The Truth About God.

[Lightkeeper]

Of course there are some metaphorical comments made in the Bible and such comments are extremely obvious. I am not saying every single phrase of the Bible should be taken exactly literally. Jesus uses metaphors in His parables. Metaphors are used numerous times in the book of Revelation. However, I believe the Bible should be taken literally in all other cases where metaphors are not expressly used.

What are some of the things we should take literally, which are not metaphors?

I think all holy scriptures speak to the soul and not the mind. When we intellectualize we lose the deepest meaning.

 

[MarkT]

You continually use the argument of a priori knowledge of god. In other words, gods have always been true regardless of the experience or knowledge of the individual.

A priori knowledge includes concepts like logic and mathematics - tangible consistencies that everyone can see and use on a daily basis. I can take 2 objects and place them with 2 others and see 4 objects.

And even though gods have NEVER been shown to be true, gods have no logical consistencies and cannot be seen by anyone, you lump your belief in gods together with logical consistencies.

Yu can therefore claim aliens visiting Earth is a priori knowledge - the existence of invisible pink unicorns is a priori knowledge. In fact, you can make any claim you want, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched and simply claim it as a priori knowledge.

Of course, you can never show or argue that gods exist, aliens visiting Earth or invisible pink unicorns in the same manner that I can show you 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Therefore your claim of a priori knowledge of god lacks and credibility whatsoever and is completely bogus.

You don't know what you're talking about.

A priori knowledge has to do with deductive reasoning and logic.

For example, you look out the window and see a nest. Without the a priori knowledge that bats don't build nests, you might be tempted to think it was a bat's nest.

Inductive reasoning would go something like this; birds build nests therefore bats should build nests.

 

[MarkT]

i do hope you are reffering to spiritual sight, not physical (like with the eyeballs).
not everyone needs miricles. no water turning into wine, no walking on water. i dont expect anything from God, I'm thankful for what He has given me.

perhaps those miricles are small ones. like little signs that everyone sees. fuzzy stuff...lol.

I was talking about the spiritual truth when I said Christ is the light we see things in. We see things in the light of his teaching.

But Jesus Christ was the true light, God's divine light, the light of life. When you see him when he returns, it will be like lightening that lights up the sky from east to west. Luke 17:24

People will see the light with their eyes. For as the lightening comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Matthew 24:27

Whoever lives and believes in Jesus Christ shall never die. Everyone who is of the truth hears his voice.

no one is born good or evil. its their actions that judge them according to human (?) morality. a person can be influenced by 'evil' surroundings and thus do evil, but no person is actually born 'evil'. its impossible. for example, a child is born in a cannible tribe. he doenst know its evil (according to our society). The kid was broughtup that way.

Relatively speaking, no one is good but God. The nature we're born with is opposed to God.

Children are innocent when they have no knowledge of evil. For example, without the a priori knowledge of death, they have to be taught to be careful crossing the street.

God created us to have *freewill*.

So it seems but depending on your perspective, God directs your steps. We can't change the past. As the past is to the present so the present is to the future. From our perspective we have the freewill to choose but we know Jesus chose his disciples and he knew one of them was a devil who would betray him. The freewill argument is man's arrogance.

God didn't create us to disobey him. It was the serpent who told us we have freewill.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A Christian who doesn't believe in free will? Whoa!

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mark T,

For example, you look out the window and see a nest. Without the a priori knowledge that bats don't build nests, you might be tempted to think it was a bat's nest.

Yes, but I wouldn't call that 'a priori' knowledge, I would call that scientific knowledge.

Relatively speaking, no one is good but God. The nature we're born with is opposed to God.

If that bothers him so much, perhaps he should do something about it.

Children are innocent when they have no knowledge of evil. For example, without the a priori knowledge of death, they have to be taught to be careful crossing the street.

Ah yes, but they don't have to be taught to lie, do they? Kids most certainly have a sense of 'evil'.

Well said about free-will. It is very interesting indeed hearing that come from a religious person.

 

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

Ceridwen -
I am curious about how kids have a 'sense' of evil. Unless they've been introduced to it, how can they feel it? When you're four years old, your biggest concern is how many colors of crayons you have. Youre not even remotely concerned with evil. Thats just makes no sense.

 

[Ceridwen018]

teapot,

Of course I'm not saying that kids are sitting around contemplating the difference between good and evil, but think about what I said: even a little four year old knows how to tell a lie-- they do it almost instictively. How do you explain that? Lying is certaintly not a trait which would fall under the 'good' category, do you think?

