Support NeoGAF

[apana]

Does anyone remember that old christian cartoon, the one where the kid went back in time with a robot?

Thanks a lot guys I had to find it on my own. Its Superbook! There is going to be a new CGI version soon apparently.

 

[KtSlime]

Thanks a lot guys I had to find it on my own. Its Superbook! There is going to be a new CGI version soon apparently.

Sorry, would have helped but I didn't watch Christian cartoons and the only two that I knew of were VeggieTales and Davey & Goliath. And I didn't think it was either of those. Glad you found it.

 

[benita]

Signing in as a proud catholic.

I just feel like countering the "religion causes war" rhetoric with the fact that the majority if the world's charitable organizations were established by Christian groups.

Let's not even get started on the difference in charitable donations between Christians and non-Christians.

I also think it's important to note that in all my years attending mass I've never felt compelled to contribute to the collection by anything beyond my own personal morality.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Signing in as a proud catholic.

I just feel like countering the "religion causes war" rhetoric with the fact that the majority if the world's charitable organizations were established by Christian groups.

Let's not even get started on the difference in charitable donations between Christians and non-Christians.

I also think it's important to note that in all my years attending mass I've never felt compelled to contribute to the collection by anything beyond my own personal morality.

Mark 12:41-43

41. Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.

42. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.

43. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.

So maybe boasting about how much money we give as a faith isn't the best of ideas. We can never know everyone's situation, and should take solace in what we are able to give, not what our community gives as a whole.

 

[kinggroin]

Good morning guys!!!

Quick question, has anyone here ever heard of The Action Bible? A friend of mine recommended it to me (I plan on picking it up for my boys); it looks like an interesting take on the word and should make the content a lot more accessible to the youngsters.

 

[magus]

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

 

[thesoapster]

Good morning guys!!!

Quick question, has anyone here ever heard of The Action Bible? A friend of mine recommended it to me (I plan on picking it up for my boys); it looks like an interesting take on the word and should make the content a lot more accessible to the youngsters.

I looked at the sample on the site for the plagues of Egypt. Final plague illustration is interesting...makes the Angel of Death look like some hooded phantom with a smokey fog pouring out from its hands into the homes of people. Kinda evil. Gotta admit it was pretty cool looking, though.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

It's time to go to the Church... see ya guys later.

 

[ronito]

so back to Job.
Like I said, the mormons believe it's a literal true story. I feel like that religions that do this end up having to tie themselves in knots to keep god from seeming like the biggest troll in history.

 

[WillyFive]

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

Yeah, it's great. Makes you want to see the expansion of humanity into other planets.

so back to Job.
Like I said, the mormons believe it's a literal true story. I feel like that religions that do this end up having to tie themselves in knots to keep god from seeming like the biggest troll in history.

I've never heard any objections regarding making it canon or not.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

Always enjoyed that. Although, I see some things differently, what if we are indeed the only intelligent life in the universe? That to me is more amazing than how small we are compared to the universe.

 

[Mortrialus]

Being tax-exempt is nice, but it gives the wrong message in that people can take advantage of it and found a malicious or insincere sect just to take advantage of not having to pay taxes.

But then again, if your religion is run entirely on donations, then the less money needed to support the cause the better.

There is a specific, secular reason why we give churches tax exemption. Its essentially a tool to keep them from sponsoring politicians in the name of their religion. Even if certain religions ($cientology) are essentially scams and it might seem absurd to give such a blatant pyramid scheme a tax exemption, it is definitely a lesser evil than the head of a major religion announcing "If you want to be a good Catholic, X for president of the United States. Its what God commands and you'll go to hell if you don't. "

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

There is a specific, secular reason why we give churches tax exemption. Its essentially a tool to keep them from sponsoring politicians in the name of their religion. Even if certain religions ($cientology) are essentially scams and it might seem absurd to give such a blatant pyramid scheme a tax exemption, it is definitely a lesser evil than the head of a major religion announcing "If you want to be a good Catholic, X for president of the United States. Its what God commands and you'll go to hell if you don't. "

Unfortunately it happens anyway. Evangelical groups are in the pocket of the Republican party. The talking points, the scare tactics, the 'Amuuriiiikah!!', the 'Muslim's are trying to bring in a NWO'. Many evangelical groups eat it up and have been eating it up for decades. Its unfortunate that they don't realize they're in the pocket of a particular party.

