Religious beliefs/Former Frodo and Sam thread

[Phelan Kell]

I would like to apologize to any and all readers of my previous posts. I should not have hinted at profanity for any reason. I know there is no excuse for doing so, but I get really fired up sometimes. I perfectly understand if personel of this sight punish me, but I ask that I please not get permanently banned from this board. I can assure you that this will not happen again.

Thank you.

[galadriel]

The Old Testament bugs me too, but I've (kind of) managed to reconcile it. My best take is this: justice must be done. Otherwise, you can't be right with God, since he's holy and you're not. So, if you accidentally hurt your neighbor's sheep, you sacrifice a sheep. If you steal something, you pay for it. If you kill someone, you die. But then Jesus came and took all the punishments for us, so we don't have to. "Eye for an eye" was the first covenant (agreement) with God, "turn the other cheek" is the new covenant.

I don't neccessarily accept this all the time: in fact I wrote a poem about it a week ago when I was bored in study hall:

"I can't pretend to understand
What dogma can't explain
A holy war, a pharaoh's son, do you think
That all of Hagar's children go to hell?
Do you believe in vengeance, an eye for an eye;
For they stoned all the lovers before He came."

So, I don't expect you to take my word for it, or the Bible's. But I still do think that it has some truth to it, even if we don't understand it. An open mind is the best advice I can give you. Openness to other ways of thinking; and to God.

Oh, and if you look at the "eye for an eye" quote in context, one of the major points that is being made is:

You shall have one law for the alien and for the citizen - Leviticus 24:22

That is, everyone should be punished equally. This was important in a society where the rich had much power over the poor; there was not much equality in punishment. It also does not advocate personal vengeance; and was supposed to be followed because God said so, not because you wanted to hurt those who hurt you.

[Phelan Kell]

These are all MY BELIEFS-do not judge me for them. If you want to discuss them with me, respect them, my right to have them, and me for having them. This is directed toward anybody who wishes to discuss them with me. (Directed not at all toward Galadriel)



I did not mean to say that I did not all of the Old Testament. I think that God made the Old Testament to scare the hethens into Christianity(the beginnings of-, obviously there was no Christ yet). Then, once the jews were ready, he sent Jesus to the world. Jesus revised the Holy Book and made the New Testament, where the main point is love, devotion, and . The Old T. God was the Angry God who struck down the evil-doers with an iron fist. The N.T. God was the God of love and forgiveness(made-up word?).

[anduin]

You are right, you shouldn't have hinted at profanity, but since you know this and made amends then I guess we can let you stay.

[Darth Tater]

I would really love to see intelligent conversasions like this continue here, but once again I must urge you (and this is directed at no one single person. I just see the seeds being planted already), please, please dont' flame. It's OK for people to have different opinions. In a debate you do not insult your oponents, you simply dissagree. Dissagreement is a good thing, it inspires thought, but too often it makes people upset, tempers flare, and things go the wrong way. Don't insult those who dissagree with you. State your opinion, but don't get too excited about it. No one here hates you because of your opinion, don't think you have to hate them.

[samwise of the shire]

Ok I'm sure that what I am doing is going to make alot of people mad at me, but I say what I say in the hope that people will be civilized and polite.

First off to Sister Golden Hair, through Jesus' blood we are REDEEMED, it was JESUS who was flawless not US. We are all SINNERS from the moment of birth until the time we die, Romans 3:23 check it out. But we beleive that because God pitied and loved us so much he sent his son to be born and suffer the death on the cross(John 3:16), Jesus could've sinned, he was tempted and like us he could have chosen to go his own way but because of the love he had for us he chose to die for us. It is not ourselfs that makes us righteous it's Jesus.

Phelan Kell, God is a God of love no matter what. In the Old Testament he showed love to Adam and Eve by promising them a Messiah. He showed love to the world in sparing Noah and his family, he showed love to Lot by sending angels to Sodom to warn him against the fire, He showed love to Joseph by bringing him out of the hard times, to Moses, To Job,to David, to Solomon,and many more that I cannot name, but to those who disobeyed him he PUNISHED. Saul, Adam and Eve. Even those that were GOOD he punished because they SINNED.

