ok, isn't building a temple a physical thing?
your spiritual argument doesn't apply because this, in your mind, physically happened. god physically intervened. do you see what i mean?
and you say it was for their our own good. unity is a beautiful thing. god said, and you believe he said it, that nothing would be impossible if humanity is united. so? what's wrong with that? did you happen to see last nights memorial for the victims of tucson shooting? that was unity, that was positive. the ideal of being unified is a wonderful positive thing.
again, you think this tower was a bad thing?
from what i'm getting is that we are here to serve gods purpose, right? if that were true, then what's the point in giving us free will while throwing an ultimatum and manipulation in the equation?
Yes, of course building the tower was physical. And though God didn't physically do anything, I agree that he intervened and altered some physical factor in the world. He confused the language, thus separating the people into various cultures and geographies. But His intervention wasn't to alter their physical selves, but their spiritual path. See what I am trying to say? I am obviously doing a bad job explaining myself. :sorry1:
Unity for the right cause is beautiful. But look at the Nazi's. They were unified, yet they wreaked havoc on the modern world. You can't make the blanket statement "unity is good" because unity is obviously not always good. The way I interpret this story, the people were unified for a negative cause. They wanted to make a name for themselves, give themselves the glory, and ultimately put themselves on the same level as God by trying to reach Heaven, which could have easily resulted in the loss of their souls. So yes, I think the tower was an excessively bad thing, even more so when we apply the story to our own lives. This tower was physical, but I think we all have one, some source of pride that we use to build ourselves up.
We are here to live lives dedicated to God, but if He
made us do that, what purpose would it serve? God loves his creation, and I don't believe he would take away our free will.I don't see too much manipulation in the question. It's very basic. Choose God, or do not choose God. Follow him, or do not. He gives us his commandments, and then we either follow them or don't. Noncompliance is of course an option, but God makes us aware of the consequences of our actions. I don't know about you, but I love my free will. :yes:
well actually it's an ongoing theme throughout the bible.
i used an old testament story and combined it with the new testament ideology. the ideal of god divides. look at the middle east.
how about here in the states. you realize the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word god originally. one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all...do you know when that was written? 1892. and in 1957 the word god was inserted ultimately causing what? division.
Oh, I wouldn't say God caused those divisions. People caused those divisions. Using that logic, just about everything is divisive. And then of course, we should even consider that divisive is not the opposite of peaceful. Violent is the opposite of peaceful. Many men of peace like MLK and Ghandi caused divisions, but that doesn't mean they weren't peaceful.
how were they putting their souls in danger? nothing would happen, they would just create a tower and that would have been it.
That's what I've been trying to explain to you this entire time. Any time you sin, you are endangering your soul. I think this is especially true when you try to place yourself at the same level of God out of pride. Look at Eve in the Garden. The snake told her that she would be like God if she ate the forbidden fruit, and she did so. This is the same kind of thing. The people, in their pride, were trying to reach the heavens. They were trying to place themselves, physically in this case, on the same plane as God and he thwarted that effort, knowing that by committing the sin of pride, they could be lost.
correct, so why intervene and cause division.
are people wired to be divided or united? you can't be saying unity is evil?
that would also apply to church gatherings, see what i mean?
Again, the people were leading themselves down a path of sin. I think it depends on the scenario as to whether people become divided or united. For example, Republicans and Democrats generally disagree, but they have both expressed their sympathy for the victims in Arizona this week. So no, unity is not inherently evil, but it is also not inherently good. Unity can be used for evil, as well. In the case of this tower, the people were using it for evil since they were disobeying God's commands to go forth and multiply, and indulging in their prideful natures.
well it looks like both you and i know that would be impossible, so wouldn't god know that too?
Of course He knew that theirs was a pointless effort, but He also knew their hearts and that they were sinning against him. He protected them from losing their spiritual safety by dividing their language and carrying on with His plan for the world.
wasn't the creation of the atom bomb the ultimate act of arrogance and pride?
Oh, perhaps that is so for the individual scientists who created and tested it, but I think we can agree that the atom bomb was not created for the purpose of arrogance and pride, as the Tower of Babel was. The Bible specifically says that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Their tower was a blatant display of arrogance and pride, but I think the atom bomb was mostly to murder innocents.
lets just say for the sake of argument this were in fact true, do you think the reason humanity is constantly at odds with each other is because we are divided and we don't understand? are you saying god wants humanity to be at odds with each other?
No. That's not what I'm saying. Humanity is constantly at odds with each other because we don't take it upon ourselves to understand. I applaud all the members of this forum for making efforts to understand people who are different from them. Anyone can understand with enough effort. Don't you feel like you understand me more just from this short discussion? Bridges can always be built and differences in language, culture, and religion can always be overcome. God even commands Christians to go forth and preach to all the world. He doesn't want us to be divided, but He doesn't want us all living up in some tower either.
we are born with sin and commanded to remedy it
I need context to address this. Where in the Bible do you draw this conclusion from?
how can you revert to punishment not realizing it's implication.
Elaborate?
so if life is god, then why separate the two
I'm not sure that life is God. I don't see how they could be interchangeable. I mean, I can say that I'm living but not that I'm Godding, right?
i just want to know why anyone would want to limit the possibilities.
placing labels on nature limits our capacity. being skeptical is key.
Who is limiting what possibilities? Sorry. It's been a long day! But of course, yes, skepticism is always commendable.
He is most famous for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after deceiving and defeating Licinius, his brother-in-law) and supposedly converting to Christianity. It is debated whether or not Constantine was actually a believer (according to his confessions and understanding of the faith) or just someone trying to use the church and the faith to his own advantage. Constantine called the Council of Niceathe first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, "There was when He was not." This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God
from the Father
not made." It was determined by the council that Christ was homoousia, meaning, one substance with the Father.
Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?
without constantine christianity wouldn't have flourished. and the roman catholic church was the church and then morphed into all sorts of denominations. in other words every christian religion is tied to the roman catholic church. have you noticed how the pope emulates caesar?
Even if not for Constantine, I tend to believe that God would have used another person to further His plans for the world. Constantine was like a tool in the grand scheme of Christianity. People are always pointing out how the Catholics made the Bible, and that's where I go on my faith. I believe that everything God intended to be there, is there. He would not allow His people to be led astray.
There was actually a decently healthy sect of early "Protestants" throughout history, though obviously they would not have gone by that name. But since the foundation of Christ's church, Catholics were not the only ones trying to follow God. And then again, I think God may have used the Catholic church to preserve His word. When you have a strong faith, you generally believe that God's hand in the world means that everything happens for the best. It's all part of His plan anyway, so I don't stress about the Catholic Church too often. And don't even get me started on the Pope. :jester5: I might insult someone on accident.
