1. 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!

The Truth About God.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by SpiritualSon, May 10, 2004.

  1. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    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.
     
  2. MarkT

    MarkT Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  3. MarkT

    MarkT Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  4. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    A Christian who doesn't believe in free will? Whoa!
     
  5. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Mark T,

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

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

    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.
     
  6. teapot_tall_and_yummy

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  7. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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?
     
  8. teapot_tall_and_yummy

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  9. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    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.
     
  10. LCMS Sprecher

    LCMS Sprecher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +1
    If such were the case that we made only mistakes not sins, then there would be no need for God.
     
  11. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Thank you for making my point, LCMS. 8)
     
  12. MarkT

    MarkT Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  13. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Mark T,

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

    Ardhanariswar I'm back!

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Ratings:
    +66
    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.
     
  15. MarkT

    MarkT Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  16. Ardhanariswar

    Ardhanariswar I'm back!

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Ratings:
    +66
    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.
     
  17. SpiritualSon

    SpiritualSon Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
Loading...