If God is good...

"But if you are willing to admit that some parts of the Bible are subject to interpretation,why are you not willing to admit that ALL of it is then subject to interpretation. How decides what part of the Bible is an interpretation and which part is to ba taken literaly?"
--Did God say it or did a man say it? that it Literal to Interperetation. But the hebrew words as was explained can be different words but mean the same thing. Such things as this passage are obvious when looked at carefully "Study to show thyself approved unto God".------------------

As for why there is sin and suffering and evil in the word (the original topic), the answer is quite obvious from the theological perspective.Without sin righteousness is undefined and does not exist. Without suffering there can be no joy. Without evil there can be no goodness.Suffering in excess is not good but would we really fit into a lukewarm world with nothing to strive for and nothing to seek?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asteragros:
I agree that the only way to reach the real knowledge is through an honest study of the Bible. Everyone of us must do it, if he wants to know what is our life purpose on this planet.

---

without God there is no purpose for existence, none that would drive me to continue living. The bible was meant to be taken as a kind of guide for salvation and life. God is faith, not like how evolution requires faith to explain how things happen. I probably should sit down and start reading the bible as well, as of now ive only read bits and fragments.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

​

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
As for why there is sin and suffering and evil in the word (the original topic), the answer is quite obvious from the theological perspective.

​

Without sin righteousness is undefined and does not exist. Without suffering there can be no joy. Without evil there can be no goodness.

​

Suffering in excess is not good but would we really fit into a lukewarm world with nothing to strive for and nothing to seek?

---

very true. God would rather you be hot or cold than lukewarm. If you have faith in him say it. If you dont have faith say it. You need to make some decisions in life and this is a big. He justs wants you to say you dont have faith so that others know that they need to teach you more about him and try to get you to have faith.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
"Speaking for myself, an Agnostic (recovering Catholic)..."***Without attempting to comment further on the entirety of the statements in your post, I think I finally can understand your animosity, (if that is the correct term), towards Christianity and your inevitable switch to a reliance on science rather than God. A thorough study of the history of the Catholic Church, from its' inception and into present day, as well as the teachings they continue to espouse, (not to mention the pedophilic rapists they continue to protect), begs the question......."Why do so many continue to follow Rome?" Had I been raised in the Catholic Church, I might very well be standing at your side, promoting the virtues of science over the vicissitudes of Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general. In order to stave off unwarranted comments from any Catholics who may become offended, I acknowledge that the Catholic Church is not alone in their bastardization of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.***Jet Shalom

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
"Speaking for myself, an Agnostic (recovering Catholic)..."***Without attempting to comment further on the entirety of the statements in your post, I think I finally can understand your animosity, (if that is the correct term), towards Christianity and your inevitable switch to a reliance on science rather than God. A thorough study of the history of the Catholic Church, from its' inception and into present day, as well as the teachings they continue to espouse, (not to mention the pedophilic rapists they continue to protect), begs the question......."Why do so many continue to follow Rome?" Had I been raised in the Catholic Church, I might very well be standing at your side, promoting the virtues of science over the vicissitudes of Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general. In order to stave off unwarranted comments from any Catholics who may become offended, I acknowledge that the Catholic Church is not alone in their bastardization of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.***Jet Shalom

quote:

---

***Without attempting to comment further on the entirety of the statements in your post, I think I finally can understand your animosity, (if that is the correct term), towards Christianity and your inevitable switch to a reliance on science rather than God. A thorough study of the history of the Catholic Church, from its' inception and into present day, as well as the teachings they continue to espouse, (not to mention the pedophilic rapists they continue to protect), begs the question......."Why do so many continue to follow Rome?" Had I been raised in the Catholic Church, I might very well be standing at your side, promoting the virtues of science over the vicissitudes of Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general. In order to stave off unwarranted comments from any Catholics who may become offended, I acknowledge that the Catholic Church is not alone in their bastardization of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

---

funny thing is the catholic church DECIDED what was included and what was exluded from the bible. Regardless of Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Protestant, all the teachings come from the same place, a book put together by the Church. The Catholic Church, which ultimatly represents all christians, is a corrupt, lieing, deceitful organization that will do or say whatever it needs to in order to maintain its power. Abstinance was enforced soley for this reason, the christman tree, the very DATE of Christs birth also shows this, so many "catholic" things are extremely non-catholic. In fact the very substance of the catholic religion is based upon an event that very likely never happened, but without it the religion fails(the ressurection). Without the ressurection you do not have catholics, you have jews who followed a lunatic from an extremist jewish cult(Nazerians were an ultra orthodox religious cult).Also we have this.. the meek shall inherit the earth.. I dont remember the added footnote that reads as long as they are practicing catholics who have embrased jesus. That is some *loving* god.. who incedentilly ordered the execution of the Canaanites and the Philistines, endoresed the death of children that were not jewish and all around was not such a peacefull, fun loving god that Jesus claims him to be.

