Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:why is God concerned about that?megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:I have an issue with that regarding religiond spike wrote:Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
Fundamentalism is defined as "strict adherence".
I cannot understand though how someone can follow only some of the rules of a religion. It's either you are Christian 100% or Muslim 100% or Hindu 100% or you aren't. I don't think there is a 50% Hindu or 73% Muslim etc
So technically each religion teaches that every follower should strive to be a fundamentalist.
Not so?
Does any religious text for any religion say "follow these words in moderation or according to your own comfort level"?
Bizzare wrote:AdamB wrote:The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins, so that by seeking GOD's forgiveness and asking for HIM to accept our repentance, GOD's PERFECT ATTRIBUTES would be made manifest.
You couldn't have read that in the Holy Bible !!
If so, please tell us what scripture and also where you bought your bible.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:why is God concerned about that?megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
AdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".
megadoc1 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:why is God concerned about that?megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
because
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
this is how God chose to show his love for us, our destiny is dependent on how we respond to itAdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".
so then the God in the quran is responsible for deceiving millions of christians thru Jesus' disciples by fooling them into thinking Christ was crucified before their very eyes ent?
Surah 4:157
And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him.
megadoc1 wrote:AdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".
so then the God in the quran is responsible for deceiving millions of christians thru Jesus' disciples by fooling them into thinking Christ was crucified before their very eyes ent?
Surah 4:157
And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him.
so you agree that the god in the quran is a deceiver ?AdamB wrote:That's correct, thanks for reading the Quran, it is a book and books we are supposed to read. Also,
I never said I subscribe to Catholicism I just said that I am catholic, don't mix the twoAdamB wrote:thanks for being open as to subscribing to Catholicism. I don't see what is the big secret that people have to hide that.
my faith is not in the bible ,its in the person of Jesus Christ ..the bible tells me about him ,its his words so If I claim to follow Jesus I would abide by his words and I act on what I believe,its all about faith I cannot act on what I don't believe.AdamB wrote:You see to really believe in something is not mere acceptance but rather acceptance and submission. This means that you act in accordance to what you accept as your belief. So if someone says they believe in the Bible but don't follow its laws / commands or follow some things and don't follow others, THEN THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE. This is how true faith is define in Islam, acceptance and submission.
adam, adam, adam, why not focus on one issue at a time you are all over the place man ,how do you expect to understand what Christians believe if you keep clustering yourself with arguments? work on them one at a time........first, the resurrection is not proof of sonship to God so your whole argument falls here.second, Jesus never had to prove his sonship ,was he not looking for faith? ...Jesus gave a sign and both of them are based on faithAdamB wrote:Jesus said it himself in Matthew 12:39, can you explain what it means to you:
{12:38}Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees
answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
{12:39} But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
{12:40} For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
What it means to me is that Jonas was alive in the belly of the whale (for 3 days and 3 nights), so Jesus would be "just as" Jonas ie 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Since it is not physically possible for Jonas to survive, then GOD would have "made it possible" or made it appear to be so but he would not have really been in the whale.
If Jonas was dead in the whale and then GOD "resurrected" him, then what is the big deal about Jesus' resurrection since it is possible for a man to die and for GOD to bring him back to life. Or Jonas would then be on equal standing with Jesus in terms of claiming to be the SON of GOD because of resurrection (if resurrection is the proof or claim to sonship of GOD). I think Jesus also brought someone back to life as well in one of his miracles / ability given to him by GOD's leave.[/color]
AdamB wrote:About the 3 days and 3 nights thing, how is it possible that he died on (Good) Friday and resurrected on easter Sunday, the maths. Shouldn't it be Monday?
no it means that in the beginning God wasdnoah wrote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)
according to the bible does this mean's that god had a beginning
just asking
AdamB wrote:
In fact, the entire Quran is the speech of GOD, HE spoke it , truly. It is not created.
cool but the muslim concept of God is not the Christian concept of God, but what I am saying is in the beginning God was always thereAdamB wrote:If that is what is meant in the Bible, then it is a concept not befitting of GOD. This is like the saying that GOD created the Earth and then "rested", also in the Bible.