 

[Mortrialus]

Unfortunately it happens anyway. Evangelical groups are in the pocket of the Republican party. The talking points, the scare tactics, the 'Amuuriiiikah!!', the 'Muslim's are trying to bring in a NWO'. Many evangelical groups eat it up and have been eating it up for decades. Its unfortunate that they don't realize they're in the pocket of a particular party.

More like many southern members of the Republican party are in the pockets of evangelical groups.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Lent (Ash Wednesday, especially) is my Christmas season. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I don't like to fetishize church, but I really, really enjoy these services.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Look, I mostly agree with the theory of evolution. The part I can't quite agree is that humans come from the same ancestor as apes. Even though there is a big gap in intelligence between an ape and a frog, I think the gap is bigger from ape to human. That's my point. I have shown ITT that a two year old kid is more intelligent than the ape on youtube (undoubtedly one of the most intelligent apes there are). And human intelligence develops 38 more years and reaches it's peak at 40 years old.

But don't know any other theory that explains better the origin of the human being, and I have shown that there is a notable DNA similitude between man and ape. I'm of the opinion that God had something to do in this mysterious (at least for me) thing, but I'm not trying to pass that as a fact to other people; all I'm trying to say is that the theory of evolution doesn't explain satisfactorily (IMO) the origin of man.

It doesn't really matter what you think. The only question is whether the difference is so vast that it requires more time to evolve than the fossil record can accommodate. And that involves asking incredibly important questions about neurology and evolution. What is the difference between an ape's mind and a human's mind? Is it neuron count? Something else? And what kind of genetic change is needed to make that occur? There is a large difference, for example, between an arm and a wing, but scientists think that the bat evolved its wings due to the change of a single gene. Recently a few scientists ventured the hypothesis that a change to a tumor suppression gene led to an explosion in the number of cells in the human brain. This hypothesis isn't necessarily true. However, it is one example of how a little change, which was preventing the evolution of higher intelligence, might lead to larger changes of intelligence in certain species. It elegantly explains both why it is difficult to evolve certain features and why, when the changes occur, they evolve so rapidly.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at earlier is that higher reasoning is just that: a higher feature of the mind. You have yet to address the point that other features of the mind, such as social ability and emotions which many other species have, evolved first before reasoning evolved. In that sense the ape mind and human mind might be something like 90% similar (just to throw out a number). Just because the remaining percentage has profound implications doesn't mean that the genetic difference is profoundly more sophisticated. And the only thing that matters is if the genetic difference is within nature's capacity to evolve. You can't admit that similarity and yet deny that it is beyond nature's grasp.

Besides, there is the obvious question of the fossil record, which does seem to indicate a "rapid" (over millions of years) move toward human-like intelligence in human ancestors.

I don't see why this couldn't be discussed elsewhere, however. In a thread about theology, it's proper only to discuss theology, I believe.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

More like many southern members of the Republican party are in the pockets of evangelical groups.

I disagree. The Republican party throws out some talking points that they know resonates with for instance the southern churches, gets them all riled up, and boom, instant voters. Key words like Islam, Gay agenda, U.N., New world order, federal government; these throw evangelicals into a tizzy and causes them to throw their support behind the one party they feel can protect them.

If you read 1 Peter, the basis of the letter is to advise the Christians living within the Roman empire on how to survive and live in as resident aliens, a minority within a world that sees them as a threat. Peter doesn't tell them to challenge the law. He doesn't tell them to go out and try to remove Caesar. He doesn't tell them to use force if necessary. NO. He tells them to honor the Emperor, love the brotherhood, and leave no doubt through their action that they are not a threat. Today in the U.S., I'd argue that a very high percentage of evangelical churches do just the opposite. They have become confused as to where their devotion lies: state or God.

They're more concerned about stopping the 'gay agenda' (whatever that means) than they are about feeding the poor and impoverished. They're more concerned about stopping the Kenyan born, Muslim worshiping dictator known as Barrack Hussein Obama than they are in spreading peace into other regions. More concerned about ending abortion rights than they are in preaching and living out the true love and humility of Jesus.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

I read this post a few days ago. Seeing as Evangelicals are coming up as part of the topic, I thought it would be interesting to hear people's views on what this man had to say.

I've also bolded a passage in this text for people who will just read the title and dismiss it out of hand.

This article was co-authored by Dan Cady is an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno. He publishes on the history of the American West, music, and religion.

