[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Altix:
Not entirely true, since not all Christians believed as such in that notion you expressed, especially the early branches of 'Christianity' that sprouted up around the time after Christ. It;s the religion that gives Christianity it;s structure, but that's not to say you don't view it as a personal relationship. The varying Christian churches certainly have their structure, hence religion.

Church is a place were Christians come together to congregate. The Church wasn't around in the very early Christian times.

I myself don't have a lot of faith in organized religion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Altix:
Which is why I said religion, and not God, the difference can be striking. Also, again, that is your belief it is not trapping, to others it is. All belief,.

Right, And the difference here is, most of the "others" have never really experienced it to really say.

They just look at the outward package and make an assumption.

"OMG, you mean I am not allowed to commit adultery? " Pssst.

[Altix]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Church is a place were Christians come together to congregate. The Church wasn't around in the very early Christian times.

I myself don't have a lot of faith in organized religion.

Exactly, so Christianity can be a religion, or a non-constructed set of beliefs., through personasl experience.

This is why it is imoprtant to note that Christianity is a religion, separate from the belief in Jesus, since many early followers of Christ never held the belief that Jesus was the way ro salvation ,or any of the other characteristics that know of Christianity today.

If you place the set of beliefs into a structured form, then create devotion aroubd it, you have religion.

[Altix]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, And the difference here is, most of the "others" have never really experienced it to really say.

They just look at the outward package and make an assumption.

"OMG, you mean I am not allowed to commit adultery? " Pssst.

lol, so true.

[sixz]

God is a lollypop - lick him, lick his head then his fuzzy shaft.
Because that's what it would be like in lollypop heaven.

A lot of licking up or you'll be going down.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Well, Maury, if you're going to ignore things like the meanings of words an intelligent discussion on the matter is quite impossible.

Come now, wolfen.

or·dain __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains
1. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on. To authorize as a rabbi.

2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.

3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.

What definition of ordained are you using?

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:


SNIP

...which brings us back to the dilemma at the start of the thread, if there is a heaven, who can say for certain who is going and who is not. Essentially, how can any one group claim to be right to the exclusion of all other groups.

No one group can claim to be right. Simple.

Maury

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Church is a place were Christians come together to congregate. The Church wasn't around in the very early Christian times.

I myself don't have a lot of faith in organized religion.

Just to throw a little something into the mix... The church is the body of believers in Jesus, not to be confused for a church (first church of Zimphire for example). The church was established by Jesus, He was the cornerstone... and the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church.

The church was around in first century Christianity but it wasn't like it is today... especially here in the great US of A.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by sixz:
God is a lollypop - lick him, lick his head then his fuzzy shaft.
Because that's what it would be like in lollypop heaven.

A lot of licking up or you'll be going down.

No

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Just to throw a little something into the mix... The church is the body of believers in Jesus, not to be confused for a church (first church of Zimphire for example).

There is no such church.

The church was established by Jesus, He was the cornerstone... and the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church.

Of course.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Come now, wolfen.

or·dain __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.

What definition of ordained are you using?

Maury

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I don't see that pre-ordained has anythign whatsoever to do with Time

preordain

v : foreordain or determine beforehand [syn: predestine, foreordain]


And somehow, your interpretation of christianity does not involve any concept of time? Something is going to occurbefore something else, regardless of all the other somethings that could happen. That is a time-dependent premise! You can't start blabbin' about prophecy without recognizing it is a FUTURE event at issue.

Think of it this way, by your concept that "some things are preordained but man has free will" , preordaining Jesus' sacrifice would have required a lot more that just his death and resurrection. What if Mary got depressed and killed herself before the pregnancy? What if one of his grandmothers or great grandmothers didn't want or have any kids? What if Mary and Joseph had a falling out and she moved to Syria before the pregnancy? Maybe Jesus would horse around on a roof, slip and fall and die before the big day? Etc. etc. etc....you see, once you allow probabilistic events to be predetermined, you have suddenly created an infinite chain of fate. All the people that could have killed Jesus, won't. All the people that could have ignored him, don't. And what about poor Judas, Judas' mother, Judas' friends -- nobody can know or see him in the act of betrayal...etc. etc. All the social factors that contributed to his betraying nature! He can't just change his mind! Neither can hundreds of others who have a hand in the final act.