The Muslim concept is that GOD neither has a beginning nor an end. HE always was and always will be. HE has no difficiency or weakness in any of HIS attributes for they are ALL PERFECT!!
HE does not need rest.
. check this out how would you explian thisAdamB wrote:I will try to explain from muslim doctrine:
In the beginning was the WORD - The word in arabic is "kun" meaning "be". That is all GOD has to say to create.
And the word was with GOD - it is HIS speech before HE spoke it and after.
And the word was GOD - GOD was not created and the attributes of GOD are also not created. So HIS speech "be" is HIS attribute, is HIM. So the word is GO
D. I am not saying that HE ceases to be anything else but this "word", not at all.
HIS execution of any of HIS divine attributes, does not affect any other or HIS "ESSENCE".
In fact, the entire Quran is the speech of GOD, HE spoke it , truly. It is not created.
megadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?
it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himselfdnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)
after that this happonedmegadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?
so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
can someone help me out here???
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:d spike wrote:Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
I have an issue with that regarding religion
Fundamentalism is defined as "strict adherence".
I cannot understand though how someone can follow only some of the rules of a religion. It's either you are Christian 100% or Muslim 100% or Hindu 100% or you aren't. I don't think there is a 50% Hindu or 73% Muslim etc
So technically each religion teaches that every follower should strive to be a fundamentalist.
Not so?
Does any religious text for any religion say "follow these words in moderation or according to your own comfort level"?
sMASH wrote:it may be defined as 'strict adherence' but the popular recent interpretation of intolerant fanboyism is what i presume is meant.
probably fanatic would be more appropriate.
d spike wrote:
Some time ago, Megadoc naively attempted to define a fundamentalist christian as one who believes in the fundamental teachings of Christ. He obviously thought that viewers of that post were even less well-read than he was, and as his definition sounds simple and self-explanatory, folks would believe it to be so. He very well knows what it means and refers to: literal application and strict adherence to scripture. Thanks to 9/11, even the most illiterate among us knows the meaning of "fundamentalist".
d spike wrote:(Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:54 pm)
The bottom line in any argument with you is your belief as a fundamentalist, and the basis of this very belief denies you the possibility of maintaining a debate on religious beliefs.
Fundamentalism has one basic rule:
1. This belief is the right one.
This rule means all other beliefs are wrong. This rule also means that the scripture used to base one's faith on is true, correct, perfect... for to consider otherwise would mean rule#1 is wrong.
Therefore you HAVE to believe that the Bible is focused on one thing, the same as your faith... one "message"... one complete... book. You weren't fooling anyone giving lip-service to the concept of the Bible being multiple writings - you still treat the Bible like one entity. Hence the reason why you cannot accept the basic truth about the Bible - different books, different authors and different reasons for writing those books.
The irony of this situation is that the one compelling fact that explains why they all deserve to be compiled together, that explains what binds these diverse books together, is the one truth you will not accept: these books were compiled because they were all considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit - and the folks who decided this were the RC boys...
I know your knee-jerk reaction will be to deny this by saying they weren't considered Roman Catholic at the time... that the Catholics came around much later - but that would be just more codswallop on your part... and I can prove it (but I will leave that for later )
AdamB wrote:thanks for being open as to subscribing to Catholicism. I don't see what is the big secret that people have to hide that.
AdamB wrote:@dspike
First of all, to be subtle in insulting people / insulting people with panache is still insulting them. I am the opposite, I say what I mean / tell people what's on my mind in the clearest terms but I promised to be good.
AdamB wrote:Almost everytime you respond to others' posts you insult them, that's not nice (examples in blue above).