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What's the deal?

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained "most-favored Jesus status" among America's mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former "social justice" Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.

In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

TL;DR
He asserts that Evangelicals focus on a very narrow part of Jesus's message and act in a way that opposes his core values of peace, social justice, and good will.

 

[JGS]

Yeah, it's great. Makes you want to see the expansion of humanity into other planets.



I've never heard any objections regarding making it canon or not.

Neither have I and still not actually getting the troll part although it's often repeated. I've never gotten into knots about the story since it's one of the more encouraging ones out there. Actually, it's often more encouraging than Jesus' example because Job was not perfect. In fact, his reasoning was faulty regarding his suffering, but anyway...

 

[Mortrialus]

I disagree. The Republican party throws out some talking points that they know resonates with for instance the southern churches, gets them all riled up, and boom, instant voters. Key words like Islam, Gay agenda, U.N., New world order, federal government; these throw evangelicals into a tizzy and causes them to throw their support behind the one party they feel can protect them.

If you read 1 Peter, the basis of the letter is to advise the Christians living within the Roman empire on how to survive and live in as resident aliens, a minority within a world that sees them as a threat. Peter doesn't tell them to challenge the law. He doesn't tell them to go out and try to remove Caesar. He doesn't tell them to use force if necessary. NO. He tells them to honor the Emperor, love the brotherhood, and leave no doubt through their action that they are not a threat. Today in the U.S., I'd argue that a very high percentage of evangelical churches do just the opposite. They have become confused as to where their devotion lies: state or God.

They're more concerned about stopping the 'gay agenda' (whatever that means) than they are about feeding the poor and impoverished. They're more concerned about stopping the Kenyan born, Muslim worshiping dictator known as Barrack Hussein Obama than they are in spreading peace into other regions. More concerned about ending abortion rights than they are in preaching and living out the true love and humility of Jesus.

Yeah, that is probably more true. That said, Ted Haggard was uncomfortable close to certain politicians. That said, I still feel my point about politicians being in their pocket book stand. Many southern republicans pander to religious groups specifically for donations and votes. Its more like the politicians dupe the religious right, who then put republicans in their pocket book by donating to their campaigns.

I also don't understand why Christians as so bothered by abortion. As silly and unfounded as it is, I understand their hatred of homosexuals. At least you can pinpoint the bible actually addressing it. But abortion is never directly commented on in the bible, and there are many passages that imply that unborn children aren't considered human if you follow the Christian religion.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I read this post a few days ago. Seeing as Evangelicals are coming up as part of the topic, I thought it would be interesting to hear people's views on what this man had to say.

I've also bolded a passage in this text for people who will just read the title and dismiss it out of hand.


TL;DR
He asserts that Evangelicals focus on a very narrow part of Jesus's message and act in a way that opposes his core values of peace, social justice, and good will.

Here is the evangelical manifesto that was created by some very well respected theologians and professors in the evangelical community. May interest some of you.

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/index.php

 

[kevm3]

The Bible supports personal charity, not government mandated charity. There is nothing wrong with owning guns, but rather, the real concern is one's philosophy behind using it.

Now I DO have a problem with the aligning one's self with a war mongering and corporate driven machine which has been teh Republican party for the longest. That's the problem with this 'two-party' system. But then again, as we see in our modern day, BOTH parties are war-mongering and corporate driven.

 

[JGS]

The Bible supports personal charity, not government mandated charity.

Not entirely true. It supports both. Many donations in Jerusalem were tied to helping those in need. Jewish Law required you couldn't harvest completely because the leftovers were for the poor. Although the Apostles didn't have the time to minister in a physical way, they had organization in setting up feeding the less fortunate.

It's true that personal responsibilty for those in need is the better way to go but it's also unrealistic to think that charity alon can support the needy- especially when so many "Christians" think that so many other "Christians" don't even deserve that assistance.

Although any particular country is not a real part of Christianity, Christians shouldn't have much of a problem when the government itself has to step in and act as the Good Samaritan so many of us flunk at being (Either by choice or necessity)...IMO at least.

 

[Misanthropy]

The Bible supports personal charity, not government mandated charity. There is nothing wrong with owning guns, but rather, the real concern is one's philosophy behind using it.

Now I DO have a problem with the aligning one's self with a war mongering and corporate driven machine which has been teh Republican party for the longest. That's the problem with this 'two-party' system. But then again, as we see in our modern day, BOTH parties are war-mongering and corporate driven.

