OK since Kingray100 closed out the original thread and it looked as if at least
a couple of people wanted to continue discussion I've opened a supplemental
thread. Although I have modified the subject a little
This thread is a place to talk about Christianity (which is what it started
with) as well as other religions.....I welcome all to explain their views and
opinions and ask questions that will be answered and/or countered by myself and
probably countless others (the more the merrier). A couple of rules though
1. No throwing things
2. No throwing people
3. No I am right so you are wrong BS
4. OK thats it, I'll kick off with responses to a couple a things in the last
thread.
Quote by RoyalDarknessIt's all
right, I understand. The thing is we can't really tell which is true and which
is not unless there's actual proof. I'm not really looking for answers, if you
can prove to me that it is actually true I'll believe you, but if you say that I
only need faith to believe it, then I'll leave my options open. It may or may
not be true, and I'm content with just thinking that, without an actual answer.
Like you said, just being open minded. However, since after so many years of
research, there's no actual proof for it, so it's more likely for it to be
false. Until of course it's proven otherwise.
Well I can't
say I agree with the last statement since no proof does not indicate untruth
(unless used in a legal setting) or otherwise because if that was the case we
would have a contradiction in that no one has proven God does not exist
either.
Quote by RoyalDarknessCorrect me if
I'm wrong, but don't Christians consider events or things that are unexplainable
as miracles? To me, miracles aren't exactly explanations, it is because there is
no explanation for it then would it be considered a miracle. Something
supernatural at work. The work of the Christian god. But can you prove that? I
admit right now you can't prove otherwise either, so like I said before, maybe
in a few years time we'll be able to do that.
You are correct
in the commonly used religious sense of the word but the literal definition does
not necessarily require the event to be unexplainable its just an felicitous
event that probably should not have happened. As for proof I offer none, you
probably accept that I believe in it (cause I've told you that I do) but you are
right that you do not have to accept that it is true.
Quote: Well I can't say I agree
with the last statement since no proof does not indicate untruth (unless used in
a legal setting) or otherwise because if that was the case we would have a
contradiction in that no one has proven God does not exist
either.
Quote: You are correct in the
commonly used religious sense of the word but the literal definition does not
necessarily require the event to be unexplainable its just an felicitous event
that probably should not have happened. As for proof I offer none, you probably
accept that I believe in it (cause I've told you that I do) but you are right
that you do not have to accept that it is true.
Well, you're right, it can't be proven either way so I'll just leave it at that
until someone, someday can prove that either view is correct. Until then I'll
keep an open mind about it
Miracle is more used as a religious term (or more commonly used) and if given
terms of religion, it is supposed to be the act of god. The only problem is, it
has to be something that is totally unexplainable by any means. That means it
can't be explained in the past, now, or in the future. If we can find out how to
explain it, then it rules out divine intervention. Now, if we're talking about
everyday sort of thing, it's just the right thing happening at the right time...
which is I prefer that definition, but oh well...
Speaking of miracles, my religious education teacher once jokingly had this to
say about Jesus' turning of water into wine:
"Well consider this, the wedding that Jesus attended obviously belonged to
a rich man considering the huge amount of guests that were present, and there
must have been a lot of wine to go around. Now I'm guessing that everybody was
so infernally drunk, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between wine
and donkey piss." - Mr. Fontorn, My religious education teacher.
In the actual story there were barrels of both wine and water. If we give a
rational way to explain it, many people will say that Jesus just mixed the two
barrels with proportions of water greater than that of the wine resulting into a
sufficient quantity of drinks for the guests.
Many people think that miracles can only come from God or of divine intervention
which I strongly contradict. I believe that true miracles come from simple lives
performing unexplainable or unlikely, relevant acts. By this I mean a cancer
patient out-living the given limit determined by tests without the use of many
medicine. Or a man lost at sea and return unharmed after 40 days or so. These
are true miracles.
Yes, that is so true. Everyday miracles are the best. It doesn't have to be
"rising-from-the-dead" flashy to be a miracle. But I still believe
that in some way... and I share this view with those who've actually experienced
surviving cancer, and other ordeals, that they drew strength from something
"beyond" them. Most attribute it to God.
Quote by aexielMany people think that
miracles can only come from God or of divine intervention which I strongly
contradict. I believe that true miracles come from simple lives performing
unexplainable or unlikely, relevant acts. By this I mean a cancer patient
out-living the given limit determined by tests without the use of many medicine.