Who have I insulted here? What imbecilic nonsense is this?I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
Fundamentalists are very wary of "thinking", as that can easily lead to deviation from their desired path - blind acceptance is the key they prefer. I have shown this to be so many times - but I remember now, you don't look back at earlier posts to see what has gone before, right?Fundamentalist thinking (that may be an oxymoron)
This is quite correct. Prove it wrong, if you wish. How is this insulting?To think that God “fails” because people sin is an overly simplistic way of thinking, and shows little understanding of why the Creation exists.
...and so it did. Truth hurts much?This post quoted demonstrates ignorance of the concept of Original sin.
Before anyone thinks I am putting poor AdamB down, let me say that MANY Christians also don’t understand this concept either – but that doesn’t stop them from talking about it… which is why people like AdamB cannot be blamed for their errant thinking.
AdamB wrote: You assume that your view on everything is the correct one and that everyone else is "dumb".
AdamB wrote: This is a discussion forum where everyone has their own point of view and the right to express them.
AdamB wrote:You claim to be the "godfather" of Christianity (and its knowledge / doctrines)
AdamB wrote: yet you hide and don't say where you stand concerning which branch of Christianity you subscribe to or that you don't subscribe to any at all.
AdamB wrote:So the question is "Where does your great knowledge come from?"
And where did you get this impression? You yourself have pointed out that you refuse to look back at previous posts, so you have no idea what I "assume". You are basing your opinion on a couple of pages of limited interaction. Why don't you ask sMASH or Duane or MG Man if this supposition of yours is true? You have myopically grabbed at an elephant, felt its trunk, and assumed that an elephant is very like a snake...AdamB wrote:Why do you assume by default that only the Christian concepts are correct?
AdamB wrote: Yet you can't make up your mind if the "story of Adam and Eve really happened". Is it not stated in the Bible? Do you not believe the Bible and everything it contains?
AdamB wrote:d spike wrote:AdamB wrote:references please.
Why do you ask? Are you going to do actual research?
I ask because I want to know if you have made it up
d spike wrote:This isn't MY logic or explanation.
This rationale existed long before Islam began... (and I am certainly not that old )
AdamB wrote:or if it is "the thinking that caused it to be made dogma", who thought of it, where it is documented in order to be verified.
AdamB wrote:Also, the validity from the source ie whether the thinking was substantiated from the Bible.
AdamB wrote:d spike wrote:In other words,
your faith is based on a book which was written based on that same faith.
I would suggest you look up "circular thinking".
Try and understand the difference between Faith and Knowledge.
Your comments please, easy on the insults!!
megadoc1 wrote:it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himselfdnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)
after that this happonedmegadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?
so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
can someone help me out here???
d spike wrote:
...and ask Nati, MG, or Kasey... I haven't started to insult you yet.
AdamB wrote:Seems logical to me (MY LOGIC)...d spike and others may have their views / THEIR LOGIC.
dnoah wrote:...from what i understand and know,the word "Begotten" has been remove by most high ranking scholars of Christianity because they believe it was fabricated
for example u will not find that word in the following bibles: New International Version,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,International Standard Version and alot more
AdamB wrote:The dictionary meanings of "begotten" does not support the meaning "not made".
AdamB wrote:A question: If GOD had "begotten" a SON, why limit GOD to ONLY begetting ONE SON? Why not others and daughters too?
dnoah wrote:anyway the point im makeing is this,we all believe god has no beginning or end, so that would mean god was there before the beginning and if so, it is right to say that everything in and after the beginning was created or made which leads up to, if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
d spike wrote:"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."
dnoah wrote:megadoc1 wrote:it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himselfdnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)
after that this happonedmegadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?
so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
can someone help me out here???
dspike also said
"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."
"The Holy Spirit,
proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
There is more that can (and should be) explained, but I will stop at this point for your feedback... and for certain others to lob their rotten fruit...
