• You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋
  • IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->
  • Unfortunately, yes, there is a suspension wave happening around the new tlp launch. :'( Please keep regular discussion to Suspension MegaThread and please consider submitting a Suspension report to RG.

Religion (1 Viewer)

Religion


  • Total voters
    101
blackobsidian said:
If your God made mankind in his own image and mankind is inherently flawed (as you've mentioned) does that mean that God himself is imperfect or that his creation of us was imperfect?

According to the Christian Scriptures, Genesis 1:26, God said, "Let Us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness." I find it interesting that God referred to Himself as "Our" and as "Us."

I believe that the answer is very simple as to why God would refer to Himself as if He is plural, and that is, because He is. He has a plural triune being, yet they are all connected in some way. The word "Trinity" is a word that old Christians came up with to explain the Christian God. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the beginning of the Scriptural creation account, God is the One who is saying the words, and the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters. We find later on in the New Testament that Jesus Christ was the means by which the world was created. Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and John 1 all state that the worlds were created through Jesus, and that He was very present in creation. The glue that holds it together if you will. Each person of the Trinity has an important role in creation.

So, black, to answer your question from a Christian perspective, I must note that if God the Father was existent in the beginning, and God the Spirit was existent in creation, and God the Son was existent in creation, all working together, all of the same "essence" to create the world and to create man, then that would mean that possibly there was a plan.

You see, the problem is that man does not have the same mind as does God. I think that anyone would agree with me when I say that if there is a God, then His mind should be greater than ours, and that He will have a far greater understanding of things than does man. In other words, He has the full picture of why He created the world, and would know the beginning and the end, while man can only know the past, present, and only a limited amount of that I might say. If God is the author, then He knows the end, while we are still living on page "Insert Number Here."

1 Peter 1 states that Jesus is the "foreordained lamb." Black, God may have created man in His own image, but man fell from that image in "The Fall of Man," that Scripture speaks about. So, to answer your question, "Did God make a flawed creation?" Could it be, that since God knows all, that quite possibly He would have created it to be this way on purpose, ie., created evil, and actually ordained man to fall? After all, He did have His Son Jesus, in whom the worlds were created through, existent from before time began, and anoint Him as the "foreordained lamb." The "lamb" to be slain.

As man, we only understand a little of the picture. That is the perfection of God in us. He knows all, and we don't. Our strength is weakness to Him, and our knowledge is folly to Him. Could it be that we may think it as a flaw but He views it as perfection? Paul said in Romans "who has become His counselor? Who has first given to Him and that He shall repay back?"

Black, please note that the reason that I am discussing and answering your question with Scripture is because you asked a scriptural question. Otherwise, I would not have included the Scripture. If God exists, then there are things about Him that we will never understand in this lifetime, and that is where the world deems Christians as weak, because they have faith in something that they do not fully understand.

I think that God did create evil, and that He is using it for His own purpose. If He created man in His own image, and we just lived, and there was no such thing as evil, but we all just existed, then would we really know love? Could we? Or could it be that the greatest love story ever told is of a man who died on behalf of a world who could not pay there own sin.

Again black, the reason that I used Scritpure was because you asked a question concerning Scripture, so I hope that I did not run off the track too much. This is how I view the Fall. I cannot argue without including faith. Whenever I do not understand something, I can do nothing but rely on the faith that I have, and the trust that I have that God knows what He is doing. I will agree with Andrew in that regardless of what myself, or any of us believe, the truth will be that there will be a truth at the end of our lives, and regardless if we believed it or not will never make a difference in whether it is there.

However, arguing with myself, if we cannot understand God fully, then my entire above post can be considered another "guess," lol. But, I base my understandings off of my convictions of Scritpure, and I just have faith in it. What can I say, I am "weak," lol.

Now I am going to go and ask myself why I jumped back in to this conversation, lol.
 
BTW,

I had some time to go back and re-read this thread, at least some of it, earlier today. I was not happy with the way that I responded in many of my posts.

I have been under alot of pesonal stress lately, and it seems that it bled into my discussions here. Usually, I like to consider myself as a pretty calm individual in religious discussions but I was not at my best at all in this thread.

Black, I also noticed that I missed some of your questions and requests that you had for me. Truth is, I got both overloaded and agitated. Overloaded in the fact that I didn't have time to read alot of the posts after our core conversation because of RL stuff, and agitated with LadyGator's comments, while being stressed out with life.

