Alright. I think we're all getting a little confused by all the interpertations, and unfortuneatly, every person interpertation differs, even if slightly. I suggest that everyone would read the Bible if they are confused about something rather than taking anything anyone says on this forums as fact. Keep in mind, there are different sects of Christianity, many are different. Most noticeably, Mormons, who even use a different Bible in addition to the Mormon Bible, but that...is another entire topic.
Moving on though.
On the idea of losing your faith, God says that you cannot lose your salvation, he promises this. Now lets think about this, when you're dealing with an all-knowing God of omnipotence, do you really think that he can be *tricked* by prayers of insurance, or that someone could acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice but not genuinely but still be saved ? You cannot lose your salvation, but you most be genuine, to recieve it, he knows your heart.
Next.
On the idea of God being loving and just. Keep in mind, they are NOT mutually exclusive. Does a loving parent allow their children to grow up without punishment ? Without any guidance, letting them live in their selfish behavior ? Is a judge who lets a rapist out scot-free a loving person ? I would think not. God is just. But understand, Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins, which means, he is still punishing our sins, but instead of God punishing us, Jesus took the outpour of God's wrath upon himself, so our sins are still being paid for, but by Jesus. Is that not a loving God ? And what does he ask ? That you simply accept the sacrifice, and live a life pleasing to God.
And those who are asking why God just doesn't let us personally know he exists. Do you think Jesus is substantial enough? Or his miracles, or his sacrifice, or his resurrection ? Or how about creation in general ? The stars ? The sun ? Touch ? Sight ? Hearing ? Taste ?
And there's anger, and holy anger. He despises sin.
Also, while we're working our way on the idea of free choice and the like. This question is bound to pop up eventually.
"If God created everything, and God can do nothing evil, then how come he created sin so that we could make a free choice?"
The answer is quite simple actually. Is a shadow anything in existance ? Darkness ? No. It's not. Shadows are not things, they are a lack of a thing. Sin is not a thing, it is the lack of good. Just as a shadow is just the absence of light. So sin is just the lack of everything good God made.
one of my country's newpapers wrote about an egyptian ban of this movie for the same reason (damn religion <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> )
A better way of explaining this is to say that the Hebrew were still trying to understand their relationship with God.
However to say this is to undermine the authority of the Old Testament which is not what you are trying to do.
To imply that God becomes angry is to break with the ideas classical of Judeo-Christian theology, which attests that:
1.God is all-loving 2.God is all-powerful
If God is all-loving then how can he become angry?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're Jews, not "Hebrews". We stopped being Hebrews when the Romans took Jerusalem and exhiled us, and that was a loooong time ago.
Anyway, there's a difference between interpreting an action of God as being because of anger, and God being angry. It's just a human means of comprehending something. How many ancient civilizations, when they saw lightning, interpreted it as anger?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Miracles are a topic for great philosophical debate.
Philosophical consensus about what a miracle is boils down to:
1. It must break the laws of nature 2. It must have purpose or significance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not always. That's only "manifest" miracles. Judaism predicts that just before the Messianic age there will be a period of many miracles such as the restoration of sight to the blind, and restoration of life to the dead. However, one interpretation is that these miracales (and the coming of the messiah) will happen no matter how "good" or "bad" the world is - if the world is "good" they will come in the form of thunder and lightning and great celestial fanfare (your garden variety manifest miracle); alternatively they will come from the miracle of medical science and the like. Ultimately, God is still credited with responsibility, and the act is still identified as being a miracle.
... (paraphrased) <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does god give us free choice and let us do evil?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> point of information: according to Judaism, humans are considered to be on a higher spiritual level than angels. Angels, being the servants of God, can do no wrong. They have full knowledge of Him, and really don't have much choice in what they do. They can't err. Humans, on the other hand, <i>can</i> err. This means they can improve themselves, and virtue gained through self improvement is regarded as being of greater value than virtue by itself. ... point of information: Judaism's take on heaven and hell is that you do go to heaven when you die, almost regardless. "Heaven" is a misnomer, as there are many, many levels of it (42, or thereabouts). The lowest level is Gehennom, or "Hell", but you don't automatically go there when you're "bad".
Judaism basically views the real world as a "soul cleaning machine", so to speak. What level of heaven you end up in depends on your spiritual merit on Earth, because the afterlife is static. The difference is, your soul (or parts thereof, but that's another story) is free to reincarnate into the physical world and "have another go", so to speak, if it *really* wants to. Also, Gehennom is reserved for if you've been *really* *really* evil, and it more accurately corresponds to a not-very nice prison in the physical world - your soul basically serves a sentence in Gehennom depending on how bad you were. Not everyone needs a trip to Gehennom, and nobody stays there forever. There are no "damned", according to Judaism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just so we know I was talking about Hebrews writing the Old Testament.
As for the whole lightning this it could be said that it was just an ancient civilisations way of understanding what was going on, like I said with the Hebrews understanding their relationship with God.