Originally posted by RedVento:
funny thing is the catholic church DECIDED what was included and what was exluded from the bible.***Actually, that is not totally correct. While this may hold true for Roman Catholicism and its' offshoots, this is not the case universally. For instance, the Greek Orthodox Bible does not include the book of Revelation, as it was not viewed as being inspired of God. Other Bibles do not include the Apocrypha, as they were not viewed as being inspired of God. So now the question would be, which, or who, should be followed? The Roman? The Greek? The ???????***JetRV:
Regardless of Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Protestant, all the teachings come from the same place, a book put together by the Church.***Again, not totally correct. Time has changed many things, including the facts concerning the translation and transliteration of Holy Scripture. You should research this a little deeper. What once held true does not necessarily continue to hold true, as a number of groups have publish Bibles according to, and in line with, a better understanding of the ancient texts. And as for the Catholic church, forget it. They do not even follow the teachings in the Bible that they use.***JetRV:
The Catholic Church, which ultimatly represents all christians.......***"SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, AND SCHRAF THE EX-CATHOLIC, BUB! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL BE MY REPRESENTATIVE!"***JetRV:
.......is a corrupt, lieing, deceitful organization that will do or say whatever it needs to in order to maintain its power.***You will get no argument from me on that issue.***JetRV:
Abstinance was enforced soley for this reason, the christman tree, the very DATE of Christs birth also shows this, so many "catholic" things are extremely non-catholic. In fact the very substance of the catholic religion is based upon an event that very likely never happened, but without it the religion fails(the ressurection). Without the ressurection you do not have catholics, you have jews who followed a lunatic from an extremist jewish cult(Nazerians were an ultra orthodox religious cult).***Well aside from your statement bordering on blasphemy of God, your comments on the Catholic church and their pagan Babylonian practices is essentially correct.***JetRV:
Also we have this.. the meek shall inherit the earth.. I dont remember the added footnote that reads as long as they are practicing catholics who have embrased jesus. That is some *loving* god.. who incedentilly ordered the execution of the Canaanites and the Philistines, endoresed the death of children that were not jewish and all around was not such a peacefull, fun loving god that Jesus claims him to be.***Now it is statements like this last one that always make me wonder in amasement at the audacity of some people. That any person, especially some pagan evolutionist, feels as though they are qualified to dictate to God, whom they have rejected, and whom they deny even exists. Yet they feel qualified to show God how to be righteous and how to deal with the wickedness of people that continued unchecked for generation after generation. Once again, the clay thinks it is wiser than the Potter. Unbelieveable to the point of being an excercise in ignorance and corruption to the Nth degree.***Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
"Speaking for myself, an Agnostic (recovering Catholic)..."***Without attempting to comment further on the entirety of the statements in your post, I think I finally can understand your animosity, (if that is the correct term), towards Christianity and your inevitable switch to a reliance on science rather than God. A thorough study of the history of the Catholic Church, from its' inception and into present day, as well as the teachings they continue to espouse, (not to mention the pedophilic rapists they continue to protect), begs the question......."Why do so many continue to follow Rome?" Had I been raised in the Catholic Church, I might very well be standing at your side, promoting the virtues of science over the vicissitudes of Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general. In order to stave off unwarranted comments from any Catholics who may become offended, I acknowledge that the Catholic Church is not alone in their bastardization of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.***Jet Shalom [/b][/QUOTE]You know, the funny thing is that I am not at odds with the Catholic Church with regards to science. They are pretty much on board, albeit they took quite a long time to acknowledge that Galileo was right and that the ToE is an accurate description of the origin of species.The problems I first began to have with Catholicism were with the cultural and social rules which Catholics are to follow if they are to be considered faithful, such as rampant discrimination, disrespect and fear of women, the unhealthy, oppressive attitude towards sexual expression, and the emphasis upon guilt as a major motivator to follow the rules.These factors are generally even more prevalent and even more pronounced and aggregious in other Christian sects, with the addition of many of them being completely off the wall with regards to science.I was taught to believe this way, I realized, just as most Chinese are taught to be Buddhists, and most Indians are taught to be Hindus, and most Saudis are taught to be Muslims.I eventually realized that I had simply outgrown the belief in some undetectable entity that had a special interst in my life.I most certainly do not consider science to be any kind of replacement for religion at all. It's a very useful tool, but it isn't a moral guide. Philosophers of all stripes, incliding Christian, have contributed greatly to the puzzling out of moral and ethical problems.
They are all useful, but ultimately, I am responsible to myself and to those I come into contact with.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

