copout argument. there are biases in every article, but "unbiased" articles at least attempt to be objective and account for multiple viewopints. Citing sources would be a good start.
The truth is in the article, it is fairly factual, the conclusions reached I can not support but the truth about Muhammed and his plurality is accurate according to known history. DD
My opinion is your lack of faith is expected. If you do not have any reason to believe how would I expect you to believe? I would never say you are wrong for what you do not know. more to come...
So is someone believing in Aliens in Area 51 any different than someone believign that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammed was more than just a man? I mean it is all a matter of faith, right? DD
Here is a simple answer It is appointed for men to die and then the judgment. The wicked will be owned after death. There is Jesus hanging, dying, bleeding, suffering, agony, tortured on a cross: Beat almost to death, a spear in his side, thorns on his head, naked, humiliated and mocked by men... Why? So we can do good deeds? So we can get the right books in the bible? So we can all be better people? People can do all of that without a cross and a savior.
The answer is simple there, Muhammad is not considered more than a man, he's just a very good one and therefore a chosen one. But I get it. It's good for you, it's easier to think the way you do.
No it is not. Faith (believe) is all you can do. It is what God does that really counts. Faith in aliens requires reasoning. Faith in God requires revelation. They are different. DD- if you have read the gospel accounts of Jesus, do it again. as you read it see if anything is revealed to you.
DaDakota, For the love of God, any God you believe in, admit that your link is horrendously flawed, the writer is inbelievably biased, and that he has no refferences whatsoever. He is flat out LYING. I mean it exactly the way I'm saying it. He just flat out LIES throughout the whole article where people, such as yourself, will take things he says about Islam as truthful. Why do you even bother debating when you're going to resort to such a link to support yourself? I'm genuinely interested. I really try to be patient with some things but you really insulted my intelligence with that, I'm actually offended.
Fair enough, but the history text certainly reads like Shakespeare in this case.. plus, they share an agenda. If poetry and historical records make the same fantastical claims and are published together for a single purpose, it makes sense to regard the content of the entire book with a constant level of skepticism Sorry, but I don't understand your simple answer. Does the Bible say I will get owned after death or does it not? MadMax has said he doesn't know for sure, which sounds very reasonable to me. I'm curious as to your exact take on this Even though I'm more inclined to moral relativism, I can still believe in a reality where good and bad are absolute and lead to separate consequences. But I cannot accept one where people are punished simply because the definition of good includes "believes that Jesus is God"
1. You should regard it with skepticism. That's fine. Chew it up. Just don't ignore it. I'm not saying you do this because I don't know you...but I see a lot of criticism of the Bible by those who've never picked it up and read it. They've read some commentary somewhere and it ends there. Then they pull the self-proclaimed expert schtick to tear it apart and proclaim that anyone that finds anything in it of real value is duped and a little bit weaker than everyone who doesn't. Don't be that guy. If you're gonna tear it apart, at least read it first. 2. I said I don't know what hell is like...or what it means...or if it's an actual place. There's not much reference to it in the Bible. We've created a ton of imagery from it that looks a lot like Greek mythology to me. Having said that, I did say God's judgment is very real. As is his redemption. I have a clearer time visualizing his redemption because I have seen creation and I have seen beauty. Having said that, we've seen lots of where evil gets us, too...and maybe that looks strikingly like hell.
