Let's Talk about Jesus Christ, Creation, and Whether You Believe or Not

[Triplethreat]

Well, I didn't word that the best way, but I don't see it as just writing a book. If God exists outside of time and space, which is the only way he could create it, then the Bible is more like a timeline. And God's words bring things into being. I think belief is foundational to the universe. You need it in eternity as well. If the timeline was set, then how does free will exist? Well, I don't claim to know all the ins and outs, but I think it works on multiple levels. But that is a whole discussion about the reason for existence and free will.

That was perhaps an unfair question of me. I didn't mean it like that, I was just curious. But it's a bad question because how would you know what you do. But I guess for people that believe they are in that position, at least you understand how hard it is to convey.

Feelings and enlightenment I don't prescribe too either because that can be very deceptive. That is why there are so many different interpretations. The truth is the truth regardless. But it's hard to describe how you would know it, because everyone thinks they do, so that brings us back to where we started.


I'm sure you already heard the arguments. I don't think you would accept the answers I give to these questions with your view. It comes back to belief. And if there was evidence, you would have to believe the evidence is true and that it is interpreted correctly. Why did God take it through a process? Well, if he created the world, it wasn't trial and error. He knew what he was doing. But it still went through a process. The meaning of all that I don't know off the top of my head. I do believe existence in itself is a process for a specific reason with a beginning and end.

Could God create the world in 6 days? He could create it in 6 milliseconds if all powerful. And if all knowing, there is a purpose for doing things the way he did them. Was the form of the Earth void for billions of years and that is why science comes to that conclusion? Yet the creation portion was as it says so both sides are correct as far as that goes? I don't know, but it might go deeper than our understanding.

I think every verse of the Bible works on multiple levels. One has to be literal. Like I said, I think it is inconsistent to think otherwise. It doesn't make any sense to say God is true but the Bible isn't. Then we aren't talking about the same thing. If he can't part a sea, or reveal his Word through people, then he sure can't create the universe and doesn't exist.

Bravo man.

This is the type of stuff I look for when reading a thread like this. That is how you convey the message.

I especially like that you don't try to act like you know everything, because it's not possible to interpret the book perfectly. There are so many questions that come with that belief as well. That no one will ever know until the end, if there is god.

I am not sure what I really believe in. I want to believe in the creation and a god, I was certainly raised that way. I absolutely hated that I was forced into believing something when I was a child, and that I didn't even have a chance to question it because my parents believed so firmly.

For this reason, I question everything now. I will keep questioning until I find an answer I can get behind fully.

I will say this, if there is a god, science goes hand in hand with the plan. It isn't God vs Science. It's god + science.

 

[-Akronite-]

It’s also not God v science because science doesn’t have answers for God. In most interpretations of God, we are talking about a supernatural entity that is immeasurable. So science can only go as far as to explain what we can observe and has no opinion/consensus on God. A lot of scientists operate without a belief in God which makes sense given that God would be an easy answer to so many issues, but the idea that the two are incongruent makes zero sense. Science changes based on new evidence, but there’s no argument as to whether it’s “right,” science is just our current best explanation for man’s current knowledge.

Now, @Walter White, if the Bible is all at least literally true, how do you interpret some of the laws of the Bible that likely don’t jive with your more modern ethical sensibilities?

 

[Soda]

It’s also not God v science because science doesn’t have answers for God. In most interpretations of God, we are talking about a supernatural entity that is immeasurable. So science can only go as far as to explain what we can observe and has no opinion/consensus on God. A lot of scientists operate without a belief in God which makes sense given that God would be an easy answer to so many issues, but the idea that the two are incongruent makes zero sense. Science changes based on new evidence, but there’s no argument as to whether it’s “right,” science is just our current best explanation for man’s current knowledge.

Well, I think science-driven folks would be open to the idea of there being a "keystone" that is still undiscovered and, thus, immeasurable. I think the difference would be that theists believe that "keystone" is God, while scientific folks would see it as a key discovery in scientific theory. Think, conceptually, the Higgs Boson or "God particle". It was thought to be the final piece of the puzzle, but it's only really clarified the realization that there's another layer to understand beyond isolating the particle itself.

 

[Selby]

I offered to start a cult where I'm the religious figure. I'd be happy to incorporate some elements of Wicca if you're willing to get cucked and/or commit regular blood sacrifices.

Are you married/have a girlfriend?

I am not married and I don't have a girlfriend. Which is good, because it makes it that much easier for me to dedicate my life to this new cult. When is the first meeting? I'll bring orange slices and Cosmic Brownies.

 

[The Oi]

I am not married and I don't have a girlfriend. Which is good, because it makes it that much easier for me to dedicate my life to this new cult. When is the first meeting? I'll bring orange slices and Cosmic Brownies.

The meeting is always happening. It has always BEEN happening. It will never stop happening.

