Billsjunkie Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 You're right. Everyone should believe in your God - because you do. If the standards laid out by organized religion are in fact true, heaven's going to be an awfully lonely place to spend eternity. 330433[/snapback] Do I wish that they would..............yes, that is the dream of every christian but that is not so. God could have made us all robots with no freedom of choice but how great would that be? There would never be any true worship. Everyone has there own choices to make in life. YOu just have to put your beliefs out there as well so that people will have a choice. My god preaches that the only way to him is through his son Jesus. Thats all I said. You can choose or not to choose to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 With this thread and the son of satan thread floating around, one might be lead to believe TBD is becoming a very religious place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 With this thread and the son of satan thread floating around, one might be lead to believe TBD is becoming a very religious place. 330612[/snapback] Well, after three years of watching Bledsoe go "pat-pat-pat"...how many Bills fans haven't invoked the occasional "Please, God, let him get rid of the ball!" Face it, Bills fans have been a very religious bunch ever since Wide Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 With this thread and the son of satan thread floating around, one might be lead to believe TBD is becoming a very religious place. 330612[/snapback] Well, if there is any validity to the poll responses - it is. But I never pray for other's souls - it's up to them. Good luck to you. I don't care for crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 I wasn't naming names... the tone just seemed to get worse towards the end. 330377[/snapback] I was trying to be funny, but there were no smileys that were obvious enough. I've seen one on another board that explodes in rage. That's the one I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Do I wish that they would..............yes, that is the dream of every christian but that is not so. God could have made us all robots with no freedom of choice but how great would that be? There would never be any true worship. Everyone has there own choices to make in life. YOu just have to put your beliefs out there as well so that people will have a choice. My god preaches that the only way to him is through his son Jesus. Thats all I said. You can choose or not to choose to believe it. 330464[/snapback] Freedom of choice? Really? If the choice is "believe thus or go to hell" how "free" of a choice is that? If your choice is everlasting, unimaginable pain and eternal damnation or believing, it is not a free choice, it is a forced choice. Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Question for X-tians. How many of you actually believe in the Resurection of the Body? Are there X-tians that don't. Although I believe this, I think it is the hardest teaching of all, harder for me than Virgin Births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Are we just going to keep this thread going on indefinitely? I doubt this is going to get anywhere. 330341[/snapback] Only until we all agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Question for X-tians. How many of you actually believe in the Resurection of the Body? Are there X-tians that don't. Although I believe this, I think it is the hardest teaching of all, harder for me than Virgin Births. 331148[/snapback] When you believe in a sovereign God who is fully in control of His creation, there isn't any problem believing in any miraculous action -- virgin birth, physical resurrection ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 When you believe in a sovereign God who is fully in control of His creation, there isn't any problem believing in any miraculous action -- virgin birth, physical resurrection ... 331180[/snapback] Short, sweet, and to the point. Good post, pkwwjd. Sometimes people ask if you have to believe in this or that to be a Christian. I belive in the virgin birth, for instance, but the Bible does not state that the virgin birth is a required belief for salvation. The resurrection however, is on the short list of absolute necessities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Short, sweet, and to the point. Good post, pkwwjd. Sometimes people ask if you have to believe in this or that to be a Christian. I belive in the virgin birth, for instance, but the Bible does not state that the virgin birth is a required belief for salvation. The resurrection however, is on the short list of absolute necessities. 331196[/snapback] I don't mean the Christ's Resurection, I mean the Resurrection of all the Saints, in body. I think most people in America believe in a type of Gnosticism, which is that their soul or spirit lives on indefinately as spirit, which is dualism. Do you believe in that your body will be Resurected as a fundamental Christian tenant? When we say we believe in the resurrection of the body, we are talking of something other than the immortality of the soul, not the immaterial part of a person which naturally survives, but the whole living person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 still, Christ's resurrection, our resurrection ... either God can do it or He can't. One isn't tougher than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted May 8, 2005 Author Share Posted May 8, 2005 I had no idea my poll would lead to this! lol, keep it going, good reading. My next poll will be on reincarnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted May 8, 2005 Author Share Posted May 8, 2005 Aside from all of the debating.... here's an article with a scientific approach to testing the effects of these beliefs. http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Norenzayanetal.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 still, Christ's resurrection, our resurrection ... either God can do it or He can't. One isn't tougher than the other. 331244[/snapback] The teachings on the virgin birth and ressurection are not universal amongst all 'Christians', non-Western churches tended not to follow these ideas, and indeed there are those who see Christ as a prophet and not the Son of God. (Which then leads to others claiming they are not Christians). The 'virgin birth' comes from a Greek translation from Aramaic, a very bad translation at that. The term used, according to a number of top theologians, means 'woman of marriagable age' and it is possible that the (mis) translation was a deliberate one in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity, due to the internal politics of the various early churches. The ressurection is another puzzler. Like the virgin birth it to was not a predominate belief until the adoption of it by the Emperor Constantine. It is also a little strange in that the crucifiction as described in the Bible is NOT a punishment the Romans would have used, and there is plenty of evidence in how they did actually crucify people. The idea of a crucifiction was to be utterly terrifying, and whilst the suffering endured in the Biblical version would be extreme it is only a half effort (!) The Romans believed very strongly in the rule of Law, and thought that fear was an excellent way of containing malcontents. The practice of crucifiction actually had the poor victim dying in agony (no nice spear / sword thrust) and then the body would be left hanging for the flies, crows and dogs to eat (when it would have fallen apart). Very unhygeinic but considering it denied proper burial/cremation rights (both of which were common within the Empire) that most subject peoples thought necessary to reach the afterlife also very scarey. And with no body the rest of the ressurection story as it is written becomes impossible. So in effect the idea of crucifying someone was to kill them in the most painful way possible to instill fear, and then to try to deny them their afterlife, even more terrifying to those who might otherwise oppose Roman rule. The fact that the Bible has all sorts of changes to the punishment leads me to believe that it was written in the way it was in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity. The fact the Bible also did not mention how unusual the alleged punishment of Christ was (as it was described) reinforces this. (BTW - I do believe Christ was a good man, unjustly executed and actually crucified (as per the normal Roman practice). Just do not believe in the God / divinity aspects). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 The teachings on the virgin birth and ressurection are not universal amongst all 'Christians', non-Western churches tended not to follow these ideas, and indeed there are those who see Christ as a prophet and not the Son of God. (Which then leads to others claiming they are not Christians). The 'virgin birth' comes from a Greek translation from Aramaic, a very bad translation at that. The term used, according to a number of top theologians, means 'woman of marriagable age' and it is possible that the (mis) translation was a deliberate one in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity, due to the internal politics of the various early churches. The ressurection is another puzzler. Like the virgin birth it to was not a predominate belief until the adoption of it by the Emperor Constantine. It is also a little strange in that the crucifiction as described in the Bible is NOT a punishment the Romans would have used, and there is plenty of evidence in how they did actually crucify people. The idea of a crucifiction was to be utterly terrifying, and whilst the suffering endured in the Biblical version would be extreme it is only a half effort (!) The Romans believed very strongly in the rule of Law, and thought that fear was an excellent way of containing malcontents. The practice of crucifiction actually had the poor victim dying in agony (no nice spear / sword thrust) and then the body would be left hanging for the flies, crows and dogs to eat (when it would have fallen apart). Very unhygeinic but considering it denied proper burial/cremation rights (both of which were common within the Empire) that most subject peoples thought necessary to reach the afterlife also very scarey. And with no body the rest of the ressurection story as it is written becomes impossible. So in effect the idea of crucifying someone was to kill them in the most painful way possible to instill fear, and then to try to deny them their afterlife, even more terrifying to those who might otherwise oppose Roman rule. The fact that the Bible has all sorts of changes to the punishment leads me to believe that it was written in the way it was in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity. The fact the Bible also did not mention how unusual the alleged punishment of Christ was (as it was described) reinforces this. (BTW - I do believe Christ was a good man, unjustly executed and actually crucified (as per the normal Roman practice). Just do not believe in the God / divinity aspects). 331328[/snapback] Just to address a couple of these issues, ... briefly. translation of the word for virgin ... yes, in fact the original prophecy in Isaiah actually refers to the birth of Isaiah's son by his wife who in fact not a virgin. However, Biblical prophecy is multilayered. In order for a prophet to be accepted, his prophecy had to come true, so long term prophecy had to have a short term layer to prove he was from God. As another layer came true it would always grow in intensity, no longer just a young woman bearing a child, but now a virgin -- a sign that the child was not from the will of man, but the will of God / the Holy Spirit. Subsequent fulfillment of prophecy always increases. I don't know what early church fathers you have read, but the virgin birth was very widely accepted very early on. "Top Theologians" is also a very loosely defined group of people. Most "top theologians" of our era are simply in the business to discredit any biblical accounts -- such as the Jesus seminar which has "decided" that Jesus did not actually say roughly 98% of the quotes attributed to Him. Top theologians in my estimation would fully support Biblical texts -- and from that group, there is no argument against any of these things. Roman execution was generally practiced as the Bible describes -- but there were a few alterations in this case. Thanks to Mel Gibson for a fairly accurate portrayal of crucifixion. Generally the bodies would be left up for the birds to eat from, thus denying the afterlife (from the point of view of the Romans and Jews). However, the account of the bodies being taken down from the crosses because of the Jewish Passover celebration is consistent with secular historians of the time. Pilate (the governor) while a bloodied ruler was at a point in his career that he was concerned about the populace, if only for the furthering of his career. He was in the practice of capitulating smaller things to the Israeli people -- such as releasing a prisoner during Passover. It would not be a far reach to have Pilate allow the bodies to be taken down and buried as to not desecrate the holiday which he understood to be important to the peace of the Palestinian region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 I don't mean the Christ's Resurection, I mean the Resurrection of all the Saints, in body. I think most people in America believe in a type of Gnosticism, which is that their soul or spirit lives on indefinately as spirit, which is dualism. Do you believe in that your body will be Resurected as a fundamental Christian tenant? When we say we believe in the resurrection of the body, we are talking of something other than the immortality of the soul, not the immaterial part of a person which naturally survives, but the whole living person. 331232[/snapback] Yes. In the case where the body decomposes completely, God remakes it I guess. In any case, when we are resurrected, I believe God also transforms our bodies so that they will be like Jesus' body. God will not leave our imperfections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 I don't know what early church fathers you have read, but the virgin birth was very widely accepted very early on. "Top Theologians" is also a very loosely defined group of people. Most "top theologians" of our era are simply in the business to discredit any biblical accounts -- such as the Jesus seminar which has "decided" that Jesus did not actually say roughly 98% of the quotes attributed to Him. Top theologians in my estimation would fully support Biblical texts -- and from that group, there is no argument against any of these things. 331374[/snapback] Agreed 100%. If Brit would like to cite sources, I always try to keep an open mind, but I suspect he'll have a tough time finding them. I also like your other takes on "virgin" in Isaiah and background info on crucifixion. BTW, the original language in Isaiah was Hebrew, not Aramaic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts