Belief in God would be so much easier if it weren't for religion

[Guy Incognito]

Who created hell, guy?

The sinner creates hell for himself.

 

[Black Dog]

Mr. Dog, I only read your posts, not those responding to you. I'm not really interested in what an atheist has to say about Jesus. I'm interesting in rebuking my brother Christian.

Again I was not incorrect. So it is still an issue with your misinterpretation of what I said.

Let's try an analogy. Let's say you're drowning and Jesus threw you a life preserver, yelling to you, "Please take this life preserver, it is in your best interest." You turned your nose up at it and drown anyway. Did He condemn you to drown?

I'm not talking theology, just common English usage. You let yourself drown, the only person who condemned you is you.

The Bible doesn't say anything about God condemning anyone. Not the real Bible, anyway.

And what pray tell is "the real Bible?"

But you're right about one thing. You said "God condemns sinners to Hell." That was your language. Your ugly, hate-filled language.

See what I'm getting at now?

I see exactly what you are getting at, and it stinks of lies and deceit.

con·demn (kn-dm)
tr.v. con·demned, con·demn·ing, con·demns
1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison.
3. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building.
4. To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against: were condemned by their actions.
5. Law To appropriate (property) for public use.


con·sign (kn-sn)
v. con·signed, con·sign·ing, con·signs
v.tr.
1. To give over to the care of another; entrust.
2. To turn over permanently to another's charge or to a lasting condition; commit irrevocably: "Their desponding imaginations had already consigned him to a watery grave" (William Hickling Prescott).
3. To deliver (merchandise, for example) for custody or sale.
4. To set apart, as for a special use or purpose; assign. See Synonyms at commit.

I see you trying to play a semitics game with the Bible.

Matt. 25:31-32 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."

Rom. 2:5 "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

Rev. 20:12 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books."

Everyone will be judged. All nonbelievers will face punishment, period.

Nothing ugly and hate filled in the truth of God's own words.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Again I was not incorrect. So it is still an issue with your misinterpretation of what I said.

Based on your post below I'd say that it isn't. And you're materially wrong about the mechanics of hell.

And what pray tell is "the real Bible?"

The Bible in its original Greek, where the word "condemn" is never used in reference to Hell.

I see exactly what you are getting at, and it stinks of lies and deceit.

con·demn (kn-dm)
2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison.

con·sign (kn-sn)
v. con·signed, con·sign·ing, con·signs
2. To turn over permanently to another's charge or to a lasting condition; commit irrevocably: "Their desponding imaginations had already consigned him to a watery grave" (William Hickling Prescott).

I see you trying to play a semitics game with the Bible.

I daresay, you're the only one playing semantic games. And childish ones at that. Why argue about the meaning of English words when talking about the Bible? "Cosign" is my word, it is apt, but not precisely a literal translation of the word in John 3:16. The real word is ἀπόληται "apoletai." It doesn't mean condemn. It means something more like "lose." It does not at all carry the sense of passing judgement. It means "letting it happen on its own." Unless your definition of condemn applies to the drowning scenario I discussed earlier, then you cannot say that God "condemns" sinners to hell.

That's the whole point. God isn't condemning anybody, the sinner condemns himself. Its not a semantic distinction, it's a fundamnental one. Your hellfire and brimstone approach is not only alienating to non-Christians, it is doctrinally incorrect.

 

[scourge99]

* slaves, obey your masters

Often misunderstood, Jesus was not endorsing slavery, rather he was promoting pacificism.

Ephesians 6:5 is a clear endorsement of the STATUS QUO for slavery. A significant flaw in the morality of one that others hold as PERFECTION incarnate. Our children have a better sense of morality in this regard than Jesus.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. "

Was the son of God too afraid to speak out of this injustice? No. He called for fair treatment of slaves but NOT AS EQUALS. At least not in this life. Continue to spin it how you see fit if it makes your sleep better at night.

Incorrect. Thought sins, maybe, but Jesus did not speak to temporal crimes.

That is all I was saying. Jesus promoted the notion that one's THOUGHTS, imaginations, and ponderings were shameful, wrong and as contemptible as performing the act in reality.


"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell"

* vicarious redemption - I.E., jesus having died doesn't fix, correct, or make right anyones previous actions. It doesn't grant forgiveness for my wrongful actions onto others because such forgiveness is not jesus' to give.

I don't really see the problem with that.

If I murder and rape 10 people, how does Jesus dying compensate for my crimes and the pain and suffering I have caused? It doesn't. Its an empty sacrifice. The "sacrifice" isn't about YOU, its about a proposed GOD being appeased. Its very twisted logic that is indoctrinated into believers.

1) You are sinful depraved being and are DESERVING of everlasting punishment/separation from god.
2) But don't worry. God died in human form so if you submit yourself to him then god will grant you preferred seating in the afterlife.

If you look at the whole concept from outside the box its absurd.

Do you think Jesus invented the golden rule?

Actually, yes.

Your indoctrination is quite thorough. I hope one day you learn to seek answers for yourself rather than wallowing in credulity and gullibility. But I would guess that when and if doubts creep over you, you will drown yourself in ritual and worship to keep them at bay. Just remember, the truth has nothing to hide from investigation.

The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples of statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt, for example in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."[7] Rushworth Kidder states that "the label 'golden' was applied by Confucius (551–479 B.C.), who wrote, 'Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us.'" Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions"

 

[Guy Incognito]

Ephesians 6:5 is a clear endorsement of the STATUS QUO for slavery.

Acknowledging the status quo is not endorsing the status quo.

That is all I was saying. Jesus promoted the notion that one's THOUGHTS, imaginations, and ponderings were shameful, wrong and as contemptible as performing the act in reality.

Shameful? Contemptible? Where are those words in the Bible?

Jesus never preached shame or contempt. Sin is bad because it sickens the soul, whether it is in thoughts or actions. Sin is putting the self first before others. The reason lust is wrong is because it objectifies another human being, whether or not it is physically acted on. It puts the self ahead of another. Jesus taught that others must always come first in words and thoughts.

 

[Guy Incognito]

1) You are sinful depraved being and are DESERVING of everlasting punishment/separation from god.

Deserving because the sinner literally asked for it. That is what free will is all about. God is omnipotent. He doesn't have to tolerate sin. But He does because He imbued man with free will. The essence of free will is the ability to turn away from God. It breaks His heart when we sin. But He permits it out of love.

For the sinner, being alienated from God feels like hell. That's what Jesus is warning about. It's just plain in your best interest not to sin.

2) But don't worry. God died in human form so if you submit yourself to him then god will grant you preferred seating in the afterlife.


If you look at the whole concept from outside the box its absurd.

I'm not trying to convert you. Believe what you like, you don't have to find it convincing. There isn't any scientific evidence for it, so I can't say I blame you if you disagree.

Your indoctrination is quite thorough. I hope one day you learn to seek answers for yourself rather than wallowing in credulity and gullibility. But I would guess that when and if doubts creep over you, you will drown yourself in ritual and worship to keep them at bay. Just remember, the truth has nothing to hide from investigation.

The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I encourage you to read that very article. The thing we call the Golden Rule was coined by Jesus, and that's why it is called the Golden Rule and famous in English. The concept is echoed in all religions and has been since the beginning of history. It is called the perennial philosophy. You should look into it, it might do you some good. God bless.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No - the belief is not wrong.
It's how the person or organization (organized religion) ACTS on that belief that matters more and has the impact.

Beliefs inform your actions.

If you believe that the world will end tomorrow because you had a dream one night - but you don't go killing everyone in order to save their souls by some twisted logic - then your belief is not wrong.

If that happens one would not take such actions in spite of their beliefs. If the world didn't end the next day the belief would be wrong factually and wrong in the sense that true beliefs are preferable to false beliefs.

Pol Pot's desires and thoughts might have been out of place and unacceptable to us - but it's what he did that's so horrible.

His actions are the proximate cause of the killing etc. That mean doesn't beliefs weren't a cause.

 

[scourge99]

Acknowledging the status quo is not endorsing the status quo.

Ephesians 6:5 is a clear endorsement of the STATUS QUO for slavery. Was the son of God too afraid or uncaring to speak out of this injustice? No. He called for fair treatment of slaves but NOT AS EQUALS--at least not in this life. The fact that Jesus did NOT call for the end of slavery and instead endorsed its perpetuation is irreconcilable with the claim that he was morally perfect.

Shameful? Contemptible? Where are those words in the Bible?

Jesus promoted the notion that one's THOUGHTS, imaginations, and ponderings were shameful, wrong and as contemptible as performing the act in reality.
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell"

Jesus never preached shame or contempt. Sin is bad because it sickens the soul, whether it is in thoughts or actions. Sin is putting the self first before others.

If one is gullible enough to unquestioningly accept the imaginary notions of "sins" and "souls" then I have no doubt that they will also unhesitatingly accept notions of how they are sick and only the ideology holds the cure to save them.

1) You are sinful depraved being and are DESERVING of everlasting punishment/separation from god.

Deserving because the sinner literally asked for it.

There is no such thing as "sin". Its an imaginary concept preached to convince others that they are sick so that a religion can sell them a cure. This is not to say that such people are intentionally deceptive as a snakeoil salesmen or weight loss pill companies. I am merely identifying mechanisms that allow religions to perpetuate (Christianity, Islam) while others die out.