Yes, such a guy would be annoyingly presumptuous.. but it doesn't invalidate the reasoning behind his position. Me, I've only read the NT. I can't quote passages at will. Everything I know about biblical history comes from the Internet - what a credible source! But you don't need to be a Bible expert or historian to understand the arguments for and against its validity And for every self-proclaimed expert being swayed by commentary, there's a believer who doesn't look beyond the Bible for truth. They've read it and it ends there.. no difference Well, actually there is a difference.. I'll just bring it up here to illustrate the futility of debate over this issue. The strength of the Christian viewpoint is that they've read the Bible, and have felt something others haven't. And so they can say "Read it!" while nobody, of course, can ask them to unread it and start on a blank slate But my initial question wasn't pertaining to hell at all. I'm talking about the spectrum of right and wrong according to the Christian faith. And ultimately, it says I will be judged more harshly than a person exactly like me - words, deeds and all - but who believes in Jesus. Doesn't it? It says I am more wrong (if you'll pardon the expression) than such a person. That's what plenty of people have trouble coming to terms with
I don't view it at all that way. I just can't see anyone being wrong or evil because they believe something different. Evil, good, right and wrong are not hard concepts... I have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong as do you. I know what goes off in my head when I see a starving child with a swollen belly. I understand what hits me when I see a picture of a person hanging form a tree limb, murdered by hateful men just because of race. I don't have to be told that helping an elderly lady carry her groceries is right. I don't need religion or books or bibles to know those things. So, the issues of good and evil are not difficult. The idea of justice and judgment are there in some form through out culture, history and humankind. What is not so evident are the ideas of forgiveness, love and mercy. This is where Jesus comes in. Dying on a cross as a substitute for evil people, all people. Are we all wicked? Maybe we can all claim some selfishness and greed. Maybe there are perfect people? But I believe in a redemption through Jesus, people touched by a divine forgiveness, love and mercy. That is what I really like about Madmax, I know him as a Christian and he cares deeply about love, forgiveness and mercy towards people. Redeeming love. The kind of love that acts, works, gives, does something to touch and redeem other lives. You should sit down and talk to him about his faith. He doesn't have all the answers and yet there is a sincere difference in his heart that he probably will give alot of credit to Jesus Christ. He, IMO has faith in a Jesus who brings love and mercy to people in ways that can only be experienced in an individual personal way through the 'faith' actions of those who follow Jesus. (whew!) I don't get up each morning and think about heaven and hell. I live my life like everyone else. But I think alot about Jesus and His love. It affects me. Jesus did give His life as a sacrifice for my sins and yours. I don't think it is wrong if you don't believe that. What evil is there in not believing like me? NONE!!!! Jesus loves you, that is my message. I don't know how religious or even Christian it is, but that is what I believe.
I think what you are getting at here is this... (I think) If you don't believe in Jesus, you will be serverely judged for not believing in Jesus. If that is what you mean by having trouble coming to terms then I will share one thing Jesus said about this... (kinda quoting) "I (Jesus) did not come to condemn people, I came to save people. People already are condemned in the world, but I can save them, if they will believe in me, I am like a light (good?) that comes to the world, but many people prefer darkness (evil?) and because they do evil things they will not believe in the light."
The "real" issues behind the questions you raise are: 1. Who is in control of the universe; who is truly sovereign? The writer of your list thinks it is them, but it isn't. 2. Who defines good and evil? The writer of your list thinks it is them, but it isn't. 3. Who defines reality? The writer of your list thinks it is them, but it isn't. There is a War in Heaven, best to get on the right side.
Alright; I'll bite. This Pascal's wager business is pretty lame. Let's say that in fact the creator god is a mischievious prick who enjoys the suffering of his subjects. He enjoys watching them worship him in vain hoping that he will spare them, and in the end he does save some of them based on his own whims, and mostly to rub it in the face of the 99.999% that didn't choose him, so he can mock them for all eternity. And once in a while, if he thinks they're getting complacent, he'll throw a destructive hurricane, earthquake, fire, or disease at them and remind them of who's boss. He also happens to be the single greatest and most powerful entity in whatever other realm he exists. Does that mean that we should choose to follow and praise and worship him, merely because his might makes him right? I submit to you that "free will" is the ability to set your own moral compass without an external force imposing it upon you, indeed - morality and ethics itself consists of choosing of an action based on principles despite whatever ill or good may come to your well-being.
DD- Your argument, all religion is political, is still weak to me. It doesn't match up to reason, or history. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by politics? If you mean, got more organized, then the Nicene Council could be viewed as partly political. But I fail to see how debunking the Arian heresy, through logic and scriptural analysis of the Tetramorph (gospels) which were in place since at the very least St. Iraneaus in 160 AD, or developing the Nicene Creed to ensure that the faith is uniquely taught, are specific political goals that would attain anything more than proper dogma. The role of women in the church doesn't even look like it was discussed in the Nicene council, and once again, how would that be a political measure when women had so few rights at the time anyway? The gnostic heresy was addressed mainly by the early Christian Fathers, Iraneaus and Tertullian in the late 3rd century. Once again, this is not a political issue in anyway. The gnostic texts were in no way part of the texts of the Bible that were being disputed or looked at during the time leading up to the Nicene Council. Here's some links to read. About the Catholic Canon (which wasn't made official until the Council of Trent in the 16th century) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm About Gnosticism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
