack of faith and slept with Sarah's handmaiden Haggar, God still promised to bless those descendants and make them a great people. but then there is the whole "Jacob have i loved; Esau have i hated" argument.

Lack of faith? I was under the impression he was told to because his wife couldn't have children.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

they are both Abraham's line. even though Abraham demonstrated a lack of faith and slept with Sarah's handmaiden Haggar, God still promised to bless those descendants and make them a great people. but then there is the whole "Jacob have i loved; Esau have i hated" argument.

They are absolutely both Abraham's children, however both Jews and Muslims claim one and only one is the child of the covenant. Both clearly would be the patriarchs of large nations but only one would be the covenant to be God's chosen people.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

are you asking me?

Sorry no, that was for BKB.

 

[Bleed S & G]

they are judged on the condition of their heart.

This is how everyone is judged IMO.. so i dont get the idea you have to accept Christ as your savior to get to heaven. whats the purpose of the age of accountability? something isn't connecting for me.. but to be honest I dont agree with the concept of purgatory, limbo, or hell at this point in my life.

 

[Bleed S & G]

They are absolutely both Abraham's children, however both Jews and Muslims claim one and only one is the child of the covenant. Both clearly would be the patriarchs of large nations but only one would be the covenant to be God's chosen people.

Yeah, muslims think they are right, chrsitans think they are right, jews think they are right. i doubt many people have faith in a belief they think is incorrect. I guess I dont get what your trying to get at?
edit: nvm hold on
edit: read your question scott, nevermind

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Do you understand that Jews and Muslims both claim that God promised Abraham that his line would be God's chosen people? Do you understand that the Jews claim that Isaac was the child of that promise? That Muslims claim Ismael was?

Yeah, I understand. But, I don't care. If I claim the same thing, should you care? Of course not. What if I set out to say Isaac and Ismael were both illitrate bags of hammers, that the real promise was made to Wimbley McPeters and I am the direct decendant? It's BS reasons like lineage and its alleged meanings that man goes to war with other men for centuries.... well.... assuming history is any indication anyway.

So it lends no credibility to you whatsoever given choice between which clan is God's chosen people the one who's claim has stood since Abraham or the one that came 3000 years later?

Your assumption is, of course, one of these two factions is "correct." My contention is they are both full of it. The "rationale" may have worked at convincing people in 10 BCE or even 1000 CE... but people, I like to think, have become smarter on average since then. Straight up power grab. "My religion is holy" "No, mine is more holy" "No it's not, mine is!" "Says you, but I have proof!" "No you dont, I do." "See, God promised this guy" "No he didnt', he promised this guy" "Nuh-ya" "Ya-huh"

Spare me.

Granted on their own that doesn't prove either one but I was trying to make the point there is evidence you can base your choice of religon on. Its not just I was born to Christian parents therefor I'm a Christian. If there was no evidence seperating religons why would anyone switch at all?

Its not evidence.

 

[Bleed S & G]

trying to find evidence for faith? good luck.

the only evidence you can find are those revealed to your own self. and maybe your own mind is making it up. maybe its the devil in your head. maybe its the holy spirit. maybe we're all crazy.. thats why its called faith and their are so many diffrent ones exsiting right now, and many before our time.

 

[Brewtus]

Granted on their own that doesn't prove either one but I was trying to make the point there is evidence you can base your choice of religon on. Its not just I was born to Christian parents therefor I'm a Christian. If there was no evidence seperating religons why would anyone switch at all?

And that's my point, the existence of God or the divinity of any given religion cannot be proven. It's frightening to me that so many people in this day and age of "enlightenment" can accept such a profound concept entirely on irrational belief. Every other decision they make in their lives (whether it's who they marry, what house they buy, what job they take, what they believe to be true in the media, etc.) is based on rational thinking and weighing the tangible evidence to help them decide what decision to make and what to believe. But a belief in God is irrational (i.e. based on faith) and none of their critical decision making skills come into play.

And why would anyone switch religions? Precisely because there is no evidence favoring one over another.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

trying to find evidence for faith? good luck.

the only evidence you can find are those revealed to your own self. and maybe your own mind is making it up. maybe its the devil in your head. maybe its the holy spirit. maybe we're all crazy.. thats why its called faith and their are so many diffrent ones exsiting right now, and many before our time.

BINGO. My point exactly. God, if He is, is a PERSONAL God... he reaches us individually... And, I should say, if it takes the Bible for God to reach you, so be it. I'm fine with that. But, what I'm not fine with, is that Christianity...Islam... Judiasm.. Buddhism.. any "ism" is the only way!

Because, as seems obvious to me, there are infinite ways to find the infinite.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Because, as seems obvious to me, there are infinite ways to find the infinite.

Nice, greens

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

It also takes irrationality to rule Him out by the way you're saying. Rational philosophical people have come up with the notion that their must be a God such as Mortimer J Adler. Read his How to Think about God and tell me how irrational that is. Now taking that to a particular religon is definately a matter of faith... and evidence.

This was in response to Brewtus.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Lack of faith? I was under the impression he was told to because his wife couldn't have children.

no. God told him he'd have a son. because his wife was barren, he banged her servant Haggar, hence the lack of faith that God could cause an old barren lady to bear fruitful seed. Sarah DID become pregnant and gave birth to Isaac, just like God said she would. the reason that the descendants of Ishmael are not the true children of God is, although they have become a great and powerful nation just as God promised, they were born out of a lack of faith.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And that's my point, the existence of God or the divinity of any given religion cannot be proven. It's frightening to me that so many people in this day and age of "enlightenment" can accept such a profound concept entirely on irrational belief. Every other decision they make in their lives (whether it's who they marry, what house they buy, what job they take, what they believe to be true in the media, etc.) is based on rational thinking and weighing the tangible evidence to help them decide what decision to make and what to believe. But a belief in God is irrational (i.e. based on faith) and none of their critical decision making skills come into play.

I agree here as well. Which is why I try and define what little I could know about God as the universe, which I can observe, test.. etc....... and not the words of some text. Of course, I also recognize I'm making assumptions and haev faith that those assumptions are correct... which is the reason why I don't hang my faith over anyone elses head, or demand anyone believe me.

Anyway, what I'm saying is, I try to evaulate God as "scientifically" as I can... Does what I observe make sense with what I think about the nature of God. And, so far, my answer has been "yes" But.. that could change, I suppose.

And why would anyone switch religions? Precisely because there is no evidence supporting one over another.

I would argue that one is never a religion at all... or, that is, one's religion should grow as they do. A man, like my father, with a simple faith would say "I'm catholic and I go to church, what more do I need?" and be done with the conversation. He's no longer growing religiously...

Like I said, that's fine if it works for someone... if it's enough. Actually, having been inside my head for the last 36 years, that's beautiful in it's relative ease... God bless a man with a simple unquestioning faith.
But....

Mine is a different path.

 

[Brewtus]

It also takes irrationality to rule Him out by the way you're saying. Rational philosophical people have come up with the notion that their must be a God such as Mortimer J Adler. Read his How to Think about God and tell me how irrational that is. Now taking that to a particular religon is definately a matter of faith... and evidence.

This was in response to Brewtus.

I was primarily referring to organized religion and the major faiths of the world. But still, the null hypothesis is that something doesn't exist, then if evidence is found the null hypothesis is rejected. I have yet to find anything remotely resembling evidence or facts that support the existence of God. (And pointing to a holy book and claiming that is evidence enough just doesn't cut it).
I'm not familiar with Adler's book and will look into it to learn more of his position. Thanks for the info.