I want you to think about what that means and report back. Don't report back and until you feel FULLY conscious of what it means.

And the Brownies have been delicious. Thank you.

 

[Walter White]

Now, @Walter White, if the Bible is all at least literally true, how do you interpret some of the laws of the Bible that likely don’t jive with your more modern ethical sensibilities?

I assume you are talking about the slavery and rape? Just being honest, it's often taken out of context by people that want to push an anti-Bible agenda. If people are fixated on Levitical laws, they are missing the entire message of love throughout the Bible. And the whole point of the law needing to be redeemed as well because of how high requirements are to be with a being that holy where no sin can exist in his presence. Which is why the New Testament places grace and mercy over law and the reason for Jesus, but I won't get fully into that unless you want me to. But one reason is to show the will of the Father, which people may not understand by the Old Testament alone, which is why full context is important. But people couldn't understand grace and mercy if they don't know what they have it for or why they need it. So it's not a case of God not knowing what he is doing.

Back to the main question, the woman marrying her rapist is a tough one I don't currently have all the wisdom for. Times were different like you alluded to. But the response of what to do in a tough situation is not an advocacy for rape, I think many people don't distinguish that difference. Nowhere does it promote rape or say it is a good thing, vehemently the opposite in tons of places actually, same with slavery. But one reason is how much God values the sanctity of virginity and marriage. Back then, nobody would want to marry a woman in that situation so the idea is to discourage rape and protect the woman's potential quality of life. It also does not say they have to marry even if the woman doesn't want to, so it may be totally up to the woman, and "marry" may more or less mean support financially. So it is how far you want to read into it I guess. As much as God values marriage, he says rape and other infidelities are grounds for divorce so he is in fact understanding.

Slavery, I understand it as more of a prisoners of war thing in many places. Although I haven't studied the original text enough. War and slavery exist, the Bible talks about a lot of those things. People were also tested with very hard tests. It's one thing to mess up and a whole different to war directly against him. Even then, you see the mercy that those people get plenty of chances.

With the "genocide", God destroys evil. He has mercy like I said, but to the limit of justice. It's funny that most of the people that have a problem with God destroying evil people in the Bible are the same people want to destroy evil now. So saying God must be evil to allow evil to exist makes no sense and that is just hypocritical.

All of that could go much deeper and you may not like those answers, but I tried.

 

[ewizacft]

If you don't love God you burn in hell for eternity? That does not sound just to me. This is why I mentioned the fact that Catholics reject this idea that one must be Christian and have faith and love for God to be saved.

I am glad you said something. It is more about receiving his love for you which I believe causes people to live him back. Do you believe that if someone knows that God loves them that they will not return that love? How do you think people are saved?

 

[-Akronite-]

I assume you are talking about the slavery and rape? Just being honest, it's often taken out of context by people that want to push an anti-Bible agenda. If people are fixated on Levitical laws, they are missing the entire message of love throughout the Bible. And the whole point of the law needing to be redeemed as well because of how high requirements are to be with a being that holy where no sin can exist in his presence. Which is why the New Testament places grace and mercy over law and the reason for Jesus, but I won't get fully into that unless you want me to. But one reason is to show the will of the Father, which people may not understand by the Old Testament alone, which is why full context is important. But people couldn't understand grace and mercy if they don't know what they have it for or why they need it. So it's not a case of God not knowing what he is doing.

Back to the main question, the woman marrying her rapist is a tough one I don't currently have all the wisdom for. Times were different like you alluded to. But the response of what to do in a tough situation is not an advocacy for rape, I think many people don't distinguish that difference. Nowhere does it promote rape or say it is a good thing, vehemently the opposite in tons of places actually, same with slavery. But one reason is how much God values the sanctity of virginity and marriage. Back then, nobody would want to marry a woman in that situation so the idea is to discourage rape and protect the woman's potential quality of life. It also does not say they have to marry even if the woman doesn't want to, so it may be totally up to the woman, and "marry" may more or less mean support financially. So it is how far you want to read into it I guess. As much as God values marriage, he says rape and other infidelities are grounds for divorce so he is in fact understanding.

Slavery, I understand it as more of a prisoners of war thing in many places. Although I haven't studied the original text enough. War and slavery exist, the Bible talks about a lot of those things. People were also tested with very hard tests. It's one thing to mess up and a whole different to war directly against him. Even then, you see the mercy that those people get plenty of chances.

With the "genocide", God destroys evil. He has mercy like I said, but to the limit of justice. It's funny that most of the people that have a problem with God destroying evil people in the Bible are the same people want to destroy evil now. So saying God must be evil to allow evil to exist makes no sense and that is just hypocritical.

All of that could go much deeper and you may not like those answers, but I tried.

Might have more later but just wanted to say that you’re correct that I may not like all of your answers but I appreciate the honest discussion.