That is what free will is all about. God is omnipotent. He doesn't have to tolerate sin. But He does because He imbued man with free will. The essence of free will is the ability to turn away from God. It breaks His heart when we sin. But He permits it out of love.For the sinner, being alienated from God feels like hell. That's what Jesus is warning about. It's just plain in your best interest not to sin.

Did God tell you these things or did a man and a holy-book? How did you verify their truth? Would you reject other holy-men and their holy-books?

I'm not trying to convert you. Believe what you like, you don't have to find it convincing.

I do not and cannot pick and choose what I believe. The evidence compels me to conclusions that I cannot deny anymore than I can deny that the sky is blue. Nothing is absolute but some things are certain.

There isn't any scientific evidence for it, so I can't say I blame you if you disagree.

Why do we need scientists? How about ANY evidence other than:
1) hear-say
2) speculation
3) holy-book tales

I encourage you to read that very article. The thing we call the Golden Rule was coined by Jesus, and that's why it is called the Golden Rule and famous in English.

Where did Jesus "coin" the term "Golden Rule", exactly?

 

[Black Dog]

Based on your post below I'd say that it isn't. And you're materially wrong about the mechanics of hell.

The Bible disagrees.

The Bible in its original Greek, where the word "condemn" is never used in reference to Hell.

It is in context to John 3:16-18.

I daresay, you're the only one playing semantic games. And childish ones at that. Why argue about the meaning of English words when talking about the Bible? "Cosign" is my word, it is apt, but not precisely a literal translation of the word in John 3:16. The real word is ἀπόληται "apoletai." It doesn't mean condemn. It means something more like "lose." It does not at all carry the sense of passing judgement. It means "letting it happen on its own." Unless your definition of condemn applies to the drowning scenario I discussed earlier, then you cannot say that God "condemns" sinners to hell.

You are getting your words mixed up and leaving out the meat of my posts.

I quoted John 3:16-18. I even highlighted verse 18.

κρίνεται is the word you are looking for. In it's original Greek it means "is condemned" can't make it any clearer. - John 3:18 Greek Texts and Analysis

Now lets add that with the verses you choose to ignor...

John 3:18 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Matt. 25:31-32 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."

Rom. 2:5 "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

Rev. 20:12 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books."

That's the whole point. God isn't condemning anybody, the sinner condemns himself. Its not a semantic distinction, it's a fundamnental one. Your hellfire and brimstone approach is not only alienating to non-Christians, it is doctrinally incorrect.

Not according to the real Bible. :mrgreen:

 

[Panache]

Often misunderstood, Jesus was not endorsing slavery, rather he was promoting pacificism.

The reference was to what Paul said, not what Jesus said.

I don't really see the problem with that.

If Jesus was to set the example for us, then should we not treat justice in the same way? If a man rapes a woman, and his innocent mother loves her son so much that she is willing to serve his sentence for him, should we let the rapist go free, and put his mother in jail in his place?

Actually, yes. The Golden Rule comes from the Sermon on the Mount. Look it up.

I looked it up. Guess what I found:

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." - Egyptian papyrus (c. 664 BC – 323 BCE)
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[11] (c. 640–568 BCE)
"One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." – Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." - Siddhartha Guatama (c. 563-483 BCE)

And perhaps most notably, the very reason it is called the Golden Rule (it is not referred to as the 'Golden Rule' anywhere in the Bible):

"Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us." - Confucius (c. 551 BC – 479 BC)

 

[Guy Incognito]

And perhaps most notably, the very reason it is called the Golden Rule (it is not referred to as the 'Golden Rule' anywhere in the Bible):

"Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us." - Confucius (c. 551 BC – 479 BC)

I stand corrected on this single point. Confucius seems to have coined the term "golden" rule. If you had read the entire thread you would see that I have already acknowledged that this is the perennial philosophy and predates Jesus by thousands of years, so substantially I am not wrong. The way it is known in English, "do unto others" comes directly from the Beatitudes, do you dispute that?

As for everything else, you're all wrong, but it isn't really important. Believe what you like, apparently no matter how much you are proven wrong it will not shake your misunderstandings about Christianity.

 

[Panache]

I stand corrected on this single point. Confucius seems to have coined the term "golden" rule. If you had read the entire thread you would see that I have already acknowledged that this is the perennial philosophy and predates Jesus by thousands of years, so substantially I am not wrong. The way it is known in English, "do unto others" comes directly from the Beatitudes, do you dispute that?

Actually, I do dispute that. These are the Beatitudes:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The Golden Rule comes 2 chapters later. :2razz:

The point being made was that Jesus didn't introduce the perennial philosophy as a new concept. It had already been around since the beginning of recorded history.

As for everything else, you're all wrong, but it isn't really important. Believe what you like, apparently no matter how much you are proven wrong it will not shake your misunderstandings about Christianity.

What was I proven wrong about?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Actually, I do dispute that. These are the Beatitudes:



The Golden Rule comes 2 chapters later. :2razz:

You got me twice in one thread! I should have said "Sermon on the Mount."

What was I proven wrong about?

Actually that "you all" was directed more at some others members, you just got caught in the crossfire. My apologies for taking a tone with you, it was uncalled for.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually, I do dispute that. These are the Beatitudes:

In which 'do unto others' is not written

 

[Panache]

In which 'do unto others' is not written

Amazingly, I don't know of a Bible in which "do unto others" is actually written that way. Here are some examples of the Golden Rule from a variety of translations:

Matt 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.(KJV)

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (NIV)

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for (B)this is the Law and the Prophets.(NASB)

Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God's Law and Prophets and this is what you get.(The Message)

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is(B) the Law and the Prophets. (ESV)

These are the most popular translations of the Bible, and none of them phrase the Golden Rule as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I'm really not sure where this famous colloquial phrase comes from.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Amazingly, I don't know of a Bible in which "do unto others" is actually written that way. Here are some examples of the Golden Rule from a variety of translations:



These are the most popular translations of the Bible, and none of them phrase the Golden Rule as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I'm really not sure where this famous colloquial phrase comes from.

The Code of Hammurabi is as close to 'eye for an eye' as anyone's ever going to find.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Amazingly, I don't know of a Bible in which "do unto others" is actually written that way. Here are some examples of the Golden Rule from a variety of translations:

Translations of the Bible are the wrong way to go. The translation says more about the agenda of the author than it does for the actual meaning of the text. You should check out the Greek version. It only takes a modest amount of study to get a working understanding of Koine Greek, especially if you have any background in other languages. It's worth it to see how badly most translations misrepresent the genuine text.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Here is the original:

Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς: οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται.

Here is my own very poor literal translation:

Each then as great [as] you intend that these people make you, and thus you make them this, for this is the oracle rule.

It's not hard to see where the standard "do unto others" formulation comes from. Compare to this obviously biased translation:

Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God's Law and Prophets and this is what you get.

I had never heard of "The Message" before you posted it, but I can tell you just from reading their translation that they are trying to push a doctrinal agenda, to try to lessen the radical compassion of Jesus's original. Things like "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" are troubling to some Christians, and some like to think that there is some sort of exception for self defense, or whatever. But in the original Greek we see this is clearly a strict direction to treat others as great as you wish them to treat you all the time, it is not a rule of thumb. It is the law of the prophets, not the average of the laws of the prophets.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Here is the original:



Here is my own very poor literal translation:


It's not hard to see where the standard "do unto others" formulation comes from. Compare to this obviously biased translation:



I had never heard of "The Message" before you posted it, but I can tell you just from reading their translation that they are trying to push a doctrinal agenda, to try to lessen the radical compassion of Jesus's original. Things like "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" are troubling to some Christians, and some like to think that there is some sort of exception for self defense, or whatever. But in the original Greek we see this is clearly a strict direction to treat others as great as you wish them to treat you all the time, it is not a rule of thumb. It is the law of the prophets, not the average of the laws of the prophets.

The Message isn't a very literal translation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)

 

[Panache]

Here is the original:



Here is my own very poor literal translation:


It's not hard to see where the standard "do unto others" formulation comes from. Compare to this obviously biased translation:



I had never heard of "The Message" before you posted it, but I can tell you just from reading their translation that they are trying to push a doctrinal agenda, to try to lessen the radical compassion of Jesus's original. Things like "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" are troubling to some Christians, and some like to think that there is some sort of exception for self defense, or whatever. But in the original Greek we see this is clearly a strict direction to treat others as great as you wish them to treat you all the time, it is not a rule of thumb. It is the law of the prophets, not the average of the laws of the prophets.

Oh, I agree with you 100% on that. If you look at some of my other posts on the religion forum you will see that I consider the Golden Rule, along with the two greatest commandments found in Matt 22, to constitute the entirety of Jesus' moral philosophy and teaching. I regard the Golden Rule to be the formula from which all law is derived.

Personally, I can't stand The Message translation. I just provided it for the sake of variety. Certainly the spirit of the Golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," I was just noting that the English phrase itself isn't from the Bible.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The Message isn't a very literal translation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)

I get that, and I can respect the attempt at a colloquial version of the Bible. But my point is it is that, at least with respect to Matt. 7:12, it is a deceptive translation.