Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 02:55:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> > What proof have you looked for? Give me some indication and then we can take
> > this further.
>
> well - didn't you say that you feel god's interest? I never felt that, and
> never saw anything to even make me begin to think that...
The plight of the Israelites throughout the Old Testament is proof that he
cared about them. He constantly refers to them as his "Chosen People". The
fact that he sent Jesus to earth to do what He did is even more proof.
I'm not talking warm fuzzy feelings every time I think that God cares, just
like I don't always feel warm fuzzies when I think of how much my wife cares
about me. The fact is she does, and the fact is that God does, whether we
"feel" it or not.
Again, what are you looking for? What do you want to see? An end to world
hunger? No more death and destruction? Sorry, but God doesn't work that way.
He gave us free will, and the bad stuff that goes on in this world is just a
result of mankind using that free will. A New Testament example is the parable
of the Prodigal Son. An Old Testament example is the Israelites worshipping
Ba'al whilst Moses was away getting the 10 Commandments (I love the irony of
this one. God has just lead them out of years of slavery to the Egyptians, and
the first thing they do when they get a chance is worship another god!).
If you want God to step in and put an end to all this bad stuff, then everyone
has to want it to end. Can you see that happenning?
> > You've decided that God is a she just to make things more interesting. That's
> > about as rational as me calling you "Rebecca" just to make things more
> > interesting. You may say that's OK, I can call you what I want, but the fact
> > remains that it is not who you are. Calling someone by a different name or
> > different gender just to make things interesting is arrogant.
> >
> > The Gender of God is not of paramount importance, but in our label-conscious
> > world we need to give one to God, so He has chosen to be referred to as God
> > the Father. Jesus (aka God the Son) refers to Him in this way, and when he
> > first recited The Lord's Prayer, started it off with "Our Father, who art in
> > Heaven....". Check the Hebrew and Greek original scripts of the Old and New
> > Testament if you don't believe me. There is no feminine or neuter form used
> > to descibe God. Even God the Holy Spirit is referred to as male (John 14:16-
> > 18).
> first of all, I did read all through the old testament and never once saw a
> mention of Jesus :)
That's because he hadn't been born then. But the Old Testament (as you know)
is full of prophesies about the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled these
prophesies in every way. The Jews find it impossible to believe that Jesus is
the one they're waiting for because they were expecting a warrior saviour who
was exclusive to them. Jesus is for everyone, not just the Jews.
> But all the references you mentioned are for the god _you_ believe in...
> I've read in the old testament God being refered to as both male and female -
> I don't know the names of the books in english, so I'll just transliterate:
> in "Tehilim" (praise?), 54:1 it says: "He'ezina elohim tefilati ve'al
> titalem me'trhinati" - "God listened (female form) to my prair and did not
> ignore (female form) my plea. And it goes on in the rest of the chapeter all
> the time refereing to God as a female. There's more references like this out
> there, I just opened randomly and found the first I ran into.
This is Psalm 54 in my Bible, written by David. Could you do me a favour and
translate the whole Psalm for me. I'd like to see your interpretation of verse
7.
I'll have to get back to you on this one, because I don't have a copy of the
original Hebrew text, and I'll have to consult a couple of scholars I know on
this one.
> > Which book do you want to believe? The book that tells it "as it is", or the
> > book which waters it down and allows you to manipulate things to suit your
> > own lifestyle, where morality is relative. The Bible is not a role playing
> > game, where you decide the storyline.
> >
> > What do you know about the Bible I read? Do you know that it was written by
> > over 60 different authors over thousands of years, yet combines together as
> > one consistent historical document.
>
> I can't be sure with bible you read, but the fact that it was written by
> however many people, who all believed the same thing, doesn't make it right,
> you know. I like thinking for myself... Which is probably why I have such a
> hard time with taking things on faith.
But you DO have faith in your own ability to judge right from wrong. Fair
enough, we all do. But does that make us right 100% of the time? That's why we
need to seek "3rd-party" clarification.
The reason that the bible is a valid document is not merely due to the fact
that all the people who wrote it believed the same thing. It is totally
incredible that a such a great variety of people (including Kings Solomon and
David) from such a wide time-span had personal and unique experiences of the
same God.
> > Aside from the fact that other contemporary texts refer to and equally
> > accurately describe the events in the Bible, what you need to believe in is
> > the life of Jesus, and have faith that he is who he says he is. I believe
> > that he has proved that. It takes faith to believe it, and it takes faith
> > not to believe it.
>
> First of all, if I were a religious person, I wouldn't believe in Jesus cause
> I don't know what my religioun says about him, but it defenitly doesn't agree
> he was the King of the Jews, since he was not decended from David.
Hang on, you just said you liked to think for yourself. Now you're telling me
that you wouldn't believe in him because your religion tells you not to.
The lineage of Jesus is fact. Read Matthew 1:1-17. If you don't believe the
New Testament I can try to source other references for you. He is descended
from David, which fulfills one of the prophesies of 2 Samuel 7:8-17 (note the
reference to "I will be his father and he will be my son" - more masculine
references), 1 Chronicles17:7-15 and Psalm 132:11-12 (just a selection).
Just a thought. There are two possibilities for Jesus' birth. The first is
that he was an immaculate conception, in which case this argument is moot
because he would be the Son of God. The second is that he was conceived
through Joseph, in which case he is still a direct decendent of David, as
proved in Matthew 1:1-17. Either way, he has the right to claim King of the
Jews.
> All my life I was never tought about the new testament, since Judaism (sp)
> doesn't believe in it... But since I'm not a religious person, that's not my
> problem.
We both agree that just because you believe something doesn't make it right.
Gravity isn't my problem until I want to jump off a cliff because I don't
believe it exists. You've already stated that you believe there is something
there. Logic would dictate further investigation to determine what "it" is.
> The fact the some books some people wrote says Jesus did this and said that,
> is not nearly enough for me to believe that that's what happend. I would just
> as easily believe in all the urban ledgends that people keep repeating to each
> other.
So what do you believe? Do you believe the events of the American Civil War?
Some people wrote some books on that. Do you believe that Gaius Julius Caesar
was emperor of Rome until he was killed by Marcus Junius Brutus in March 44
BC? Some people wrote some books about that too. I could go on. History is
written down for us to remember how it happened. To discredit it because "it
was written a long time ago" is just sticking your head in the sand. Granted
some accounts contradict others, in which case you have to go on the best and
most consistent evidence. The fact that all accounts of Jesus' life are
largely consistent (particularly on the fundamentally important bits) is more
than good enough for me.
The reason this occurs is because the "some people" who wrote the gospels, for
example, were actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. They spent time with him on
a daily basis over a number of years. This is certainly not "urban legend".
Their accounts are similar to you writing a diary about the life of your best
friend - far be it for me to discredit that!
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Again, you're assuming that events described in the bible are exactly as described, and were written down objectivly. The bible, however, was written by people who did believe in a God that led then through the desert etc, etc, etc. That makes (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) me (...) how (...) on (...) toss (...) well - didn't you say that you feel god's interest? I never felt that, and never saw anything to even make me begin to think that... (...) when (...) first of all, I did read all through the old testament (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