To one degree or another, the dogma implies God forced people to kill Jesus to cleanse them from sin. It's ludicrous looked at that way. So it must be the wrong way to look at it, if God is good. Right?

And so your theory is a lot more complicated than you might like to believe. It starts with every mother in Mary's ancestral chain successfully bearing children and expands outward in every direction. There is no such thing as a single event being preordained in the face of a free will doctrine. If you wish to also assert that mankind is, in general, acting under free will I suggest you drop the predestination stuff altogether.

And that's just Jesus -- we haven't even gotten into the daily influence of God upon the willing and unwilling. So then you start with "Well, most of the time" man has free will or "Only about the really important decisions" or some crap like that. But the bottom line is the entire concept of God interacting with a linear timestream is precarious from the get go. A man can't possibly defend such an assertion.

What I mean to say is, you should probably stop making claims about "Some events are foreordained and some aren't" because you can't possibly defend these statements. After a few honest minutes of Q&A, you will find yourself saying "I don't know what I'm talking about." So just start with that idea and avoid decoding this aspect in your decoding the mind and method of God.

Seeing something is going to happen is a much more secure angle than claiming things are going to be made to happen.

[Zimphire]

wolfen what I am saying is, it's not relevant. It's a smokescreen.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by wolfen:
preordain

v : foreordain or determine beforehand [syn: predestine, foreordain]

Right — determined beforehand in the mind of God, not determined as to a *specific* time or under a *specific* circumstance.

And somehow, your interpretation of christianity does not involve any concept of time? Something is going to occurbefore something else, regardless of all the other somethings that could happen. That is a time-dependent premise! You can't start blabbin' about prophecy without recognizing it is a FUTURE event at issue.

See my statement above. You're trying to lock a pre-ordained "thing" to a specific time. I don't think that's necessary. The "FUTURE" is big, wolfen, and things will happen in the "FUTURE" — pre-ordained "things" that happen in the "FUTURE" will do just that: happen _at some point_ in the future.

Think of it this way, by your concept that "some things are preordained but man has free will" , preordaining Jesus' sacrifice would have required a lot more that just his death and resurrection. What if Mary got depressed and killed herself before the pregnancy? What if one of his grandmothers or great grandmothers didn't want or have any kids? What if Mary and Joseph had a falling out and she moved to Syria before the pregnancy? Maybe Jesus would horse around on a roof, slip and fall and die before the big day? Etc. etc. etc....you see, once you allow probabilistic events to be predetermined, you have suddenly created an infinite chain of fate. All the people that could have killed Jesus, won't. All the people that could have ignored him, don't. And what about poor Judas, Judas' mother, Judas' friends -- nobody can know or see him in the act of betrayal...etc. etc. All the social factors that contributed to his betraying nature! He can't just change his mind! Neither can hundreds of others who have a hand in the final act.

I disagree — all that you described did NOT happen because they were pre-ordained events. We have free will, yes, but God's pre-ordained plan trumps anything we would wish to do, thus, at times, Man did not have free will. When Man does not have the luxury of free will in scripture, it's because of one of God's pre-ordained plans. Simple.

To one degree or another, the dogma implies God forced people to kill Jesus to cleanse them from sin. It's ludicrous looked at that way. So it must be the wrong way to look at it, if God is good. Right?

This has already been covered, and yes, God forced people to kill Jesus — that's the whole story in a nutshell.