Or a man lost at sea and return unharmed after 40 days or so. These are true
miracles.
I'll have to agree to that, even if it may or may not be God's doing.
Well thats true for most Christians but for a few they think that everything is
God's will but they forget that he gave us free will, the ability to choose our
own path and our own beliefs. Its one of the reasons I do not like religious
institutions that much. They are just too impersonal and IMO your relationship
with God should be very personal. I don't mean that you should keep it bottled
up but also there is no need to hammer other people with your own beliefs as
merely expressing them usually gets their attention much faster.
As for miracles well it all depends on what definition you use to describe them.
Many theists would indeed describe them as works of God or a god/supernatural
being but what do you call it when its something that you know what caused it
but the result is way far out of the realm of possibility. In mathematics they
are usually called outliers and they are indicative of bad data or of unforseen
results. Also when you get right back to root causes isn't everything happening
because God created this world (for believers).
Another thing I have problems with would be interpretations. I have yt to read
them but I know that there are explanatory texts written by authors of the books
of the Bible. I am curious to see if their explanations jive with current
doctrine or if they differ. I know the Gnostic Gospels differ quite a bit since
they show Jesus as very very human and subject to all the things we poor humans
are subject to. It blows my mind that so many churches want to keep this
pristine image of Jesus when in the end he was human and at the same time the
son of God. I think it actually brings him closer to people. Its too bad that
the orginal church eliminated those texts out of fear that people would see
Jesus as human.
There was an National Geographic Magazine issue (May 2006) that covered the
Gospel of Judas. In the article, there was mention of there being many Bible
versions with each of its own interpretation of Jesus' teachings in the past.
One part that was rather interesting was that back then, all these versions were
competing against each other for influence until the arrival of the 1611 King
James Version.
So, how are we to know which Bible was more accurate and true but lost out to
versions which could have been "souped up" or dramatized just to gain
mass appeal?
Quote by kiopiThere was an National
Geographic Magazine issue (May 2006) that covered the Gospel of Judas. In the
article, there was mention of there being many Bible versions with each of its
own interpretation of Jesus' teachings in the past. One part that was rather
interesting was that back then, all these versions were competing against each
other for influence until the arrival of the 1611 King James Version.
So, how are we to know which Bible was more accurate and true but lost out to
versions which could have been "souped up" or dramatized just to gain
mass appeal?
It's not so much competing "versions" of the Bible but rather what is
considered the canonical books of the Bible was not finally settled until the
Council of Trent in the 1500s for the Catholic version. Remember that there are
many writings dating back to the same time period, and perhaps the same
authorship, as the currently canonical books in the Bible. For Christians, it
took about 1400 years before they finally decided which are actually cannon
books and which are apocryphal books. Even today there actually is still
disagreement between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.
Also remember that because the Bible must be translated, the editors inherently
will inject his own personal theological views into his translation. The
original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament
in Ancient Greek, so as the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin
to Old English to modern English, there inevitably will be different
translations and therefore different readings.
To answer your last question, the current New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible is theologian's best effort to produce a Bible that is as close to the
original ancient texts as possible. They did this by comparing different
translations with ancient manuscripts and exploring the linguistic discrepancies
until they can find the "best possible effort" translation. So we can
reasonably rest assured that at least the NRSV is not a unrealistic rewriting of
the ancient Biblical texts.
Quote by EternalParadoxIt's not so
much competing "versions" of the Bible but rather what is considered
the canonical books of the Bible was not finally settled until the Council of
Trent in the 1500s for the Catholic version. Remember that there are many
writings dating back to the same time period, and perhaps the same authorship,
as the currently canonical books in the Bible. For Christians, it took about
1400 years before they finally decided which are actually cannon books and which
are apocryphal books. Even today there actually is still disagreement between
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.
Also to add
to the above answer the oldest known versions of the Old Testament Scriptures
are the Dead Sea Scrolls (I believe this is still the case since I have not
heard of anything older being discovered). These would represent your best bet
for the earliest and probably most uncontaminated version of the Old Testament.
Also, some of the scrolls are not actually old versions of the scriptures but
the authors interpretations of their own writings. Its very rare to find an
author's interpretation of their own writings. I do not know what the oldest
versions of the New Testament are off the top of my head so I won't go into that
part right now. As for the disagreements don't forget that those disagreements
extend to with those sects as well.
