-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Losing Our Religion
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
And people accuse atheists of being arrogant.
goes to the idea of tribalism/familialism vs humanism
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
No, I mean we serve God by serving His servants, and all mankind are His servants. Sorry I wasn't clear.
i'm not accusing atheists of being arrogant. i'm accusing theists who act like atheists of being arrogant. they claim to know god but can't reproduce this god for those who are seeking god, questioning it.
i'm stating that experiential knowledge isn't going to find love, especially when always doubting that someone loves self, or self is unlovable. hatred and self-destruction are choices. we are quite capable of loving ourselves and others. we are called to serve all and not exclude self.
so a theist is basically only a theist in name but not necessarily in action. one who is beloved doesn't act like one who is hated.
being an atheist/theist doesn't make you better/worse. how one behaves towards their fellow being, determines their nature of arrogance. there are theists who behave like atheists and atheists who behave like theists.
titles don't necessarily make one exclusive to another.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I used to work under a team leader...who was once a deacon in his local church
he left his church and his faith in God
'there is no God'
and I said to him.....
Aren't you the guy that takes responsibility for the team?
Aren't you the guy that takes the more risky tasks unto himself?
and you continue to 'do unto others as you would have it done unto you'?
I continued....
the angelic will not overlook your everyday efforts
but your denial will earn for you a firm slap up side the head
let's hope they do no more than that
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you know what I meant.....my knee is part of god
dfnj
Well-Known Member
The more interesting question is why is there a need to be good to people in the first place. What is it that people are not having their needs met to begin with.
If we are all created in the image of God, then why not?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
The implication here is slavery is morally okay. How can the Bible be so WRONG on slavery if it were not written by men and not the divinely inspired word of God?
The implication here is slavery is morally okay. How can the Bible be so WRONG on slavery if it were not written by men and not the divinely inspired word of God?
I strong disagree.
Luke 12:57
You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and sky. Why don’t you know how to interpret the present time? And why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?
So, an invitation by Jesus for his audience to "interpret" the significance of the present moment - i.e. his teaching and ministry - by determining "for themselves" what is right/the truth...that's "obeying authority outside of yourself" and disregarding interior discernment? He's essentially asking them to think for themselves, to stop looking for divine signs outside themselves, "in the sky", and to look within themselves and decide for themselves.
When we turn to St. Paul's epistles, a significant message to be taken from these texts is that the "exterior" Old Testament law, imposed from without by a national deity in the form of Yahweh, is no longer binding upon Christians, who are now "free" to obey the inner law of their conscience - which means that one can still follow the ceremonial regulations of the Torah, if one so chooses, but cannot impose that personal choice on anyone else because every individual person is free to have their own "faith" in accordance with their conscience:
Romans 14
14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him...
5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds...
13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean...
22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God.
14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him...
5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds...
13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean...
22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God.
St. Paul also argued that Christians had no right to "judge" those outside their faith: "Why indeed is it my business to judge concerning those who are outside?" [I Cor. 5:12-13]
In 866 the Bulgarian Khan Boris sent a letter to Pope St. Nicholas the Great, asking him a series of questions about Christian faith and morals (since he hadn't even, as of yet, read the Bible). He wanted to convert to Christianity. The Pope wrote in response to his questions:
Chapter XLI.
Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force...
Violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing
Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force...
Violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing
By the high medieval era, the basic idea of the supreme authority of conscience had entered in the canon law tradition, in the form of Pope Gregory IX's Decretals and a 1201 letter from Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) to a woman called Guleilma, where he stated:
"...No one ought to act against his own conscience and he should follow his conscience rather than the judgement of the church when he is certain...one ought to suffer any evil rather than sin against conscience..."
Again, demonstrably untrue.
Luke 22:
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
25But Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.
27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Ancient Israel, before the foundation of the Monarchy, functioned as a de facto tribal democracy. Moses explicitly commanded the Israelites to elect their own tribal elders in what was - essentially - an ancient national federation/confederation of tribes under different appointed rulers.24 A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
25But Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.
27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
"Choose some wise, intelligent and experienced men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you as your rulers."