And so your theory is a lot more complicated than you might like to believe. It starts with every mother in Mary's ancestral chain successfully bearing children and expands outward in every direction. There is no such thing as a single event being preordained in the face of a free will doctrine. If you wish to also assert that mankind is, in general, acting under free will I suggest you drop the predestination stuff altogether.

I disagree, and I've covered why your understanding/opinion doesn't agree with mine. And asking me to drop the "predestination stuff" is like me asking you to drop the "there's no such thing as predestination stuff."

And that's just Jesus -- we haven't even gotten into the daily influence of God upon the willing and unwilling. So then you start with "Well, most of the time" man has free will or "Only about the really important decisions" or some crap like that. But the bottom line is the entire concept of God interacting with a linear timestream is precarious from the get go. A man can't possibly defend such an assertion.

I disagree, and I have defended my assertion. Now you — and others — may not *like* my "defense," but I can't help that. You may think I haven't "proven" my point to you — and maybe I haven't. But at the same time, you have also failed to defend your assertions to me, or, as you put it: a man can't possibly defend [your] assertions.

What I mean to say is, you should probably stop making claims about "Some events are foreordained and some aren't" because you can't possibly defend these statements. After a few honest minutes of Q&A, you will find yourself saying "I don't know what I'm talking about." So just start with that idea and avoid decoding this aspect in your decoding the mind and method of God.

Sorry, can't do that any more than you can start thinking like I do. And again, just because you don't see things like i do and you don't think my "assertions" are being "defended" to your liking, that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

The reality is, wolfen, that YOU don't see what I'm talking about — and that's fine. I won't tell you that I think you're less intelligent, or hint that you may not know what you're talking about — I'll leave that to you. But the bottom line is you believe what you believe and you defend what you believe to satisfy yourself. You have failed to defend your thoughts to me, just as I have failed to defend mine to you.

Simple.

Maury

[RAILhead]

double-post, oops.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
What bait?

Try learning something.

It amazes me that christians have no idea where their beliefs come from.

Try learning something? I've studied this subject more than you have or ever will. Not that they mean much, but I have a few degrees on this topic and a pair of Ph.Ds.

Below the surface is the construct of the Archetype born into every culture, which lays out that culture's way to "salvation". You may see it as the repeating of an old story, but that's short-sighted and defeating. Not seeing the whole picture.

To know the construct of an Archetype ("Christ") is to know a part of the Architect or "God". It's a cycle that started when man first learned "I" and will continue until man unlocks "I Am". Some have learned "I Am" along the way by the example of the Archetypes and others will continue their cycles until they do. That's just the way it "Is".

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by sixz:
God is a lollypop - lick him, lick his head then his fuzzy shaft.
Because that's what it would be like in lollypop heaven.

A lot of licking up or you'll be going down.

Seek help.

[Zimphire]

Wow I missed that one. Homo-erotic daydreams of God.

Help indeed.

[hyteckit]

It's okay to have more than one wife as long as you don't marry more than one of them.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
The reality is, wolfen, that YOU don't see what I'm talking about — <snip> Simple.

You're saying the same thing over and over and following with the word "Simple" on each iteration. Believe me, I get it.

Asserting "This is what I believe" doesn't bestow biblical authority. You said you've defended your assertion, but all I see you doing is restating it. So maybe I can coax a unique response by clarifying my position further...

The Bible does not address how a thought in God's head today becomes a reality tomorrow. Why? Because God's not confined by today and tomorrow and therefore the perceived passage of time between his thought and consequent reality may be a delusion. "The future is big," yes, but I'm telling you we have no idea how such a being relates to the future or any other concept of time. Saying God created or knew some future thing BEFORE it happened may be ludicrous if, in fact, God inhabits every point in space and time. There may not be a past or future to an omnipresent being. There'd be no linearity to the phenomena of prophecy at all. His "actions" would be indecipherable from pure reality. Time could be an instant, a single moment. This is a much more sophisticated and beautiful concept of God than the mechanistic klutziness usually ascribed to Him by traditional christianity. It is incomprehensible -- as He should be.

Your continual restatements that there ARE preordained events (Events known and created by God before they happened) do not address a God like this. They require a God on a timeline of some sort. By logic and scripture, there may not be any such thing as a preordained event. Like God, reality may just *be*. No pre or post. And my recommendations to drop these time oriented ideas of God are not out of some pompous "I'm smarter than you" need to argue with you. They are sincere attempts to get you to stop and marvel at just how big your God can be -- and how little a time oriented God is by comparison. You seem proud of your unwillingness to change your views. This does not serve a God who asks you to prove all things.

Peace and goodwill.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Try learning something? I've studied this subject more than you have or ever will. Not that they mean much, but I have a few degrees on this topic and a pair of Ph.Ds.

Below the surface is the construct of the Archetype born into every culture, which lays out that culture's way to "salvation". You may see it as the repeating of an old story, but that's short-sighted and defeating. Not seeing the whole picture.

To know the construct of an Archetype ("Christ") is to know a part of the Architect or "God". It's a cycle that started when man first learned "I" and will continue until man unlocks "I Am". Some have learned "I Am" along the way by the example of the Archetypes and others will continue their cycles until they do. That's just the way it "Is".

More excuses.

So if I create a religion where the main dude did everything jesus did, I can claim to have the new archetype?

After all, that's all christians did. Just the names have changed.

So, acknowledging the previous archetypes is not heresy, just acknowledgement that nothing is new under the sun.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't evidence. That is heresy. There is a difference.

Unless you can prove beyond the shadow of doubt that Jesus was made up. you have no case. And your belief is also based on faith.

Come to gripes with it.

So, in order to ignore the evidence, you call the evidence heresy, and deny it.
That way you can feel good about it.

Lovely.

You know, in Australia our Prime Minister is an expert in this mode of argument.
Want to deny something? Call the authors liars, and refuse to admit any other possibility.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
More excuses.

So if I create a religion where the main dude did everything jesus did, I can claim to have the new archetype?

After all, that's all christians did. Just the names have changed.

I think you're just wanting to look for excuses, like most other self-proclaimed "atheists" and "anti-theists". After all, it's easier that way. Doesn't require a person to actually think.

I'm not surprised though, most people have problems seeing patterns of this type. It's typical.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I think you're just wanting to look for excuses, like most other self-proclaimed "atheists" and "anti-theists". After all, it's easier that way. Doesn't require a person to actually think.

I'm not surprised though, most people have problems seeing patterns of this type. It's typical.

Nice come back. Really convinced me.

So, what you are saying is that there is nothing special about christianity.
It took all the good bits from older religions because that's the way it works.

They just put a new face on an old idea.

You know, that's fine. It's what I have been saying.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by greenG4:
I'd keep quit until I feel I can add intelligent thought.

fixed. *scnr*

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
Nice come back. Really convinced me.

So, what you are saying is that there is nothing special about christianity.
It took all the good bits from older religions because that's the way it works.

They just put a new face on an old idea.

You know, that's fine. It's what I have been saying.

Reading comprehension, work on it.

These are recurring events caused by an undeniable archetype. Now, you can deny that, and that's fine, or you can really study the subject and come to understand it. Why don't you try reading up on Christ instead of getting "hung-up" on Christianity?

But I can see you're a person who simply likes to argue, so I ask myself "why bother". So tell me, is my talking to you a waste of time?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by greenG4:
I think what many people miss is that Christianity is NOT a religeon.

and all this time...

honestly, some of you guys crack me up. this is the first time i have ever heared somebody say something like this. interesting.

please remember, that in order for coming up for a new way of looking at things, you need to have a complete model that works on various levels.

catholics are not christians, christianity is not a religion, god preordaines something and is omniscient, but does not know the future, god is omnipotent, but can not control humans' free will, heaven and hell are places, but do not exist in SPACE and time...very interesing indeed.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Reading comprehension, work on it.