There is no justification for me being rude to her, none at all. I took up for myself when the fact is that I should have been passive on the entire ordeal.

If the conversation was to start all over, I think that I would have handled it in a far different manner.
 
I don't think you've been outragious in any posts Bema, far from it... If anything you've simply proven the very fact that we're all just human and prone to opinion, belief, supposition and making up our own minds based on what's presented to us. :)

Also thanks for the info on my comments; it's an interesting read. :)

A year or so I read a book which I know is classed as blasphemous to most Christians, however from a purely philosophical perspective much of what was written rings true for me (providing I take the book on the basis that it presents ideals and guidelines rather than the written word of God)

The book is the first of the "Conversations with God" series by Neale Donald Walsch.

In the book Neale presents the opinion with a certain amount of logic that if something was the ONLY thing, it would have no way to know of itself because in order to know something, we need a frame of reference. How would one know "light" if there was no "dark"?
The book suggests that in the beginning God was alone and singular but chose to experience himself and know himself by splitting himself into others with which he could have the experience (have you ever tried talking to yourself? Not much conversation huh? hehe) - Basically what he suggests is that all of us are a part of each other and in turn a part of God.
From the top of my head I cannot quote exactly and may have even recalled it slightly incorrectly but it makes a lot of sense if you read it. I'd definitely urge others to do so even if you find it distasteful because it can be read from a philosophical perspective rather than actual perspective.

"No harm ever came from reading a book..."
 
Bema,

I think it is wonderful that you posted what you did in your apology. It seemed to me that you and I have the same outlook in things as you stated that you were right with me on my posts with the exception of me telling the one guy to try Mormonism and hopefully it would lead him back to Christianity.
It seemed funny at the time because he listed about 10 different religions that he had been part of, except Mormonism. You wernt to happy with me doing this and when I read your post as to why, I immediately saw the error of my ways and appologized. I feel by his post he was looking for God and had not found him. God can fill that void he was searching for.

A friend and I were discussing the reaction you had to LadyGator and he mentioned about Christianity and how the reaction should have been different. I was a bit put off by your reaction to it, but summed it up as you are human and all of us have nerves that can be taunted to evil by others. I mentioned that you were only human and you did appologize.

I like seeing your posts and I get alot out of them, please stay in the thread but we do need to remember what Andrew1 reminded me in his post when Jesus talked about casting pearls. I keep thinking that one more post may be the one that sheds the light enough for someone to come to Christ, but I was reminded it is not my job to convert people, just to inform them. it is the Holy Spirits job to convict people in Christ.

I am not posting this toward ANYONE directly, but as the saying goes...

"You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink!"
 
Good morning!

I hold respect for the manner in which you express yourself, BlackObsidian. Thank you for asking questions.

Often times when the QUOTE function is used in forums, it is used as a tool to instill laser-like judgment on one or two points in one sentence rather than focus on the whole context of a person's statements. I wish for you to know that the only reason that I am using the QUOTE function is to ensure, for my errant self, that I do not miss one of your queries. I hope you will pardon its use.


blackobsidian said:
Question... Why is this making people angry?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6509127.stm

I cannot speak for others, but I can affirm that it does not anger me. I am indifferent to it.

blackobsidian said:
What makes this so different from the crucifixion scene displayed on posters, on churches, in churches, on car bumpers, on websites, on flyers and even worn around the necks of millions of people?

There is nothing different from a chocolate depiction of a crucifixion or those displayed using paper, stone, wood, metal, or any other medium. You seem to be confused as to why people are offended by a chocolate version. I share your confusion. It is not sensible.

blackobsidian said:
Also why even display the crucifixion so prominently anyway? If Jesus was indeed to return as has been forecast by many people, why would he want to have reminders everywhere of his death? Isn't it like forecasting the return of JFK and wearing little sniper rifles around your neck?

This question is a rather complex one to answer. A simplified answer is possible, but it assumes an understanding of the belief system that the cross/crucifixion plays a part in - Christianity. I'll attempt both as I have the impression that you are somewhat knowledgeable in the doctrine of most Christian denominations.

Simply: Humans have not the capacity to pay for their sins. Jesus was the solution. His death, to some Christians is significant enough that they wish the reminder of the loving sacrifice so that it might constantly encourage them to sin less.

More complex: Jesus, during his ministry, never pointed to a veneration of symbols. I am of the minority opinion that while the occupied cross or empty cross is a good reminder of the solution that God put in place for our sinful nature, the danger of idolatry is great as more emphasis is placed upon the symbols themselves. To many Christians, disrespect to the cross is offensive and many would seek to put down such offense. However, biblical scripture does not place any emphasis on the symbol, but rather uses it as a reference to the burden we all have with sin. The real focus on Jesus’ ministry needs to be not so much upon his death, but upon his resurrection and ascension. However, humans instead chose the cross as the symbolism of Christianity. It is an important reminder, but should be a reminder only.

As far as God's view of a chocolate crucifixion: I believe He will know the intention of the artist. The intention would determine whether mockery is involved.

blackobsidian said:
How would you feel if you were killed for your beliefs and opinions by being hung and then millions of people around the world began wearing nooses around their necks "in your name"?

This is an interesting question. It is also one that, unfortunately, I cannot answer. The person of topic in your question is Jesus, and as He is God incarnate, I cannot begin to fathom how he might view the veneration of the symbol: the cross, nor its use. I will say humbly, that I believe too much focus is placed on it, and there is a danger of idolatry. A reminder is great, but as you indicated, there seems to be more than just a reminding purpose in the world.

blackobsidian said:
Not meaning to sound insensitive but I don't understand it. :(

Join the club of Christians like myself who share your lack of understanding. This is precisely why there are many facets of a belief set. However, I will say that we as citizens need to be mindful of the complete removal of all "reminders." Such a ban has more involved, in most cases, than just removing the symbols of the different faiths. It's a tough balance.

I hope that I've answered some of your questions. If you have others, I'm happy to talk more.
 
Bema,

Good afternoon!

I am somewhat concerned about your view that God created Evil and that He uses it for His purpose. Please excuse that which is written below of I have misunderstood you in any way. I merely wish to elaborate on the topic as it may be interesting for some present.

-One of the most common reasons skeptics reject the existence of God is due to the presence of evil in this universe. They reason that a perfect God would not create a universe in which evil exists. Skeptics claim that since God created everything that God must have also created evil. They even cite Bible verses, such as:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)
However, evil is not really a created thing. You can't see, touch, feel, smell or hear evil. It is not one of the fundamental forces of physics, nor does it consist of matter, energy, or the spatial dimensions of the universe. Still, skeptics like to claim that God created evil and cite the Bible to "prove" their point. The Bible is quite clear that God is not the author of evil and insists that He is incapable of doing so.1

Love that King James translation!Skeptics love the KJV so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. In addition, the KJV was produced using a limited number of medieval manuscripts that did not represent the earliest Alexandrian set of manuscripts.

What do the modern translations say?

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7, NASB)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)
Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."

Amos 3:6

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6, NASB)
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6, NIV)
Likewise, Amos 3:6 uses the same word, râ‛âh, referring to calamity or disaster. the context (a disaster happening to a city) does not refer to moral evil.

Lamentations 3:38

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38, NIV)
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth? (Lamentations 3:38, NASB)
The King James Version of Lamentations 3:38 seems to suggest that God speaks both good and evil. However, if one reads the verse in context, the preceding verses indicate that God does not do or approve of evil.4 The verse following indicates that people should not complain in view of their sins.5 What the verse really is saying that God decrees times of good things and times of judgment. Lamentations was written by Jeremiah during a time of judgment, when Judah had gone off into exile. Jeremiah was chosen by God to be the prophet to tell Judah to reform or be judged. The people did not believe Jeremiah, and, therefore, fell under God's judgment. In Lamentations 3:38, the word translated "good" is ṭôb (Strong's H2896).6 The word usually refers to good things5 as opposed to bad things. Again, râ‛âh3 does not refer to moral evil, but calamities, in this verse. Likewise, the Bible commentaries indicate that the verse refers to God's judgment based upon people's sin.7

In conclusion: God is not the author of evil.8 However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. Therefore, God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) on those who rebel.9 God will ultimately judge all people, since rebels will not be allowed in the new, perfect creation.

----
The above was an existing apologetic from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

All credit for references and the explainatory form should likewise follow.

Also, the explaination includes "skeptics" regularly. I feel as though "skeptics" are sometimes used in a negative tone in the explaination. I ask those who are to pardon such an insinuation because I intend no such thing. Rather, the explaination was convenient in it's form.
 
Good evening, Alucard!

The answer to your question is known to you. Anything that has infinate power is not finite. What is the real question you seek an answer to?
 
Andrew,

Many people have a difficult time accepting my understanding the possibility of God creating evil, so I am not surprised that you would question it.

I understand what you are trying to say, or, at least I would like to. I was once at that point. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are essentially saying is that evil is basically not created, but, just exists. A hole in the ground just exists, and is only a hole because it is describing the absence of ground. Darkness is not created, but only the absence of light. And evil is not created, but only the absence of good.

But is it? Is that really a plausible answer? Does that mean that there are things outside of God's control? Did God not understand that evil would one day exist? Or could it be that He chose to use it for His glory.

Evil seemed to already be existent in this world before Adam and Eve sinned. The serpent is described as being evil, which means that the Fall of Lucifer had already happened at some point. Did God not realize that this evil would corrupt His creation?

As for the moral evil vs. natural evil, I also understand where you are coming from. I did a study on this at one point. I read alot of books from many philosophers coming from all different perspectives dealing with this issue. If you have time, I would invite you to read it.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not believe for a second that God is evil, but I do believe that He is sovereign and that He knows all. Thus, He is the One who places the hole in the ground, He is the One who created light understanding that the opposite would be darkness, and thus, created good, and the only way that we know good is because of evil. Otherwise, by what standard would we have to measure good?
 

Attachments

  • God and Evil Word.doc
    60.5 KB · Views: 77
Good morning =D

Andrew1 said:
Good evening, Alucard!

The answer to your question is known to you. Anything that has infinate power is not finite. What is the real question you seek an answer to?
How can God's power be limited to only create good if he can do everything.
 
I have to chime in on this one.......ok now who is to say the bible wasn't lost in translation....i mean how can we know which one is really which with all the other versions out there to buy.....i mean it is like a he might have said one thing and meant it a certain way and someone might take it a whole different level and literally translate it that way.....where is the very first bible and can we get just one friggen copy of it. Sorry i had to go and buy a bible and they had numerous versions of it and i asked the difference and they had no explanation for them besides the ones that are stupified for people like me and then the hard to understand bibles.
 
I hear ya SOLO. I was told that the authorized king james version is the closest translation to the original scrolls for english. Is that true...i dont know. But that is what i think
 
Good morning, RedBema!

Thank you for the literature. It was very interesting. While I still consider this area regularly, I'm inclined on many occasions, dare I say moved from within, to question less, the benevolence of God, or His reasoning. In usual Forum Form, I will state what I am not insinuating to avoid misinterpretation. :) I am not of the opinion that you question the benevolence of God. I simply find the thought among my other questions the deeper I attempt to understand things as "simple" as Free Will and ungodly intentions and Evil. This resolution usually leads me back to what my focus should be on and I am able to continue momentum. You are likely a good example of, "the more you learn, the more questions you have."

I might impress upon you this horrific attempt at an analogy.

Imagine you, as a parent, and one who earnestly devotes themselves to the "good" upbringing of your child, find that your adolescent has chosen to partake in an extremely dangerous and addictive drug regularly. As an adult, you know that the result of this dangerous and addictive drug on your child will be destructive to say the least. The last thing on your mind, because you love your child, would be to will your child out of existence, atomized and blown among the dust of space. A wise parent would realize that no amount of brute force is going to help the situation - even the judicial system is aware of that, hence the rehabilitation programs that litter our society. The choice must be the child's to acknowledge the bad choice and move in the opposite direction as much as possible. As a parent, you would do what you can to encourage that choice.

This is a rather simplistic version of my reason for the existence of that which we consider Evil. I am of the opinion that Evil is not a person, a place, nor a thing and thus, not created. I believe it is a decision - one usually focused inwardly and with an agenda not commonly accepted as good, be it using God's Law or Man's Law. The problem with Man having a choice with his life to do with it what he wills is that the possibility of making a choice against the wellbeing of others exists. Granted, an omniscient being would know which of us would make such a choice - but I believe I'm safe to say that all of us have, and on a daily basis. At this point, if God knows that each of us will make evil choices in our lives, should he not forego the creation of Man? One might argue that such a divine intervention removes the original purpose - Free Will. The right to choose for ourselves and not be robotic. Perhaps...perhaps some might choose God in the end. Of course, at this point you and I know how the rest of the story might go, from the foreknowledge of the need for a plan of redemption to it's fulfillment, the opportunity at Free Will was less the problem than trying to encourage your child to move away from the addictive, life-destroying narcotic on his own.