God can't be good. Why create a hell for unbelievers? To roast people for dinner? or just to make them suffer for eternity? The former would be inline with some pagan gods that I read about, and the latter would just be plain saddistic. Does he watch from some amphitheater like some other dictators of old? Yeah, yeah I know the old line 'we do not deserve to be in god's presence and therefore must suffer'. What a bunch of crap! Can you really believe that god will throw a sweet little old lady in a burning furnace for eternity just because she was brainwashed as a Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican or some other religious myth other than yours? I'd rather be worshipping a pantheistic god than a sick f**ker like that. How can someone assent to such brutality from one who burns you in hell for a false belief? This is just absurd.
If christian believe in this stupid idea of burning hell, how do you accomodate that with a pro-life stance? Can't abort a potential baby but you can burn somebody in hell for eternity (or just shoot the abortion doctor). Yeah right! Makes all the sense in the world.A simpler less drawn out answer to the question "Is god good?"would be "NO, because doesn't exist. He is a myth. In the same category as Zeus. So the question is non-sensical. Ask me something that makes sense."take care
Shaw

"God can't be good. Why create a hell for unbelievers? "
--Hell was created for Satan and his angels, you should actually read that book be for it is critisized. It is your assertion which is absurd."A simpler less drawn out answer to the question "Is god good?"would be "NO, because doesn't exist. He is a myth. In the same category as Zeus. So the question is non-sensical. Ask me something that makes sense."
--Really? I wasn't aware that God was disproven! Wouldn't happen to have that kind of data/information available would you? I didn't think you would...------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Really? I wasn't aware that God was disproven! Wouldn't happen to have that kind of data/information available would you? I didn't think you would...

​

---

You are right TC. God has not been disproven because there is no data. No data == no proof, pro or con. It is equally impossible to disprove tree nymphs, Elves, Allah, Kali... see the problem?In the absence of data supporting an idea, it seems reasonable to assume that the idea in question is questionable, at least until there is some information.If however, you wish to take a leap of faith, you are stuck with the problem of determining WHICH faith. Worshiping the wrong god could be very bad. This problem is a tricky one since the world is full of religion, none of which has data to back it up.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

--Hell was created for Satan and his angels, you should actually read that book be for it is critisized. It is your assertion which is absurd.

---

What do you mean by absurd? Was I being too obtuse for you? OK. Let me clarify:
There are 23 verses in the KJ new testament containing the word 'hell'. Only one of them, 2 Peter 2:4, mentioned anything about satan or his lackies (the angels). So hell may have been created for satan and his angel friends but it will be used for me (and the little old Catholic lady) after I die. Did I mis-interpret? Don't believe me, here check it out yourself:Biblical Reference[Fixed too long link. --Admin]two of them stood out for me:Luke 12
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?Mark 9
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenchedI see no mentioning of satan nor angels in there. But I'm not 'interpreting' it either. It seems pretty clear that I'm going to hell to burn where 'the fire is not quenched'.
I said that God created hell for unbelievers. I don't see where my assertion was absurd. Please show me.
btw-There were 30 results for a search of 'hell' in the OT. Most of these verses aren't about casting somebody into hell to burn in 'the fire that is not quenched'. That's probably because they weren't Christians.
I never critisized the Bible. I critisized a mythical god who would burn somebody in 'the fire that is not quenched' because I don't believe in that fairy tales anymore.
Now my question to you TC is "Did you read the Bible?"
Did the spine crack when you check out these verses? Mine didn't. Mine are well used (seminary student--at one time).As for the second part of your post, about the evidence crap. John took care of that one.
I'm now an atheist. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, nothing more. What that means is that not all atheist hold the same world view. All it deals with is the absence of a belief of a god. When I say that I'm an atheist, you cannot draw any other conclusion other than my absence of a belief. It doesn't mean I'm an evolutionist. It doesn't mean I'm an existentialist. It doesn't mean I'm a communist. All it means is that I think the belief in a god is irrational.
And with that out of the way I now have all the information/data you need. You may need a lab to try this. DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS! Look around and when you find him/her/it, point him/her/it out to someone close by. This experiment should take about 2hrs. When this is done publish your work and you'll be famous. Again, a word of warning to not try this at home, you may be deceived by the devil.
When I said to point him/her/it out, I meant the actual person/being, not his creations. I can see for myself the beautiful trees and the beautiful people he created. What I want to see is the actual supernatural being. Now that would bring me back to the flock!take care

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-14-2002]

2 Peter 2:4 - For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[1] putting them into gloomy dungeons[2] to be held for judgment.--Find me a verse in the bible where you can replace 'angels' with 'Gods Creation'(in the context of humans) and you'll be getting somewhere. Also, for those who say that they have to see God to believe it, is irrational, and if there is no other way, it is ignorant.
--Furthermore, John seemingly is unable to differentiate the difference between direct and indirect evidence. And I addressed you rightly, just be weary of the magnitude of your confidence in your assertions. Not only will you then sound some-what open-minded, you will also give yourself some lee-way in your credibility.-------------------