 

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

i wouldn't necessarily call it evil. Evil is an awfully strong word. A four year old telling his mom he made his bed when he didn't isnt evil. It's a mistake, and it certainly isn't good, I just wouldn't go so far as to call it evil.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Perhaps, compared to some higher and perfect being, ALL humans are children. Maybe humans do not commit evil at all, only make mistakes....maybe even adults do not have a 'sense' of evil.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

If such were the case that we made only mistakes not sins, then there would be no need for God.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thank you for making my point, LCMS. 8)

 

[MarkT]

By my definition, evil is that which takes away what God has given. Generally it refers to the act of taking someone's life. It could also refer to something said or something done which robs you of your faith or your innocence or your senses ie. an evil spirit, or to the person or spirit who causes the same to be done.

In that case lying to your children would be an evil act.

I think lying is related to our corrupt nature. It could be spiritually inherited. It could also be something the kids pick up by imitating their parents.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Mark T,

We cannot control our nature. Therefore, if our nature is truly corrupt, why are we blamed for it?

 

[Ardhanariswar]

what do u mean, 'taken away'??

there are plenty of evil out there that is done by ACTION. and thought. that is evil. there is not evil beings floating around. it doesnt exist as a pure essence.

lying is not neccesarily evil. an ugly person comes up to you and asks, 'how do i look?' would you say: "you look nasty!"?? i wouldnt.

sure your intentions about lying may be good. but in reality, no one can truly abstain from lying. theres a good and bad side to morality.

like suppose i kill in defence. i killed someone. i took life away. but i did in defense.

my point.

 

[MarkT]

We cannot control our nature. Therefore, if our nature is truly corrupt, why are we blamed for it?

You can control your nature to a certain extent by will power and by knowing and observing the Law. But that doesn't change the fact your nature is corrupt.

The Law couldn't do anything to change that.

As Gerani1248 has pointed out we can rationalize lying and killing.

So God began a new creation. The old creation is what you can see. The new creation is what you can't see. This is what we're hoping and waiting for. In this hope we were saved.

The Son of God came to us, the Holy One predicted in the Jewish religion, the Holy One they were waiting for. He came to the Jews first but they didn't recognize him.

His death and resurrection was the beginning of a new creation that's been going on for 2000 years now.

He gave us the words, the words that God gave him, so that by faith in his teaching, we could have a body like his, not one made of dust but of light, a spiritual body which can not be destroyed. His words were spirit and life. Whoever believes in him will inherit eternal life.

He was the Adam of this new creation and we are the children of God.

As to the old creation, it will pass away.

God doesn't blame. He raises vessels for his purpose, some to contain wrath made for destruction and some to contain mercy prepared for glory.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

not all nature is bad. i cannot see how you can label nature as good or bad.

nature is nature. its what a person would do in certain cercumstances. perhaps what he does in ACTION and THOUGH is evil or good. but nature itself cannot be evil or corrupt.

thats why i disagree about the whole concept of satan as one pure evil essence that exists in some fire.

i believe in satan as the type of satan in the book of Job as a counterpart to God that tests humans. our faith, our willingness to do good and be with God.

 

[SpiritualSon]

There is very little evidence in the Old Testament for a trinity of Persons.There is no real evidence at all in the Old Testament for a trinity of three persons. Search it as you will, the only things you may seize upon to confirm a trinity are the words, "Let us make man in our image" and the three angels that appeared to Abraham to tell him of Isaac's birth. The first one is dearly a plural of majesty, for it goes on to say, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him." (Genesis 1:27) It does not say, "created They him!" It also doesn't say in Genesis 1:1,"In the beginning the gods created heaven and earth.

In regard to the occasion when three angels appeared to Abraham, if we argued that the three angels represents the three Divine persons in one God, we might just as well argue that God is a multitude, for a multitude of angels appeared to the shepherds in Bethlehem on Christmas night. Furthermore, in the next chapter of Genesis only two angels appeared to Lot. If they represented the trinity, who was left out? We all believe one angel was sent to Mary.

But let us look at the other side of the picture from the Old Testament. What evidence of God in one person does it give? We find it full of statements which declare this truth. "Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Dent. 6:4) This is so definite, so positive, so clear. Or consider Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside Me there is no Savior." Imagine, if there had been a trinity of persons from eternity, the Father looking and seeing no Savior, passing by the Son as if He did not exist. Yet according to the Athanasian Creed, which all Christian orthodoxy swears by, "The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord, yet there be not three Gods and three Lords, but one God and one Lord."

There is not the least shadow of a doubt that there is a trinity in God. That is not the point. The point is: Is God a trinity of Persons, or is God one Person in whom dwelleth a trinity of attributes? The New Church believes that He is not a trinity of persons. A belief in a trinity of persons must lead inevitably, although perhaps not explicitly, to a belief in three separate Divine Beings, which amounts to a belief in three Gods, because to each Person in the Trinity is assigned a different office or function to perform, as that the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier. The New Church believes in a trinity, but it believes that it is a trinity of functions that cluster about one Personality who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Harry