Quote by EternalParadox Also
remember that because the Bible must be translated, the editors inherently will
inject his own personal theological views into his translation. The original Old
Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Ancient
Greek, so as the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old
English to modern English, there inevitably will be different translations and
therefore different readings.
To answer your last question, the current New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible is theologian's best effort to produce a Bible that is as close to the
original ancient texts as possible. They did this by comparing different
translations with ancient manuscripts and exploring the linguistic discrepancies
until they can find the "best possible effort" translation. So we can
reasonably rest assured that at least the NRSV is not a unrealistic rewriting of
the ancient Biblical texts.
Its true that the texts did
suffer somewhat in translation however the versions that sprung from the Latin
Vulgate are pretty similar since Jerome (the author of the Bible compilation
called the Latin Vulgate) had a pretty good handle on translation since he spoke
and understood several of those languages. The major differences in translation
would have occurred in the time between Jerome's work and the oldest manuscripts
he had to work with. The best modern English version I have seen is the Harper
Collins Study Bible because it actually points out where discrepancies in the
translation may have occurred.
Here's a question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that
we'll get to meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what
will you do if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely? Heck we
expect him to be like human in appearance, or at least I think we do. Or what if
after you die, you discover that there's no such thing as God. How would you
react?
I can say that after some thought I don't expect God to look like anything in
particular. Although, I do admit that on first thinking about it the whole
"created in his image" thing does take hold but then I kinda doubt
that would mean his physical image since a physical body would not be permanent.
As for meeting him, well other that the billion or so questions I would have I
think it would be kinda neat to find out if I was on the right path in trying to
understand him. (NOTE I use him generically)
Quote: Its true that the texts did
suffer somewhat in translation however the versions that sprung from the Latin
Vulgate are pretty similar since Jerome (the author of the Bible compilation
called the Latin Vulgate) had a pretty good handle on translation since he spoke
and understood several of those languages.
The Vulgate was translated primarily from the Greek Septuagint, which itself
already had deviations from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition, many
errors in our Bible also comes from the process of hand transcription. All the
versions before Gutenberg's were hand written by monks, and the problems with
bad handwriting, skipped or double-copied lines, etc, makes subsequent versions
different in unintentional ways.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want
to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is
impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can
and wants to abolish evil, Then how come evil in the world?"
-Epicurus, 350-?270 BC
Oh also, I also think that one reason why God would not annihalate all evil in
the world and universe is because he needs evil so he can continue to be good
But that would also make him wicked so my statement - and Epicurus' - still
stands
But I still hope there is something in the next life but there is no worrying
about it now
There isn't much I can really do to affect that
If God is as powerful as we believe he is, if any of us were to meet him, we
would never know as he can take any form. When he said that he created us in his
likeness, it was not solely about appearance but more likely of nature or
personality.
There is a common misconception about God. If he is indeed omnipotent, then he
can neither be good nor evil. To abolish evil is to abolish good as one cannot
exist without the other. In such a way that there is light to every darkness and
a death to every life.
God is not wicked, he is just and fair. Thusly he is always in between never to
take side. To question why evil exists in this world is to question one's
existence. There would be no point. The world was created in balance of good and
evil, light and dark and in such a way was man made. The human soul as to remain
on earth from the time of his birth is composed of two sides kept in balance
until he is capable of choosing his path. This is the probable likeness. As the
Buddhists say, the path to enlightenment is the middle way.
Quote by royaldarknessHere's a
question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to
meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do
if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely? Heck we expect him
to be like human in appearance, or at least I think we do. Or what if after you
die, you discover that there's no such thing as God. How would you
react?
well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so
who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus'
appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was
no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that
there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the
purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us
alive,ect...."
its a strange question that is very well unknown to most people....
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want
to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is
impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can
and wants to abolish evil, Then how come evil in the world?"
-Epicurus, 350-?270 BC
Oh also, I also think that one reason why God would not annihalate all evil in
the world and universe is because he needs evil so he can continue to be good
But that would also make him wicked so my statement - and Epicurus' - still
stands
But I still hope there is something in the next life but there is no worrying
about it now
There isn't much I can really do to affect that
i dont have
much to say to this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do
evil things everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....
Quote: i dont have much to say to
this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things
everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our
mess....
You do realize... that we can literally just repeat everything saying that god
created everything so therefore it created evil...