As for miracles, alas my philosophical course was on Christianity and so I was basing my knowledge on the subject on St Thomas Aqunias' definition and I really didn't want to get into David Hume, as his comments weren't really very nice.
Anyway thank you for the information on Judaism, alas my Catholic School doesn't really teach you about religions in religious education - all I know is that they once took a story about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and replaced him with Jesus, Mary and Joseph and passed it off as a Christian story.
[3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. [4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which basically means that only 144,000 virgin males will get into Heaven. So all you people boasting about your "conquests"... Sorry. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe that all this means is that there are 144,000 virgin men who will be singing a certain song. every one else who believes will get to heaven, but they wont be able to sing that song
If you actually watched the movie, the idea there is that no man can be god anyway- even with the "powers" no man can do the job. And, for instance, people who previously believed in god may turn and "hate" god because their prayers weren't answered with a yes. Now, if you believe that if your prayers aren't answered that it is proof that there is no god, you can't hate him because that would require acknowledging his existance, or at least your belief thereof. I think it explains very well why not everyones prayer can be approved. Plus the movie was funny.
I'm glad a country regards religion so highly, it's not my place to say they shouldn't. I'm happy for them. But I am against censoring it for any reason. In the end a person must make his/her own choice, and quite frankly I don't like governments that decide it's best to make the choice FOR the people. If they're THAT worried that everyone will become corrupt or something after watching a movie (With Jim in it no less) then they need to catch up with the rest of human society. It's 2003- and quite frankly it's ridiculous that we still have places in the world that are so primitive, excuse the word choice. There's no reason you can't be free yet still very religious. Is that like saying our society is "better" than theirs because they are so strict? Yes. Our society is not perfect, but it's a far sight "Better" at least in my opinion. Does that mean I want them to become like America, and force our beliefs on them? No. You can be very religious, free, and still not like america. So what is the purpose of such a strict country? Its not ensuring anything, or protecting any people, other than the social status and power of the ones in the government. And so I don't feel arrogant in saying that the way their government does things is inferior. I acknowledge that our system (america) has more than it's fair share of problems, but at least in my opinion, it's a far sight better than any system that can censor so strictly.
As for religion in general; it's an important part of human nature. It inspires and provides hope, especially for a people with nothing else to go on. Things we can easily take for granted living in 1st world nations (faith, hope, and in a related note religion) is often all that keeps others, who may be striving to even exist tomorrow, going.
Now, manipulating people and using religion as a tool to get what you want or to hold/obtain power is something I'm against. As with any organization, such things can and often do become corrupt, giving the entire idea of religion as a whole a bad name. I don't like extremests either.....
I don't go to church (well, very rarely), but I do believe in god- and quite frankly I don't care what the specifics are. And, being someone who will do something just because someone told me not to, if anyone tried to enforce a no-religion policy I would fight it- not nessisarily because I believe in god so much as I believe you don't have the right to say I can't.
Comments
Moving on though.
On the idea of losing your faith, God says that you cannot lose your salvation, he promises this. Now lets think about this, when you're dealing with an all-knowing God of omnipotence, do you really think that he can be *tricked* by prayers of insurance, or that someone could acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice but not genuinely but still be saved ? You cannot lose your salvation, but you most be genuine, to recieve it, he knows your heart.
Next.
On the idea of God being loving and just. Keep in mind, they are NOT mutually exclusive. Does a loving parent allow their children to grow up without punishment ? Without any guidance, letting them live in their selfish behavior ? Is a judge who lets a rapist out scot-free a loving person ? I would think not. God is just. But understand, Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins, which means, he is still punishing our sins, but instead of God punishing us, Jesus took the outpour of God's wrath upon himself, so our sins are still being paid for, but by Jesus. Is that not a loving God ? And what does he ask ? That you simply accept the sacrifice, and live a life pleasing to God.
And those who are asking why God just doesn't let us personally know he exists. Do you think Jesus is substantial enough? Or his miracles, or his sacrifice, or his resurrection ? Or how about creation in general ? The stars ? The sun ? Touch ? Sight ? Hearing ? Taste ?
And there's anger, and holy anger. He despises sin.
Also, while we're working our way on the idea of free choice and the like. This question is bound to pop up eventually.
"If God created everything, and God can do nothing evil, then how come he created sin so that we could make a free choice?"
The answer is quite simple actually. Is a shadow anything in existance ? Darkness ? No. It's not. Shadows are not things, they are a lack of a thing. Sin is not a thing, it is the lack of good. Just as a shadow is just the absence of light. So sin is just the lack of everything good God made.
A better way of explaining this is to say that the Hebrew were still trying to understand their relationship with God.
However to say this is to undermine the authority of the Old Testament which is not what you are trying to do.
To imply that God becomes angry is to break with the ideas classical of Judeo-Christian theology, which attests that:
1.God is all-loving
2.God is all-powerful
If God is all-loving then how can he become angry?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're Jews, not "Hebrews". We stopped being Hebrews when the Romans took Jerusalem and exhiled us, and that was a loooong time ago.