- Deuteronomy 1:13
- Deuteronomy 1:13
Our modern forms of government in the West are parliamentary democracies amounting to a form of "mixed government", not pure democracies in the classical Greek sense - where there were no elected officials or ministers but rather assemblies in which every man voted directly on what was going to happen in the country, without elected representatives or an executive or any separation of powers, making it very open to abuse and the dictatorship of the majority. The French Revolution tried to resurrect this aberrant classical model of democracy - which just ends up being anarchic and oddly enough also pretty totalitarian.
Our "Democracies" stem indirectly from Christian teaching and are composed of three distinct entities which share power so as to prevent absolutism: The Legislature, The Executive and the Judiciary.
This set-up is a combination of three classical forms of government into an "ideal" (as much as humanely possible) form of government which is partly a democracy (because there is an elected assembly), partly a monarchy (because there is a single sovereign or President) and partly an aristocracy because there are judges. Power is shared amongst these 3 branches of the state to prevent one organ or person from becoming tyrannical and abusing power, because rulers ultimately exist to "serve" like Our Lord Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, God Himself in the flesh.
This form of government was clearly endorsed by Saint Thomas Aquinas:
"...Accordingly, the best form of government is in a republic or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all, while under him are others having governing powers.
And yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all.
For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue, for it is written (Deut. I, 15): I took out of your tribes men wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers; so that there was an element of aristocracy.
But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people, for it is written (Exod. XVIII, 21): Provide out of all the people wise men, etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people. Hence it is written (Deut. I, 13): Let me have from among you wise men, etc. Consequently, it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law....All of the people should take some share in the government for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring..."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Doctor of the Church
And yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all.
For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue, for it is written (Deut. I, 15): I took out of your tribes men wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers; so that there was an element of aristocracy.
But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people, for it is written (Exod. XVIII, 21): Provide out of all the people wise men, etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people. Hence it is written (Deut. I, 13): Let me have from among you wise men, etc. Consequently, it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law....All of the people should take some share in the government for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring..."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Doctor of the Church
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
All laws should follow the Golden Rule. If it breaks the Golden Rule, it's not a good law.
Skipper
Wrong is wrong,/ Make America moral again.
When Jesus ascended to heaven he left work in serving others to his then present and future believers. If this were not true he would not have given us the Great Commission not would he have made the points he did in the Sermon on the Mount and this says nothing about the Final Judgement as recorded in Matthew.
So Jesus no longer answers prayers?
What does the final judgement have to do with anything?
If I see the fire department fighting a fire, I don't try to rush in and help; I stay back and let them work. Don't you? This isn't being uncharitable; it's just an acknowledgement that the people most qualified to solve the problem are on it, and that I can't do anything to help that they can't do without me.
Isn't God more capable than any team of firefighters? Is there any problem that God isn't already on top of?
I hear Christians saying things like "let go and let God:" don't worry about stuff, because God can take care of it. Are they wrong?
You mentioned Matthew; Matthew 8 gives a similat sentiment: Jesus calls those who worry about material needs like food "ye of little faith"... so why is, say, your neighbour's hunger sonething you feel you need to worry about?
And if your neighbour does starve to death and ends up in Heaven... why is that bad? Why is that an outcome you'd want to prevent?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I would put more faith in ourselves solving our own problems than God or Jesus. As far as I can tell God and Jesus are mostly indifferent to our suffering. Maybe your prayers are answered more than mine.
Skipper
Wrong is wrong,/ Make America moral again.
He answers prayers by having Christians respond to the needs of others.
Wh
Read what Jesus says will be ask of us during the Final Judgement.
Red herring analysis
Have you ever seen God put out a fire of a building being burned down without firefighters?
The only Christians I hear say such are those who do not want any responsibility of helping others and who ignore the teachings of Christ.
Why don't you stop eating and start praying the God will keep you from being hungry and see what happens.
Skipper
Wrong is wrong,/ Make America moral again.
Perhaps they are waiting for indifferent Christians to step in and help.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Uhhhhh . . . no!
The Christians who live by that ideal of faith often will give their last potato to a neighbor without worry over what either will eat tomorrow. The Christians that hold to that ideal often live on low fixed incomes and yet still give to charity without concern over what emergencies might hit their pocket next week. The Christians who live according to that kind of faith, don't mind reasonable tax increases if it means helping those less fortunate, even if they are pretty much on the bottom themselves.
I believe that is living the kind of life Jesus conveyed in His teachings.
Matthew 5:42
Matthew 6:25
Matthew 11:28-30
Last edited: