|
Post by yojetak on Jul 18, 2009 18:14:24 GMT -5
GDI. Everything makes sense now.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jul 19, 2009 11:14:43 GMT -5
1sunchild, I'm pretty much being a dittohead with John's last three posts. I don't think it's a bad thing that you admit you don't have the answers, and I like that. I wouldn't worry too much about "steering us wrong." You're giving us an insight on how you see things, not giving us a response that's to be dogmatically accepted. And scriptures don't need to be given as a reason before you start explaining, although I don't mind if you reference them.
There was another visitor from RR who was posting on the old message board. Her nick was "curious" and we were having some rather lively discussion. It didn't bother me that she believed wholeheartedly in the rapture because there was something different in her attitude. In fact, we ran some guy out of the forums for giving her a really hard time.
It does seem that a frighteningly large number of RR posters are just a bunch of modern Pharisees. They've run out of their forums people who were essentially teetering on belief. They accept garbage apologetics as "great wisdom" (and yes, I've read some good apologetics, even if they didn't accomplish their mission) I've seen them agree with idiotic assertions just because there's two scriptural references that needed a crowbar in order to fit the topic. And somehow, this is considered okay because it's supposed to be strengthening your relationship with your creator?
Don't take it personally, just having you over here and conversing without being condescended to because I don't have the right "relationship" is half past awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 19, 2009 11:53:13 GMT -5
Really?
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jul 19, 2009 12:14:17 GMT -5
Yes, but they've also failed in their mission to convince me there is a supernatural existence.
There's some of Real Live Preacher's old essays which I consider well done on the topic of spirituality. Some of the Catholic Saints like St. Francis has plenty of great wisdom.
Garbage like David J. Stewart and Ray Comfort is so heavy on pathos, I almost have a hard time breathing.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jul 19, 2009 12:46:41 GMT -5
Why does someone who does not believe in God or someone who believes in a different way so threaten so many Christians, that they feel a need to force everyone to pretend (you have to know you won't get real believers) to believe the same way?
Why does a personal relationship with the divine have to follow any set standards or rules besides the ones shared by all religions and most secular societies, about being good to other people?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 20, 2009 9:21:13 GMT -5
I've never heard of any such thing as "good" apologetics. >_>
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Jul 20, 2009 9:33:24 GMT -5
So why did you ask? Santa Claus here says he/it is.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jul 20, 2009 9:54:07 GMT -5
I've never heard of any such thing as "good" apologetics. >_> Fine. I never said I was an authority, nor did I ever say I was a perfectly composed forum regular. This is what I mean: There's theological/philosophical stuff on a bookshelf. The top shelf is the really insightful stuff. This is where I'd rate the stuff from St. Francis, Real Live Preacher, those Christians who don't wear their religion on their sleeve and wonder why their wrist hurts because they've been waving it around all day slapping everyone across the face. There's the middle shelf that seems a bit heavy-handed, but the points are still a good read. Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Jim Wallis, articles from Society of Mutual Autopsy, etc. Then there's the bottom shelf. The likes of Albert Moheler, Hank Hanegraaf, Billy Graham and Chuck Stanley. There is a large number of RR regulars that get their "great apologetic material" out of the toilet bowl down the hall. Is that a bit better?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jul 20, 2009 19:00:54 GMT -5
As for me, i try not to question too many things God-related. I think thats what screws me up at times. There are also so many things I have questions to, without any solid answers. You try not to question your beliefs because it confuses you and there aren't any good answers? Doesn't that tell you something? Ultimately, what harm can come from questioning your beliefs? If your beliefs are accurate, questioning them honestly will lead you to the conclusion that you were right, which will strengthen your faith. But if your beliefs are wrong, why wouldn't you want to find that out? I question my beliefs constantly. It can be uncomfortable and difficult, but it's always worth it, regardless of whether it confirms or contradicts my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jul 24, 2009 18:45:15 GMT -5
I have a question:
If God is the source of all morality because it is his nature, and he cannot act contrary to his nature, why is he still considered moral if he does things that in a human would be considered immoral?
"Because he's God" doesn't really cut it, since then you're saying that he's got a different set of morals that he's working from. In order to do that, wouldn't he have to act contrary to his nature (which is where we (supposedly) get our morals from)?
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 24, 2009 19:00:51 GMT -5
Less confusing version of what Marc's asking: Why is killing prostitutes okay when God does it, but not when Jack the Ripper does it?
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jul 25, 2009 1:26:37 GMT -5
Less confusing version of what Marc's asking: Why is killing prostitutes okay when God does it, but not when Jack the Ripper does it? Oh, Oh, I know this one...Because he's GOD and we are his creations so he may destroy whomever he chooses.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jul 25, 2009 13:29:54 GMT -5
Less confusing version of what Marc's asking: Why is killing prostitutes okay when God does it, but not when Jack the Ripper does it? Oh, Oh, I know this one...Because he's GOD and we are his creations so he may destroy whomever he chooses. Lithp, thank you. Kristine, the problem is, if killing is immoral for us, then it should be immoral for God, if he is unable to act against his nature (where morals supposedly come from). Like Lithp said, I sound a little confusing in my post, so I will try to clarify: When I was on RR a couple of weeks ago, I asked them if a thing was moral/immoral because God said it was, or did God say a thing was moral/immoral because it was inherently so. Choice a, of course, implies arbitrary morals, while choice b negates the need for a god to reveal morals to humanity. Their response was that things are moral/immoral because they were part of God's divine character. In other words, it's immoral to kill because it's part of who God is (Yes, I know. Work with me on it for a moment, please). Another thing they told me in that thread is that God cannot act contrary to his nature. In other words, God should not be able to kill-after all, it's supposedly a part of his nature. Obviously God does kill (take Lithp's example of prostitutes). If it's immoral for us to kill, then it should be impossible for God to kill, as it would go against his nature. So, like Lithp said, why is it immoral for us to kill, while not for God? Again, it can't be because he's God, because that means he has a different moral code than us, and one would have to ask where he got that moral code from. Marc
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jul 25, 2009 14:27:45 GMT -5
When did god kill prostitutes again?
Also this goes to the nature of killing....hold on *twists psyche into a pretzel * For one human to kill another it is murder, but for GOD to kill a man it is the equivalent of a man stepping on an ant. Murder is the killing of your own kind - so killing isn't the bad thing - murder is.
The only way for god to commit murder is if he killed another god - but as there are no other gods that would be impossible.
We are His creations so He can unmake us if he so chooses, but we are bad if we unmake each other or ourselves.
*untwists* or so the logic goes.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jul 25, 2009 15:41:53 GMT -5
Y'know what's scary? That... actually... kinda makes sense.
|
|