Anyway, there's a difference between interpreting an action of God as being because of anger, and God being angry. It's just a human means of comprehending something. How many ancient civilizations, when they saw lightning, interpreted it as anger?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Miracles are a topic for great philosophical debate.
Philosophical consensus about what a miracle is boils down to:
1. It must break the laws of nature
2. It must have purpose or significance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not always. That's only "manifest" miracles. Judaism predicts that just before the Messianic age there will be a period of many miracles such as the restoration of sight to the blind, and restoration of life to the dead. However, one interpretation is that these miracales (and the coming of the messiah) will happen no matter how "good" or "bad" the world is - if the world is "good" they will come in the form of thunder and lightning and great celestial fanfare (your garden variety manifest miracle); alternatively they will come from the miracle of medical science and the like. Ultimately, God is still credited with responsibility, and the act is still identified as being a miracle.
...
(paraphrased)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does god give us free choice and let us do evil?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
point of information: according to Judaism, humans are considered to be on a higher spiritual level than angels. Angels, being the servants of God, can do no wrong. They have full knowledge of Him, and really don't have much choice in what they do. They can't err. Humans, on the other hand, <i>can</i> err. This means they can improve themselves, and virtue gained through self improvement is regarded as being of greater value than virtue by itself.
...
point of information: Judaism's take on heaven and hell is that you do go to heaven when you die, almost regardless. "Heaven" is a misnomer, as there are many, many levels of it (42, or thereabouts). The lowest level is Gehennom, or "Hell", but you don't automatically go there when you're "bad".
Judaism basically views the real world as a "soul cleaning machine", so to speak. What level of heaven you end up in depends on your spiritual merit on Earth, because the afterlife is static. The difference is, your soul (or parts thereof, but that's another story) is free to reincarnate into the physical world and "have another go", so to speak, if it *really* wants to. Also, Gehennom is reserved for if you've been *really* *really* evil, and it more accurately corresponds to a not-very nice prison in the physical world - your soul basically serves a sentence in Gehennom depending on how bad you were. Not everyone needs a trip to Gehennom, and nobody stays there forever. There are no "damned", according to Judaism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just so we know I was talking about Hebrews writing the Old Testament.
As for the whole lightning this it could be said that it was just an ancient civilisations way of understanding what was going on, like I said with the Hebrews understanding their relationship with God.
As for miracles, alas my philosophical course was on Christianity and so I was basing my knowledge on the subject on St Thomas Aqunias' definition and I really didn't want to get into David Hume, as his comments weren't really very nice.
Anyway thank you for the information on Judaism, alas my Catholic School doesn't really teach you about religions in religious education - all I know is that they once took a story about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and replaced him with Jesus, Mary and Joseph and passed it off as a Christian story.
[3] And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
[4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which basically means that only 144,000 virgin males will get into Heaven. So all you people boasting about your "conquests"... Sorry. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that all this means is that there are 144,000 virgin men who will be singing a certain song. every one else who believes will get to heaven, but they wont be able to sing that song
I'm glad a country regards religion so highly, it's not my place to say they shouldn't. I'm happy for them. But I am against censoring it for any reason. In the end a person must make his/her own choice, and quite frankly I don't like governments that decide it's best to make the choice FOR the people. If they're THAT worried that everyone will become corrupt or something after watching a movie (With Jim in it no less) then they need to catch up with the rest of human society. It's 2003- and quite frankly it's ridiculous that we still have places in the world that are so primitive, excuse the word choice. There's no reason you can't be free yet still very religious. Is that like saying our society is "better" than theirs because they are so strict? Yes. Our society is not perfect, but it's a far sight "Better" at least in my opinion. Does that mean I want them to become like America, and force our beliefs on them? No. You can be very religious, free, and still not like america. So what is the purpose of such a strict country? Its not ensuring anything, or protecting any people, other than the social status and power of the ones in the government. And so I don't feel arrogant in saying that the way their government does things is inferior. I acknowledge that our system (america) has more than it's fair share of problems, but at least in my opinion, it's a far sight better than any system that can censor so strictly.
As for religion in general; it's an important part of human nature. It inspires and provides hope, especially for a people with nothing else to go on. Things we can easily take for granted living in 1st world nations (faith, hope, and in a related note religion) is often all that keeps others, who may be striving to even exist tomorrow, going.
Now, manipulating people and using religion as a tool to get what you want or to hold/obtain power is something I'm against. As with any organization, such things can and often do become corrupt, giving the entire idea of religion as a whole a bad name. I don't like extremests either.....
I don't go to church (well, very rarely), but I do believe in god- and quite frankly I don't care what the specifics are. And, being someone who will do something just because someone told me not to, if anyone tried to enforce a no-religion policy I would fight it- not nessisarily because I believe in god so much as I believe you don't have the right to say I can't.
just my 2 cents.