Actually Phelan Kell the book of Romans was wirtten by Paul, and yes we should obey Leaders but Jesus REBUKED(notice I said REBUKED NOT DISOBEYED ) the religious leaders because they were hypocrites we should do the same. Pres. Clinton did something wrong and we as Christians should have spoken out against him but we sat on our hands and let a wicked man rule our country and that in itself was WRONG.
As for judgement, instead of judging someone we show them Jesus' love and then hopefully God will soften that persons heart, but if the sin is in the church itself we deal with it by talking to that person and if they dont listen we excommunicate them until they repent TRUELY repent.

Phelan Kell, if you dont beleive part of the Bible how can you believe the rest is true?

Peace be with you
Sam

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

This is getting quite interesting....

I will reply to this soon: right now I've only got ten more minutes on the computer. But please let me say that I respect Sister's and everyone else who has disagreed with me beleifs. I do not want to judge you, I do not want to make you change your minds. If you do, great, but it's your life and I can't live it for you. I am not trying to seem better than any of you: I am not.

I'm too lazy to find it, but somebody said they beleived in evolution. I would like to talk about that more, but that would make this topic too broad. How about starting a thread for a creation/evolution debate?

[Mathron]

Here is a question - What is the opinion (to those of you who consistently quote the bible for support) that the bible may have been, perhaps, not the direct word of God, and as such, influenced by the people who lived in that time? That there may be a difference between the word of God, and the word of the bible, or between the word of God and the word of the organized Church?

[Finmandos12]

Phelan Kell: here is what is said in Revelation 22:19...

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy (Bible) God will take away form him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city...

So basically, Christianity is not a fast food restaurant. You can't say "I want extra love in my Gospel, and take out Romans...etc.


Mathron said

Here is a question - What is the opinion (to those of you who consistently quote the bible for support) that the bible may have been, perhaps, not the direct word of God, and as such, influenced by the people who lived in that time? That there may be a difference between the word of God, and the word of the bible, or between the word of God and the word of the organized Church?

Interesting that you bring that up, considering that yesterday was when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg church door, starting the Reformation. The problem you speak of was rampant in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, enabling the church to come up with such unbiblical ideas as the infallibility of the Pope, and the whole idea of indulgences. I think that the modern church has cleansed itself of most of that problem. God used Luther to stop that.

[Sakata]

Originally posted by Finmandos12


So basically, Christianity is not a fast food restaurant. You can't say "I want extra love in my Gospel, and take out Romans...etc.

Well said! lots of people today try to make god in to what they want to believe. As was disscused in the original "sam and frodo" lots of people where saying that god wouldnt do this or that, and that I wouldnt believe in a god who... people try to make god how they want to see him and worship that, instead of the truth. As was brilliantly illustrated by Finmandos12 is that god is unchanging, and you cant specify him to your personal fancy.

[Mathron]

Of course you can't specify him to your own fancy! Whatever you choose to believe has no effect on what or whether he is. But that applies to all people. Can you truly believe that, if errors in the bible did indeed exist, that all have been eliminated?
The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal men. Some believe that the best way to understand God is to seek out the key message Jesus gave, than to trust in the word of the bible and the church. I am not saying either side is right - just that both are viewpoints with as much basis to them.

[Finmandos12]

The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal men.

Sorry, wrong there. The Old Testament was written thousands of years before Christ, by many different authors. The four Gospels were written by people who actually knew Christ. Since there were many other eyewitnesses, if there was something wrong with the Gospels, they would have pointed it out.

[samwise of the shire]

Are you really 12 Finmandos?Or is that just a number you like? No offense meant, actually it was a compliment.