I agree with you that God can use our bad choices (perhaps even Evil intentions) for ultimately good purposes. While you as a parent did not wish or will your child to get into narcotics, once free of them, you might continue to encourage your child to help others get free of them. Hopefully I appear to be saying the same thing as you're thinking, but I am leery of using the wording, "God uses Evil to glorify Himself." I think this communicates too much and without many assumptions is counter to your belief in His benevolence. To say that God can take the evil decisions of men and work them into something useful or good is, perhaps, a better way to say the same thing you mean.

I only hope the rest of our Forum members will pardon our exchanges, lest we spam them relentlessly!
 
Solo1999, good morning!

There are three main processes of translation that I know of for the Bible.

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
and Paraphrasing.

Here is a link to a list of many of the translations that exist today and what category the fall into. The question you ask is rather tremendous and I'm no linguist. Personally, I usually compare the King James Version with the New International Version, and the New American Standard Bible. I prefer to read the New International Version, but when a question arises it is important, to me, to compare translations. As you smartly stated, the translations differ, because the group of liguists do not always use the same equivalent, and languages have many words that can mean the same thing depending on context.

As far as being "lost in translation," if you want there are quite a few respectable references online to scriptural translation. I'd be happy to point a few out if you like. I prefer the ones that are from archeologists. I especially like the ones that are from archeologists that do not openly confess a Christian, Jewish, or similar background. I feel that if the archeologist is seeking to disprove and is finding instead, evidence for the validity of the bible, it is more impactful.

Oopse, the link: http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/solarmyth/bibles.html
 
Andrew,

Thank you for your response!

I enjoy conversations with people about theology. I have been down a long long road dealing with free will and predestination.

I will do my best to explain a couple of questions in a short manner because I must be getting ready for class here in a bit.

1. Did God create good? Or is good a created thing to you? Do you think evil is the opposite of good?

2. Can a man lose his salvation?

Just wanted to gather your thoughts.
 
RedBema said:
1. Did God create good? Or is good a created thing to you? Do you think evil is the opposite of good?

2. Can a man lose his salvation?

Just wanted to gather your thoughts.
1. Even if good is only made by me it still comes indirectly from God, as God created me. As far as I know evil is of course the opposite of good?

2. Anything always has the potential to become good.
 
Thanks for the detailed reply Andrew1.

I think the use of symbols is to advertise a personal opinion to other people and allow like-minded people to gravitate toward them. As a very crude comparison, it's like "band t-shirts" being worn by people to say, "hey, I like BandX, come and speak to me about it"

The main reason for using the crucifixion as a "symbol" of a faith I would guess is to remind people of the reason behind it... Take an basic symbol such as:-

\/|/\|

You could easily and happily adopt it as a symbol for a religion but if you thought about it, over the period of centuries there's a distinct possibility that people would forget the reason behind the symbol, even if there was a good reason initially.

With the crucifix there will never be an "oops! I don't know what it means!" period.

In a way it could be seen to be VERY good advertising... Advertising that will continue over generations and no-one will forget because it's obvious just by looking at it that a man was nailed-up on a cross to die.
 
Some satirical humour for you guys:-

Rumour has it the first page of the bible has just been found.

The page is currently being carbon-dated in Bonne.

If genuine, it belongs at the very beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, "All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.
 
I dont see Pagan/ Wiccan /Animist on the choices. Even the US military has been forced to recognize them as real religions. You even left out Taoism, Hindu, Satanism, and, Confucianism.
Not to mention Native American Spirituality.
 
Yes, those are growing in popularity, but I'm really only looking for the more popular religions in the west.
 
BTW I like this:

Atheist
Agnostic
Catholic
Protestant
Other Christian

Didnt know Atheists where christians =)

- decker
 
whats with the whole post count thing? i mean cmon its only posts...


(ignore my hypocrisy)

ps: waddup smokin
 
Last edited:
Religion

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top