Quote: well actually the bible
describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only
guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird
sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to
react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in
life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or
food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."
I don't get what you mean... we wouldn't react? Also, how is the meaning of life
have anything to do with god?
Quote: well actually the bible
describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only
guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird
sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to
react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in
life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or
food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."
Like it or not, those are actually just our assumptions. Why wouldn't we be able
to react? Just because God may not turn out to be what we expect doesn't mean
that we can't react, or there's no purpose in life, or anything along those
lines. And yes it is a strange question that is not often asked, which is why I
decided to ask it.
Quote by royaldarknessHere's a
question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to
meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do
if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely?
I
personally like South Park's definition of God... A furry hippo with a snakes
tongue that eats flies. LOL!
Quote: well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so
who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus'
appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was
no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that
there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the
purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us
alive,ect...."
Like it or not, those are actually just our assumptions. Why wouldn't we be able
to react? Just because God may not turn out to be what we expect doesn't mean
that we can't react, or there's no purpose in life, or anything along those
lines. And yes it is a strange question that is not often asked, which is why I
decided to ask it.
when i said we wouldnt be able to react,we
wouldnt since there would be no afterlife since there is no God in your
question....meaning that we stay buried in that dirt without anything else
taking place.....thats what i meant when we wouldnt be able to
react....
and why are you telling me like it or not?I know that money and ect. are
assumptions by people....thats why i said it as an example....
Quote: i dont have much to say to this other than........God
didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things everyday.....its like
asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....
You do realize... that we can literally just repeat everything saying that god
created everything so therefore it created evil...
Quote: well actually the bible
describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only
guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird
sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to
react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in
life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or
food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."
I don't get what you mean... we wouldn't react? Also, how is the meaning of life
have anything to do with god?
yes but we had the free will to
do evil or not....adam and eve could have stayed sinless if they didnt disobey
God.
either way,the blame cant be shifted to God.....
If there was no after life, then the more is life worth living because nothing
awaits you in the end. This would most likely prevent suicides knowing that
after they die that's it. You cease to exist. It seems no one was able to read
my statement before. God can take any form. If he is pure good he would not let
us down and let us see what we want of him. Otherwise he'll just take an
immaterial for. i.e. light.
Quote: yes but we had the free will
to do evil or not....adam and eve could have stayed sinless if they didnt
disobey God.
either way,the blame cant be shifted to God.....
And yet again if you want us to put again, we can say god's ability of
omniscient and omnipotency... do you really want to repeat everything? It gets
annoyings...
Quote: I personally
like South Park's definition of God... A furry hippo with a snakes tongue that
eats flies. LOL!
If god exists, I want it to be a cute cuddly panda.
merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 11:06am
Quote: when i said we wouldnt be
able to react,we wouldnt since there would be no afterlife since there is no God
in your question....meaning that we stay buried in that dirt without anything
else taking place.....thats what i meant when we wouldnt be able to
react....
and why are you telling me like it or not?I know that money and ect. are
assumptions by people....thats why i said it as an example....
OK since Kingray100 closed out the original thread and it looked as if at least a couple of people wanted to continue discussion I've opened a supplemental thread. Although I have modified the subject a little
This thread is a place to talk about Christianity (which is what it started with) as well as other religions.....I welcome all to explain their views and opinions and ask questions that will be answered and/or countered by myself and probably countless others (the more the merrier). A couple of rules though
1. No throwing things
2. No throwing people
3. No I am right so you are wrong BS
4. OK thats it, I'll kick off with responses to a couple a things in the last thread.
Well I can't say I agree with the last statement since no proof does not indicate untruth (unless used in a legal setting) or otherwise because if that was the case we would have a contradiction in that no one has proven God does not exist either.
You are correct in the commonly used religious sense of the word but the literal definition does not necessarily require the event to be unexplainable its just an felicitous event that probably should not have happened. As for proof I offer none, you probably accept that I believe in it (cause I've told you that I do) but you are right that you do not have to accept that it is true.
Well, you're right, it can't be proven either way so I'll just leave it at that until someone, someday can prove that either view is correct. Until then I'll keep an open mind about it
Very very very very (...) good rule.
Miracle is more used as a religious term (or more commonly used) and if given terms of religion, it is supposed to be the act of god. The only problem is, it has to be something that is totally unexplainable by any means. That means it can't be explained in the past, now, or in the future. If we can find out how to explain it, then it rules out divine intervention. Now, if we're talking about everyday sort of thing, it's just the right thing happening at the right time... which is I prefer that definition, but oh well...