The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal men

You said the Bible was influenced by men. If you could do something Please look these up
Isaiah 40:3-5, John 1:6-13, and John 1:29 These refere to John the Baptist.
Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18, and Luke 1:26 Refurring to Jesus' birth
Micah 5:2, Matt 2:1, and Luke 2:6 Refurring to Jesus' place of Birth
Psalm 22:1-21,and Luke 23:26-49 Refurring to Jesus' Death
Isaiah 53:9, and Luke 23:50-56 Refurring to Jesus' Burial
Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and John 1:45 Refurring Jesus as Prophet
Psalm 110:4,and Luke 20:42 Christ as Priest
and Zechariah 9:9, and Luke 18:28-40 Christ as King

I suggest ALL of you read these verses because they are absolutley MIND BOGOLING especially that first Psalm verse, the Psalms were written by KING DAVID who was like two thousand years or more bfore Jesus and YET he describes IN DETAIL what would happen to him on the corss.

[Mathron]

While the Old Testament was obviously long before Christ, I was referring to the rest of it (my apologies for vague wording.)
But as for other stuff in it, much was picked and chosen as to be put in at... the council of Nicea, I believe, or something of a similar name? Anyway, a large amount of the clergy that had formed (as Christianity rose in the empire) realized the need for christianity to be homogenized, and basically decided what the 'proper' views for Christianity was to be. Those who had known Jesus were dead by this time, I believe, and who can know how much of what was put in was even the words of the Apostles, let alone Jesus - and how much was left out?

[afro-elf]

I have waited in the side lines,bidding my time. But I can not take it anymore.


Mathron is correct the new testament was written WELL after the time of J.C.

the council of nicea was 325 in Constantinople.



I think a problem is that people of all faiths tend to look at it from a faith point of view. they study their FAITH.

People just nod their heads at what they are told.

ex. take eastern religions and this NEW AGE philosophy.

they talk about reincarnation as if was one of the primal concepts in ancient eastern thought

WRONG. the vedic texts ARE the oldest "sacred" text in the world.
if I recall between the 2nd 3rd milenia BC.
there is NOTHING in those text that mention the idea of reincarnation.

the concept does not enter into existance until about the 5th/6th century BC

the same is true about the gospels they were written after JC

AND there was a vote at the council of nicea as to what was going to make up the bible..

the eastern church has several books in their bible that are considered "apocryphal" to the catholic church.


but votaries don't know this. why because they do not study their faith from OUTSIDE of their faith.

many christians, jew, muslims, hindus, buddhist, etc
do not study the THEOLOGY of their beliefs.

There is a big difference between the popular view of a topic and a " scholarly" study of a topic

IF the bible is the word of god then there should be no mistakes.
that is of course if god is perfect

so way is there contridiction? IF the book is infailible then ONE error would dispense with it.


what is faith

a hollow excuse. if the only way you can accept an assecrtion is by faith then you are conceding that it can not be excepted upon it own merits


people do nor argue over things they have complete conficence it.
we aren't arguing if the sun will rise tomorrow
WHY becuase truth does not demand faith.

don't point me to ancient fables show me now
your miracle are to ancient, your eyewitness are dead
where is a big flaming cross in the sky to shown us the way

prayer doesn't cure diseases research does

if aids was sent to kill sinners then two things
whopping cough and child onset cancer was sent to lamblast children
and lesbians would be god chosen since they are the least like to have/catch STD

faith: belief without proof, in what is told by one who speaks with out evidence of things without parallel

a casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

the idea of a soul has now become quaint.

because bio-psychology and neuroscience show that all the attributes given to the soul are just the operation of the physical system

this statemnet about not judging a faith by its followers is bonk.

If it has not the power to make one better what use is it?

if you eraditacted every vestige of religion off of the face of the earth humanity would be none the worse


but if every vestige of science was wiped away we would be naught but naked savages cold and with out light (lit and figure)



anyway I think it is cool that we can "VENT" here and it does not seem to affect our LOTR topics
l

[samwise of the shire]

First question:What in the world is the council of Nicea?
Afro elf, you speak of contradiction have you looked in the Bible to SEE if there are any contradictions? If not how can you be sure you are just speaking on thin air, if so show me ONE you have seen and we can discuss it. You are mistaken Afro elf our eye witnesses are not dead, no they are alive. I am an eye witness I have seen someone go from the dust of the prison to live a true life for God.....he is my own brother. So no Our eye witnesses are living I'll be bakc.

[Darth Tater]

I've avoided getting into this debate, but I have to comment here. Each book of the New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus' life, and almost all of them were written by people who knew and followed him. The few written by others were by the followers of these followers. The council of Nicea had nothing to do with writing the New Testament, just compiling it.

[afro-elf]

samwise of the shire wrote:

Afro elf, you speak of contradiction have you looked in the Bible to SEE if there are any contradictions? If not how can you be sure you are just speaking on thin air, if so show me ONE you have seen and we can discuss it

not only will i give you contradictions, i'll add some injustices, cruelty, insults to woman, false prophecy and a whole ton of fun.


to save space here just check out this site

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

have your own bible handy to verify


it's nice your brother turned his life around BUT NO ONE ALIVE has been a witness to the supposed mircales in the bible they ARE all dead.

many people change their life but that is FAR form a miracle.


darth tater:

Each book of the New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus' life

do you think there is a subtle time difference between JC's life and JC's death?

i don't think anyone said that the council of nicea had to do with writing the text
but like different christian sect today they argued over many things in the faith.

they VOTED on what was going to be in the bible

[Finmandos12]

No, i'm not 12 Sam. You're thinking of Tesseract12.

Here is what Encarta Encyclopedia says about the Council of Nicea:
Held in 325, this first ecumenical council was convened by Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (see Arianism) Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire, 318 attended the council.

The Nicene Creed, which defined the Son as consubstantial with the Father, was adopted as the official position of the church regarding the divinity of Christ. The council also fixed the celebration of Easter on the Sunday after the Jewish Pesach, or Passover, and granted to the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt authority in the East in the fashion of Rome's quasi-patriarchal authority, which was not, as sometimes erroneously stated, the same as that of the pope. In this granting of authority lay the origin of the patriarchates throughout the church.

If you're wondering what Arianism is....
Arianism, a Christian heresy of the 4th century that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. It was named for its author, Arius. A native of Libya, Arius studied at the theological school of Lucian of Antioch, where other supporters of the Arian heresy were also trained. After he was ordained a priest in Alexandria, in 319, Arius became involved in a controversy with his bishop concerning the divinity of Christ. In 325 Arius finally was exiled to Illyria because of his beliefs, but debate over his doctrine soon engulfed the whole church and agitated it for more than half a century. Although his doctrine was eventually outlawed throughout the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I in 379, it survived for two centuries longer among the barbarian tribes that had been converted to Christianity by Arian bishops.

Arius taught that God is unbegotten and without beginning.
The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, therefore, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense that the Father is. The Son was not generated from the divine substance of the Father; he did not exist from all eternity, but was created out of nothing like all other creatures, and exists by the will of the Father. In other words, the relationship of the Son to the Father is not natural, but adoptive. In proposing this doctrine, Arius was attempting to safeguard the absolute transcendence of God, which in his view was compromised by theological tendencies such as Monarchianism.

The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (see Nicaea, Councils of). The 318 bishops assembled there drafted a creed that stated that the Son of God was "begotten not made," and consubstantial (Greek homoousios,"of the same substance") with the Father—that is, the Son was part of the Trinity, not of creation (see Nicene Creed). Previously, no creed had been universally accepted by all churches. The status of the new creed as dogma was confirmed by bans against the teaching of Arius.

So the council just wanted to clear up that issue.

Afroelf, that site ignores one main thing of Christianity: that even those who follow God are not perfect. In the insults to women part, it says Abraham had a concubine. Nowhere in the Bible is that practice condoned.

[afro-elf]

Afroelf, that site ignores one main thing of Christianity: that even those who follow God are not perfect. In the insults to women part, it says Abraham had a concubine. Nowhere in the Bible is that practice condoned.

out of all the things listed you have only given one example of abraham. and, saying that a practice is nowhere condoned i the bible IS NOT that same as saying it was forbidden.


are you saying the actions of christian are not perfect.

or the people who wrote the bible are not perfect.

both of these are obvious.

so why believe in a flawed book as the basis for a faith?

There are hundreds of examples of the non-divine orgin of the book on that site

but why are these glossed over to keep one's faith/