These are recurring events caused by an undeniable archetype. Now, you can deny that, and that's fine, or you can really study the subject and come to understand it. Why don't you try reading up on Christ instead of getting "hung-up" on Christianity?

But I can see you're a person who simply likes to argue, so I ask myself "why bother". So tell me, is my talking to you a waste of time?

What undeniable archetype would that be? The god of "it's too hard, let's just use their stuff"?

Why read up on christ, when I can simply wait for the next archetype?
Or are you so special, the cycle stopped with you?

[hyteckit]

The black hole is where God divides by zero.

saying by a fellow macnn'er

[hyteckit]

anything divided by 0 is infinity

infinity does not exist

God is infinity

[hyteckit]

God has infinity wisdom

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:


and all this time...

honestly, some of you guys crack me up. this is the first time i have ever heared somebody say something like this. interesting.

please remember, that in order for coming up for a new way of looking at things, you need to have a complete model that works on various levels.

catholics are not chritians, christianity is not a religion, god preordaines something and is omniscient, but does not know the future, god is omnipotent, but can not control humans' free will, heaven and hell are places, but do not exist in SPACE and time...very interesing indeed.

Maybe I can help...

Christianity IS a religion (of course), and not the only one which is "right". "Right" is up to the person.

Catholics are Christians... and there are quite a few types of "Catholics"; Romans, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.. The denomination of Christian isn't important, it's the faith in "Christ" that's key.

"God" sees all probabilities, and from those endless probabilities mankind makes their choices. Analogy; a fish in a tank would have a lot of difficulty seeing how many other fish are in it (provided the fish can count), but someone outside the tank can easily count them. It's all about perspective.

Why would "God" want to control us? It's up to us to find our own way, the value is in the searching, not the ultimate goal.

And as for Heaven and Hell, I personally don't believe in either, except that "Hell" is the absence of "God" and "Heaven" is being completely within "God's" will.

Though, since I'm not Christian, my views are typically different, but those are my opinions based on my experiences.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
What undeniable archetype would that be? The god of "it's too hard, let's just use their stuff"?

Why read up on christ, when I can simply wait for the next archetype?
Or are you so special, the cycle stopped with you?

Oh c'mon, you're smarter than that. Quit trying to bait me and start conversing instead.

Sure, you can wait. However, studying who and what Christ is makes things easier. If you've already had such examples, why not follow them? You can dislike Christians all you want, there are several I'm not too fond of either, but that doesn't have anything to do with Christ.

Me, special? I don't think so.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
anything divided by 0 is infinity

infinity does not exist

God is infinity

Pi is infinity,
"God" is Pi?

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh c'mon, you're smarter than that. Quit trying to bait me and start conversing instead.

Sure, you can wait. However, studying who and what Christ is makes things easier. If you've already had such examples, why not follow them? You can dislike Christians all you want, there are several I'm not too fond of either, but that doesn't have anything to do with Christ.

Me, special? I don't think so.

Or, I could study Adonis, and make things easier, or krishna, or ...

See where I am going?

All I can see is an excuse for "heavily borrowing" from other faiths. You are trying to justify this borrowing by saying that "it all comes around again".

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And as for Heaven and Hell, I personally don't believe in either, except that "Hell" is the absence of "God" and "Heaven" is being completely within "God's" will.

"Hell ain’t a bad place...Hell is from here to eternity" - maiden

somehow i was reminded of this song...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
Or, I could study Adonis, and make things easier, or krishna, or ...

See where I am going?

All I can see is an excuse for "heavily borrowing" from other faiths. You are trying to justify this borrowing by saying that "it all comes around again".

Sure, study Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus. etc.. Coincidentally, the Bhagavad Gita is a great place to start. There's a good deal more to "Christ" than what most people know.

"Jesus is Christ, but Christ is not only Jesus." - Rumi

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
"Hell ain’t a bad place...Hell is from here to eternity" - maiden

somehow i was reminded of this song...

I was listening to "Where Eagles Dare" earlier. Ahh... the classics.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure, study Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus. etc.. Coincidentally, the Bhagavad Gita is a great place to start. There's a good deal more to "Christ" than what most people know.

"Jesus is Christ, but Christ is not only Jesus." - Rumi

You know what the problem has been?
Your god ain't zimphire's god.

We have been arguing different things.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xenu:
So, in order to ignore the evidence, you call the evidence heresy, and deny it.
That way you can feel good about it.

No that isn't what I did. I showed you were the Bible supported your ideal.
It just didn't agree with the copying bit.

And since you can't PROVE IT, it is indeed heresy.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by wolfen:
You're saying the same thing over and over and following with the word "Simple" on each iteration. Believe me, I get it.

Asserting "This is what I believe" doesn't bestow biblical authority. You said you've defended your assertion, but all I see you doing is restating it. So maybe I can coax a unique response by clarifying my position further...

The Bible does not address how a thought in God's head today becomes a reality tomorrow. Why? Because God's not confined by today and tomorrow and therefore the perceived passage of time between his thought and consequent reality may be a delusion. "The future is big," yes, but I'm telling you we have no idea how such a being relates to the future or any other concept of time. Saying God created or knew some future thing BEFORE it happened may be ludicrous if, in fact, God inhabits every point in space and time. There may not be a past or future to an omnipresent being. There'd be no linearity to the phenomena of prophecy at all. His "actions" would be indecipherable from pure reality. Time could be an instant, a single moment. This is a much more sophisticated and beautiful concept of God than the mechanistic klutziness usually ascribed to Him by traditional christianity. It is incomprehensible -- as He should be.

Your continual restatements that there ARE preordained events (Events known and created by God before they happened) do not address a God like this. They require a God on a timeline of some sort. By logic and scripture, there may not be any such thing as a preordained event. Like God, reality may just *be*. No pre or post. And my recommendations to drop these time oriented ideas of God are not out of some pompous "I'm smarter than you" need to argue with you. They are sincere attempts to get you to stop and marvel at just how big your God can be -- and how little a time oriented God is by comparison. You seem proud of your unwillingness to change your views. This does not serve a God who asks you to prove all things.

Peace and goodwill.

Yes, that does clarify your comments a bit more — and I will say that I fully understand where you are coming from in your opinions. What you're describing, to me, is an excellent example of God's omnipotence: His ability to address any situation at any time to His glory.

And yes, your interpretation does make Him out to be a glorious and powerful God. I will say, however, that my years of study in this matter — both formally and informally — still make me lean to a "timeline" view (if I may call it that).

I do not see a problem nor a contradiction in the above-described omnipotent God and One that has things pre-ordained. It is pre-ordained that Jesus will return to Earth, yet Jesus Himself knows not the season nor the hour — and I do not feel that God does, either. However, Jesus' return will occur — it's pre-ordained to — and nothing can prevent it.

Will events transpire that delay His return? No, simply because God isn't bound my Time as wee see it. Jesus' return will occur when it should. A Gandalf quote comes to mind: A wizard is never early or late, he arrives right on time (or something like that).

I wouldn’t say that I'm proud to not change my views — I've spent years of study and prayer developing my views. I'm an ordained minister, as a matter of fact, and I've studied years to learn and uncover more about God than most lay-people. I have explored pretty much every facet and potential faith concept and world view, and I've "heard it all."

Just as you say I'm proud not to change, I can say the same to you. But why don't you change? Because you've grown to understand what you understand, and only compelling "evidence" will (maybe) make you change your worldview. So it is with me.

I've have my opinions and my beliefs, and they are made from much sterner stuff that Sunday School, so yes, I may be stubborn — but we all are.

Take care,
Maury