In a time like this we can't rely on people to individually donate to charities or even support each other. The people's greed for self-prosperity has put a clamp on an efficient society and therefore we must have rules to mandate a government run charity or in a better term, taxes. In this aspect people can go about their daily lives and do whatever they want since it is guaranteed that they will contribute to society, even if they don't want to. Furthermore, I realize that this kind of "society" doesn't really propagate morals around, since everyone eventually becomes selfish, but it is the best we can do today until education can catch up and teach people why it is logical to be nice with one another.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Here is the evangelical manifesto that was created by some very well respected theologians and professors in the evangelical community. May interest some of you.

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/index.php

A good read. It is helpful to remember that vocal minorities can easily skew a person's view on a group. I was impressed how it addressed online behavior as well.

I'm going to pull a line from the end, as I think it would be helpful to everyone.

We promote a civil public square, and we respect for the rights of all, even those with whom we disagree. Contrary to those who believe that “error has no rights,” we respect the right to be wrong. But we also insist that “the right to believe anything” does not mean that “anything anyone believes is right.” Rather, respect for conscientious differences also requires respectful debate.

It says that these are not the views of all Evangelicals, but it is their views. I would say that taking time to read the document ( it's only 5ish pages) is the same as a person who's only view of Islam is 9/11 then reads a brief overview of the 5 pillars of Islam.

Spoiler

Sorry if that is offensive, but that is how narrow my views on outspoken Evangelicals was.

Equally interesting reading is the comments section on the website. There are a plethora of insightful quotes that could be pulled from there as well.

 

[ronito]

The Bible supports personal charity, not government mandated charity.

Yeah not so much. This is just a modern talking point made up by republicans.
Making it illegal to harvest the corners of your fields, the jubilee there's TONS of stuff in the bible that would be considered "Government mandated charity"

I mean hell, everyone forgets that Sodom Gomorrah wasn't only destroyed because of their sexual exploits but also because of the way they neglected the poor.

The whole "Take care of the poor or I will burn your f'ing city to the ground." seems pretty mandated to me.

 

[mclaren777]

And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

The heart and soul of Jesus' message was that he was God in human form. His mission was to bridge the gap that sin had opened between us and himself. Generosity, peace, and love are the "fruit" one should expect from living the proper Christian life (being Christ-like), but Jesus did not come to earth to preach the benefits of behavior modification.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yeah not so much. This is just a modern talking point made up by republicans.
Making it illegal to harvest the corners of your fields, the jubilee there's TONS of stuff in the bible that would be considered "Government mandated charity"

I mean hell, everyone forgets that Sodom Gomorrah wasn't only destroyed because of their sexual exploits but also because of the way they neglected the poor.

The whole "Take care of the poor or I will burn your f'ing city to the ground." seems pretty mandated to me.

Just another case of many evangelicals choosing to ignore a section of the Tanakh since it goes against their ideology. Obviously that section no longer is applicable after the cross.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

I forget what show I would watch, but it was often followed up by the 700 club. I would sometimes watch it, but it wasn't the slant of their news that appalled me. It was the way the presented their call for donations. Often it would involve a family, down on their luck, struggling to make ends meet, and then taking money out of their budget to become a member of the 700 club. Because this was a featured story, it's predictable how it turns out. They all start making more money, which in turn the 700 club focuses on how they increased their donations, and in that cycle more money kept coming to the family.

Charity should come with out the expectation of reward. Some people think the carrot of heaven hanging off in the distance is a constant reward, but know that charity alone will not get them there. In the case of the 700 club, it intentionally targets the poor. This might be because the kind of people watching TV at 10am in the morning are not the most financially successful, but to me it is as bad as pay day advance loans. It basically says that if you start tithing, then God will be happy, and he will give you more money to tithe. This is very similar to Old Testament sacrifice. The New Testament did away with that tradition, by offering up Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[José Mourinho]

Signing in as a proud catholic.

F.G.A.U. lolz

 

[Raist]

I don't see why this couldn't be discussed elsewhere, however. In a thread about theology, it's proper only to discuss theology, I believe.

Probably safer here.

Anyways, regarding the "status" of Jesus. I was under the impression that from the bible it was quite clear that he wasn't god at all. Now I see many people saying that he was just an avatar or something. I guess there's different schools of thought as always, but I always assumed it was a minority who had this opinion?