Speaking of miracles, my religious education teacher once jokingly had this to say about Jesus' turning of water into wine:
"Well consider this, the wedding that Jesus attended obviously belonged to a rich man considering the huge amount of guests that were present, and there must have been a lot of wine to go around. Now I'm guessing that everybody was so infernally drunk, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between wine and donkey piss." - Mr. Fontorn, My religious education teacher.
In the actual story there were barrels of both wine and water. If we give a rational way to explain it, many people will say that Jesus just mixed the two barrels with proportions of water greater than that of the wine resulting into a sufficient quantity of drinks for the guests.
Many people think that miracles can only come from God or of divine intervention which I strongly contradict. I believe that true miracles come from simple lives performing unexplainable or unlikely, relevant acts. By this I mean a cancer patient out-living the given limit determined by tests without the use of many medicine. Or a man lost at sea and return unharmed after 40 days or so. These are true miracles.
Yes, that is so true. Everyday miracles are the best. It doesn't have to be "rising-from-the-dead" flashy to be a miracle. But I still believe that in some way... and I share this view with those who've actually experienced surviving cancer, and other ordeals, that they drew strength from something "beyond" them. Most attribute it to God.
oOw o. 0
it doesnt means that if sumthing strength happen, we the christians claim it as God's job.
we just tell stories n evrything based on da bible
I'll have to agree to that, even if it may or may not be God's doing.
Well thats true for most Christians but for a few they think that everything is God's will but they forget that he gave us free will, the ability to choose our own path and our own beliefs. Its one of the reasons I do not like religious institutions that much. They are just too impersonal and IMO your relationship with God should be very personal. I don't mean that you should keep it bottled up but also there is no need to hammer other people with your own beliefs as merely expressing them usually gets their attention much faster.
As for miracles well it all depends on what definition you use to describe them. Many theists would indeed describe them as works of God or a god/supernatural being but what do you call it when its something that you know what caused it but the result is way far out of the realm of possibility. In mathematics they are usually called outliers and they are indicative of bad data or of unforseen results. Also when you get right back to root causes isn't everything happening because God created this world (for believers).
Another thing I have problems with would be interpretations. I have yt to read them but I know that there are explanatory texts written by authors of the books of the Bible. I am curious to see if their explanations jive with current doctrine or if they differ. I know the Gnostic Gospels differ quite a bit since they show Jesus as very very human and subject to all the things we poor humans are subject to. It blows my mind that so many churches want to keep this pristine image of Jesus when in the end he was human and at the same time the son of God. I think it actually brings him closer to people. Its too bad that the orginal church eliminated those texts out of fear that people would see Jesus as human.
There was an National Geographic Magazine issue (May 2006) that covered the Gospel of Judas. In the article, there was mention of there being many Bible versions with each of its own interpretation of Jesus' teachings in the past. One part that was rather interesting was that back then, all these versions were competing against each other for influence until the arrival of the 1611 King James Version.
So, how are we to know which Bible was more accurate and true but lost out to versions which could have been "souped up" or dramatized just to gain mass appeal?
It's not so much competing "versions" of the Bible but rather what is considered the canonical books of the Bible was not finally settled until the Council of Trent in the 1500s for the Catholic version. Remember that there are many writings dating back to the same time period, and perhaps the same authorship, as the currently canonical books in the Bible. For Christians, it took about 1400 years before they finally decided which are actually cannon books and which are apocryphal books. Even today there actually is still disagreement between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.
Also remember that because the Bible must be translated, the editors inherently will inject his own personal theological views into his translation. The original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Ancient Greek, so as the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to modern English, there inevitably will be different translations and therefore different readings.
To answer your last question, the current New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is theologian's best effort to produce a Bible that is as close to the original ancient texts as possible. They did this by comparing different translations with ancient manuscripts and exploring the linguistic discrepancies until they can find the "best possible effort" translation. So we can reasonably rest assured that at least the NRSV is not a unrealistic rewriting of the ancient Biblical texts.