_________________
Big red rice-eater
Post subject: Re: The Religion Discussion
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:07 am
dnoah wrote:but from what i understand and know,the word "Begotten" has been remove by most high ranking scholars of Christianity because they believe it was fabricated
perhaps.. but you are missing out something all these translations listed came from the same source, that is the Hebrew and Greek text available for you today to search out yourself,now the word used for begotten in the Greek is monogenēs which meant only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). this cannot change but can be rendered differently in English carrying the same meaningdnoah wrote:for example u will not find that word in the following bibles: New International Version,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,International Standard Version and alot more
good point but if jesus is the logos which is the divine expression of God, he was always there from the beginning for example : if God is love,then when did He became love? we would agree that he was always love from the beginning right ? we can say the same for the logos who is this divine expression of love ,it is who God is.... this expression is considered to be Christ or God the son, the second person of the trinity...not created but always existed with Goddnoah wrote:anyway the point im makeing is this,we all believe god has no beginning or end, so that would mean god was there before the beginning and if so, it is right to say that everything in and after the beginning was created or made which leads up to, if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
i would like to know ya'll thoughts on this
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and
invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true
God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom
all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men
and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered
and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the
living and the dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]AdamB wrote:Seems logical to me (MY LOGIC)...d spike and others may have their views / THEIR LOGIC.
The dictionary meanings of "begotten" does not support the meaning "not made".
be·got·ten [bih-got-n] Show IPA
verb
a past participle of beget.
be·get
[bih-get] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
before 1000; Middle English begeten ( see be-, get); replacing Middle English biyeten, Old English begetan; cognate with Gothic bigitan, Old High German bigezzan.
A question: If GOD had "begotten" a SON, why limit GOD to ONLY begetting ONE SON? Why not others and daughters too?
d spike wrote:"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."
AdamB wrote:
Jesus, The Spirit of Allah (GOD)?
Ruhuminhu or The spirit of Allah (Quran-Al Nesa 4:171 ) - The more accurate translation for this is Ruh [spirit] min [from] hu [Him]
Many people, especially Christians claim that Jesus is the 'spirit of Allah' according to the Qur'an, and therefore a part of Allah. However, this is false
AdamB wrote:An analogy can be examined - how was the first man, Adam, created? GOD created and moulded him with HIS (GOD's) HANDS. How then did he, Adam, come to life? Was not a spirit (the soul) breathed (or however it was put) into him? Did this spirit emanate FROM GOD? If YES, then can we say that Adam is also the SON of GOD. If not, then the spirit came FROM GOD, belonging to HIM, but not a part of HIM. So, therefore Adam is also NOT GOD, just like Jesus!! Is MY logic making sense here?
d spike wrote:sMASH wrote:oh spike ...u may continue...d spike wrote: ...I will stop at this point for your feedback...
I need some feedback from you regarding what you thought about the material posted, in order to continue. That way I will know how to frame my explanation.
d spike wrote:If this Idea of oneself were truly perfect, it would take form... become real... a form, exact and identical in every way... NOT another being, NOT a copy - for this implies it is less than perfect. The SAME, not a twin - for then that is two Beings...
This Idea is Perfect in every way, so the Idea of Goodness would be Good. The Idea of Love can love. Goodness loves that which is Good.
As this Idea is Perfect in every way, thus it too can know and love.
It knows the Father, and loves the Father.
This Love the Idea has for its Origin, and the Love that the Origin has for the Idea of Himself, is perfect too!
This Love takes form, as only Perfect Love can, and it flows between the Origin and the Idea.
Thus the Trinity:
One Nature... God.
...but Three Persons. The Origin, the Idea, the Perfect Love and Awareness.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Three Persons in one God.
crossdrilled wrote:So all you religious people out there.... let me hear what you guys do for charity... what does your church/ mosque/ temple do to help people in the comunity with their offerings? On top of that, what do you personally do to ease the suffering of your fellow man?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: alfa, foreignused, st7, VexXx Dogg and 193 guests