 

[Agent Ironside]

Probably safer here.

Anyways, regarding the "status" of Jesus. I was under the impression that from the bible it was quite clear that he wasn't god at all. Now I see many people saying that he was just an avatar or something. I guess there's different schools of thought as always, but I always assumed it was a minority who had this opinion?

God manifested in the flesh.

Timothy 3:16

Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

 

[Mortrialus]

God manifested in the flesh.

Timothy 3:16

Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

If Jesus was god, why was he praying to himself in garden of Gethsemane? Why did he pray to himself at all? Why did he refer to god in third person, spoke to him in second person, and god did the same when talking about and talking to Jesus?

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Not entirely true. It supports both. Many donations in Jerusalem were tied to helping those in need. Jewish Law required you couldn't harvest completely because the leftovers were for the poor. Although the Apostles didn't have the time to minister in a physical way, they had organization in setting up feeding the less fortunate.

It's true that personal responsibilty for those in need is the better way to go but it's also unrealistic to think that charity alon can support the needy- especially when so many "Christians" think that so many other "Christians" don't even deserve that assistance.

Although any particular country is not a real part of Christianity, Christians shouldn't have much of a problem when the government itself has to step in and act as the Good Samaritan so many of us flunk at being (Either by choice or necessity)...IMO at least.

Israel was a theocracy. Other nations are not.

 

[Agent Ironside]

If Jesus was god, why was he praying to himself in garden of Gethsemane? Why did he pray to himself at all? Why did he refer to god in third person, spoke to him in second person, and god did the same when talking about and talking to Jesus?

Well its not as if God left heaven empty, then came down here. There was still God in heaven. Also Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" as we all know, I see no reason why they couldnt communicate with each other.

 

[Mortrialus]

Well its not as if God left heaven empty, then came down here. There was still God in heaven. Also Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" as we all know, I see no reason why they couldnt communicate with each other.

Why would he even need to? If he is god, he wouldn't need to communicate with god even if god simultaneously existed in heaven because he would have shared god's omniscience.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Why would he even need to? If he is god, he wouldn't need to communicate with god even if god simultaneously existed in heaven because he would have shared god's omniscience.

The trinity doesn't teach oneness or sabellianism. It doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nor does it teach that the Father is Jesus. It teaches that there is one God (whatever God is, his nature) happens to be found in Jesus as well. He is the memra, the thought of the Father. As long as the father has existed so to has his word or his mind.

That is the idea behind Jesus being God.

 

[Agent Ironside]

Why would he even need to? If he is god, he wouldn't need to communicate with god even if god simultaneously existed in heaven because he would have shared god's omniscience.

Maybe because he was still a man in the flesh? An example.

As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

—Acts 10:25-26

Although it was God in the flesh, he was just that, a man, just like us in a lot of other ways.

 

[Mortrialus]

Maybe because he was still a man in the flesh? An example.

As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

—Acts 10:25-26

Although it was God in the flesh, he was just that, a man, just like us in a lot of other ways.

That is inherently contradictory. You can't have a god, take away the elements that make them god, and have whatever is left still remain a god.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That is inherently contradictory. You can't have a god, take away the elements that make them god, and have whatever is left still remain a god.

That is unless you don't take the elements away from God. Let us just say for arguments sake that there is such a being out there. He is almighty, etc. Do you believe it'd be possible for such a being to become fully human without shedding his divine nature?

 

[Agent Ironside]

That is inherently contradictory. You can't have a god, take away the elements that make them god, and have whatever is left still remain a god.

Nothing got taken away from anybody.

Found something that I hope can explain it to you better than I can.

"Isaiah 9:6 tells us that the Son was given and the Child was born. Jesus was always part of the tri-unity, along with the Holy Spirit. The tri-unity always existed, the Father God, the Son God, and the Spirit God, not three gods, but one God existing as three persons. Jesus taught that He and His Father are one (John 10:30), meaning that He and His Father are of the same substance and the same essence. The Father, Son and Spirit are three co-equal persons existing as God. These three had, and continue to have, an eternal relationship."

 

[Mortrialus]

That is unless you don't take the elements away from God. Let us just say for arguments sake that there is such a being out there. He is almighty, etc. Do you believe it'd be possible for such a being to become fully human without shedding his divine nature?

We'll have to start by agreeing on a definition of god. The bible states that god is all powerful and all knowing. God is also morally perfect and the creator of the universe. These are key aspects of god. If you take them away, what is left is cannot be god by definition.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

We'll have to start by agreeing on a definition of god. The bible states that god is all powerful and all knowing. God is also morally perfect and the creator of the universe. These are key aspects of god. If you take them away, what is left is cannot be god by definition.

Agreed. But what does the morally perfect and creator have to do with him adding upon himself the nature of humanity for a time being? Don't think of it as God BECOMING man and ceasing to be God. Think of it as the thought of God (his idea, his word becoming personified) adding the nature of humanity. In the Jewish targums whenever God is described in terms too closely related to humanity its changed to his memra. For instance in the Genesis where it says God walked through the garden, it was his word that walked. That is how the trinity envisions Jesus. The thought of God becoming human for a time.

Again, I'm not saying that it happened since that is an area of faith but what I am trying to do is shed some light on how such an idea is defended and explained.

 

[Agent Ironside]

@ Mortrialus

Also adding in a way to the post above me. You should take a look at Proverbs 8:21-31

It explains how "I (Jesus) was a craftsmen at his (God's) side" Talking about the creation of the universe.

Very important to keep in mind that Jesus here on earth, was only a temporary thing, so that he could die on the cross for our sins.

Hope this stuff helps at least somewhat for you.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

@ Mortrialus

Also adding in a way to the post above me. You should take a look at Proverbs 8:21-31

It explains how "I (Jesus) was a craftsmen at his (God's) side" Talking about the creation of the universe.

Very important to keep in mind that Jesus here on earth, was only a temporary thing, so that he could die on the cross for our sins.

Hope this stuff helps at least somewhat for you.

I am not a fan of taking passages from the Tanakh that the author had no intent on using for a man some hundreds of years down the line and applying them to Jesus. I realize that Christology is big and many of the apostles try to connect the dots with Jesus and the Tanakh, I am not a fan of it. I prefer to let the context of the Tanakh speak for itself. IMO there is enough in the NT to offer a compelling case for the divinity of Jesus scripturally that I don't think the Tanakh really needs to be brought into the picture.

 

[mclaren777]

I mean hell, everyone forgets that Sodom Gomorrah wasn't only destroyed because of their sexual exploits but also because of the way they neglected the poor.

Do you have any scriptural support for that claim?

 

[Agent Ironside]

I am not a fan of taking passages from the Tanakh that the author had no intent on using for a man some hundreds of years down the line and applying them to Jesus. I realize that Christology is big and many of the apostles try to connect the dots with Jesus and the Tanakh, I am not a fan of it. I prefer to let the context of the Tanakh speak for itself. IMO there is enough in the NT to offer a compelling case for the divinity of Jesus scripturally that I don't think the Tanakh really needs to be brought into the picture.

Very true. I'm Just helping people to understand it better.

 

[JGS]

Israel was a theocracy. Other nations are not.

Christians don't concern themselves with what the nations do period. However, this is because Christians still belong to a theocracy run by Jesus and this kingdom doesn't replace the requirements of taking care of those less fortunate or even each other regardless of social status. So Christians do concern themselves with the needs of the poor. Jesus actually made it a part of his preaching (Unfotunately Judas held the money...).

Again, I'm all for charity taking precedent over government assistance. I also get that nations aren't required to help the less fortunate, it's just that most of the developed ones are smart enough to recognize the benefits of doing so. It's not the fault of the poor if government has it set up wrong.

My point is that out of all the things a government wastes money on, the least I'm concerned with is assistance to the poor (& healthcare for that matter).

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Very true. I'm Just helping people to understand it better.

I understand and apologize if that came off as crass. Just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[JGS]

Do you have any scriptural support for that claim?

Sodom & Gomorrah were largely known for wickedness and that could have entailed anything although not sure about how they treated the poor.

The Bible often associates hospitality to strangers with how wicked a place has become and by that measure they were in a class of their own. It was a huge, financially sound area which is why Lot moved there, but otherwise had no interest in goodness.

When Abraham was pleading with God to spare them, God challenged him to find just a few people and he couldn't. So they were thoroughly corrupt even if they weren't thoroughly perverts. It's likely that Lot had friends there since he was in the middle of the city, was doing OK apparently, & had his daughters engaged to men in the city.

So they were thoroughly wicked beyond the homosexuality angle that many say is the only reason. To me the wickedness was mainly about raping a couple of angels.