Also to add to the above answer the oldest known versions of the Old Testament Scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls (I believe this is still the case since I have not heard of anything older being discovered). These would represent your best bet for the earliest and probably most uncontaminated version of the Old Testament. Also, some of the scrolls are not actually old versions of the scriptures but the authors interpretations of their own writings. Its very rare to find an author's interpretation of their own writings. I do not know what the oldest versions of the New Testament are off the top of my head so I won't go into that part right now. As for the disagreements don't forget that those disagreements extend to with those sects as well.
Its true that the texts did suffer somewhat in translation however the versions that sprung from the Latin Vulgate are pretty similar since Jerome (the author of the Bible compilation called the Latin Vulgate) had a pretty good handle on translation since he spoke and understood several of those languages. The major differences in translation would have occurred in the time between Jerome's work and the oldest manuscripts he had to work with. The best modern English version I have seen is the Harper Collins Study Bible because it actually points out where discrepancies in the translation may have occurred.
Here's a question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely? Heck we expect him to be like human in appearance, or at least I think we do. Or what if after you die, you discover that there's no such thing as God. How would you react?
I can say that after some thought I don't expect God to look like anything in particular. Although, I do admit that on first thinking about it the whole "created in his image" thing does take hold but then I kinda doubt that would mean his physical image since a physical body would not be permanent. As for meeting him, well other that the billion or so questions I would have I think it would be kinda neat to find out if I was on the right path in trying to understand him. (NOTE I use him generically)
The Vulgate was translated primarily from the Greek Septuagint, which itself already had deviations from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition, many errors in our Bible also comes from the process of hand transcription. All the versions before Gutenberg's were hand written by monks, and the problems with bad handwriting, skipped or double-copied lines, etc, makes subsequent versions different in unintentional ways.
A good view on religion:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, Then how come evil in the world?"
-Epicurus, 350-?270 BC
Oh also, I also think that one reason why God would not annihalate all evil in the world and universe is because he needs evil so he can continue to be good
But that would also make him wicked so my statement - and Epicurus' - still stands
But I still hope there is something in the next life but there is no worrying about it now
There isn't much I can really do to affect that
If God is as powerful as we believe he is, if any of us were to meet him, we would never know as he can take any form. When he said that he created us in his likeness, it was not solely about appearance but more likely of nature or personality.
There is a common misconception about God. If he is indeed omnipotent, then he can neither be good nor evil. To abolish evil is to abolish good as one cannot exist without the other. In such a way that there is light to every darkness and a death to every life.
God is not wicked, he is just and fair. Thusly he is always in between never to take side. To question why evil exists in this world is to question one's existence. There would be no point. The world was created in balance of good and evil, light and dark and in such a way was man made. The human soul as to remain on earth from the time of his birth is composed of two sides kept in balance until he is capable of choosing his path. This is the probable likeness. As the Buddhists say, the path to enlightenment is the middle way.
well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."
its a strange question that is very well unknown to most people....
merged: 09-08-2007 ~ 10:00pm
i dont have much to say to this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....
You do realize... that we can literally just repeat everything saying that god created everything so therefore it created evil...
I don't get what you mean... we wouldn't react? Also, how is the meaning of life have anything to do with god?
Like it or not, those are actually just our assumptions. Why wouldn't we be able to react? Just because God may not turn out to be what we expect doesn't mean that we can't react, or there's no purpose in life, or anything along those lines. And yes it is a strange question that is not often asked, which is why I decided to ask it.
Are swords allowed? LOL!
I personally like South Park's definition of God... A furry hippo with a snakes tongue that eats flies. LOL!
when i said we wouldnt be able to react,we wouldnt since there would be no afterlife since there is no God in your question....meaning that we stay buried in that dirt without anything else taking place.....thats what i meant when we wouldnt be able to react....
and why are you telling me like it or not?I know that money and ect. are assumptions by people....thats why i said it as an example....
merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 09:00am
yes but we had the free will to do evil or not....adam and eve could have stayed sinless if they didnt disobey God.
either way,the blame cant be shifted to God.....
If there was no after life, then the more is life worth living because nothing awaits you in the end. This would most likely prevent suicides knowing that after they die that's it. You cease to exist. It seems no one was able to read my statement before. God can take any form. If he is pure good he would not let us down and let us see what we want of him. Otherwise he'll just take an immaterial for. i.e. light.
And yet again if you want us to put again, we can say god's ability of omniscient and omnipotency... do you really want to repeat everything? It gets annoyings...
If god exists, I want it to be a cute cuddly panda.
merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 11:06am
Wait, since when is money an assumption?