Try to reconcile Numbers chapter 31 to God the benevolent

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:49 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
I doubt this by what you have said in previous posts, xris. You have extolled the Bible's message. You may doubt that the Bible was a message from God perhaps, but you have expressed, and I quote, "i can see many lessons, moral guidance and good laws." If such is your belief, then you can't see the Bible as completely wrong. Perhaps you see the interpretation of it as the word of God as wrong. But you wouldn't be the first to make such an assessment yet still see many lessons, moral guidance and good laws upon which to believe in. To quote a favorite movie of mine, "I don't care what you believe, just believe it."
Sorry saying it was wrong was wrong..The message in the NT is uplifting and worthy of god but i see it as message from wise men. I believe men of goodwill used the power of a god ,his persuasion to influence mens behaviour to the good. Just telling people to behave and obey certain moral rules would have had no impact so the "God" was used to frighten , persued and convince.The three wise men brought more than the gold etc. they invented the myth and the moral code. .
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:57 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Sorry saying it was wrong was wrong..The message in the NT is uplifting and worthy of god but i see it as message from wise men. I believe men of goodwill used the power of a god ,his persuasion to influence mens behaviour to the good. Just telling people to behave and obey certain moral rules would have had no impact so the "God" was used to frighten , persued and convince.The three wise men brought more than the gold etc. they invented the myth and the moral code. .


Okay I see where you're going and I agree with you. The idea of God, or any other external authority, shouldn't have to be used to back up and support sensible thinking and proper behaviour. Those things should aught to be able to support themselves. I guess the problem is that not everyone agrees on what is sensible and proper, so some use God as a means to give their ideas more credit. Would I do such a thing? No, I don't think so. I don't claim that God is telling me anything. I just do what I do in the hopes that it is what God wants me to do.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:57 am
@Alan McDougall,
Solace

Believe me I absorb and learn from your wisdom

I often referred to myself in my writing as "The Listener"

Alan
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:05 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Solace

Believe me I absorb and learn from your wisdom

I often referred to myself in my writing as "The Listener"

Alan


Lol, thank you Alan. But mine is the fool's wisdom and it is all I ever claim to. This isn't modesty; it is said that the fool should confound the wise. Yet a fool the fool remains.

It is always better to listen than to speak, so in that right you are certainly wiser than I am. :bigsmile:
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:08 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Okay I see where you're going and I agree with you. The idea of God, or any other external authority, shouldn't have to be used to back up and support sensible thinking and proper behaviour. Those things should aught to be able to support themselves. I guess the problem is that not everyone agrees on what is sensible and proper, so some use God as a means to give their ideas more credit. Would I do such a thing? No, I don't think so. I don't claim that God is telling me anything. I just do what I do in the hopes that it is what God wants me to do.
They where different times ,the idea of mercy was not readily accepted and loving your enemy was revolutionery.Alot of the morals had been thought of but not accepted so they would have needed authority. If you look at Pagan faiths of the time, the jesus story is mirrored in them. Mythras the roman god was born from the gods ,virgin birth, miracles , sacrifice and resurrected .How much more evidence do you need to see the myth growing from other myths and putting the message into this myth.
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:34 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
They where different times ,the idea of mercy was not readily accepted and loving your enemy was revolutionery.Alot of the morals had been thought of but not accepted so they would have needed authority. If you look at Pagan faiths of the time, the jesus story is mirrored in them. Mythras the roman god was born from the gods ,virgin birth, miracles , sacrifice and resurrected .How much more evidence do you need to see the myth growing from other myths and putting the message into this myth.


Oh yes, I have thought of these things too. How much of all of the Bible is truly original? The story of the great flood is common to many cultures. When it comes to Christ, though, it does hit a different sort of cord, doesn't it? It's like it's a religious taboo to even think that any part of Christ's story is made up. But the story shares similarities with many ancient myths, not just the Roman.

How can we possibly rationalize it then? Well, it comes down to this for me; even if Christ didn't exist, or simply the story about him is not entirely true, it doesn't change his message. Nor does it change the subsequent message that Paul taught about Grace. What I am left with is faith; faith that God created me and will not destroy me. No matter whether someone screwed up the details of the Bible.

In the end, even if we could somehow prove that Christ existed and the Biblical story of his life was absolutely true down to the letter, what difference would it make? It doesn't change that when I read it now it is still just a story to me. If the story says something that I agree with, I won't agree with it any more just because he existed. And if the story says something that I don't agree with, I still won't agree with it any more just because he existed. I'll either agree with the message and the moral of the story or I will not, whether or not he existed and to whatever capacity his story was true.

Let me ask you this, which type of movie makes you feel better; a feel good story that is "based on real events", or an even better feel good story that is entirely fiction? The first one being "based on real events" is little more than a sidenote to most of us. Of the two, it's usually the second movie that we'll remember.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:59 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Oh yes, I have thought of these things too. How much of all of the Bible is truly original? The story of the great flood is common to many cultures. When it comes to Christ, though, it does hit a different sort of cord, doesn't it? It's like it's a religious taboo to even think that any part of Christ's story is made up. But the story shares similarities with many ancient myths, not just the Roman.

How can we possibly rationalize it then? Well, it comes down to this for me; even if Christ didn't exist, or simply the story about him is not entirely true, it doesn't change his message. Nor does it change the subsequent message that Paul taught about Grace. What I am left with is faith; faith that God created me and will not destroy me. No matter whether someone screwed up the details of the Bible.

In the end, even if we could somehow prove that Christ existed and the Biblical story of his life was absolutely true down to the letter, what difference would it make? It doesn't change that when I read it now it is still just a story to me. If the story says something that I agree with, I won't agree with it any more just because he existed. And if the story says something that I don't agree with, I still won't agree with it any more just because he existed. I'll either agree with the message and the moral of the story or I will not, whether or not he existed and to whatever capacity his story was true.

Let me ask you this, which type of movie makes you feel better; a feel good story that is "based on real events", or an even better feel good story that is entirely fiction? The first one being "based on real events" is little more than a sidenote to most of us. Of the two, it's usually the second movie that we'll remember.
I dont worship movies..
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:17 am
@Alan McDougall,
Guys or Gals,

But what is the final destiny of Scuba?

My view is she will most definitely not end up in hell because the mercy of God endures forever

Jesus said There is a sin for which there is no forgiveness "IN THIS LIFE" or The "NEXT LIFE"

So it is reasonable to me based on this verse that there is forgiveness in the "Next LIFE"

Debating what that sin can be addressed as another thread or debated here it is up to you, as I dont own the topic
What do you think?
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:19 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I dont worship movies..


I don't worship God either. Why would I worship my own father?
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:21 am
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:
But what is the final destiny of Scuba?


Alan I think maybe you should go to thread about Suba to ask this question.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:21 am
@Alan McDougall,
I had a thought about the unforgivable sin

To me It to hate God with all your soul all mind and all your might and to hate your neibour as you Hate yourself

Scuba did not do this
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:25 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
I had a thought about the unforgivable sin

To me It to hate God with all your soul all mind and all your might and to hate your neibour as you Hate yourself

Scuba did not do this


Christ also said that it will be forgiven for men to blaspheme the Father and the Son, but it would not be forgiven to blaspheme the Holy Ghost. I think this is what the unforgivable sin is. Of course, exactly what it means to blaspheme the Holy Ghost isn't quite clear. I've heard theories, but none that are satisfying.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 04:21 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Solace, how then does a person blaspheme against the Holy Spirit ? If think about it you did not do this sin, you have not done it

It is a deep mystery?

It is something that darkens your soul , but what does it mean to blasheme agiant the Holy Spirit??
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 05:51 pm
@Alan McDougall,
To tell you the truth Alan, I'm not even really sure what it means to blaspheme the father or the son. Dictionary.com explains blaspheme as

-verb (used with object) 1.to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things).2.to speak evil of; slander; abuse.
-verb (used without object) 3.to speak irreverently of God or sacred things; utter impieties.

essentially bad mouthing God. I have doubts about how this pertains to the Holy Ghost though, because so few people have any real conception of what the Holy Ghost is. Biblical and Christian explanations of the Holy Ghost are vague at best. So it's kind of hard to legitimately bad mouth something that you don't even really conceptualize.

But I don't think that bad mouthing the Holy Ghost was what Christ was talking about anyway. I've heard a couple different claims about what it means to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from anyone who speaks ill of the tradition of speaking in tongues, to anyone who simply turns their back on the church and leaves Christianity. These explanations leave me with the feeling that preachers promote it just to keep their followers in line.

I heard another explanation of it only once, but to tell you the truth, it was the one that seemed to make the most sense. As it is the role of the Holy Ghost to reveal the sons of Gods, (a role at least, I daresay the Holy Ghost aspect of God has more than one role,) that is to lead God's children into the kingdom, then as it was explained to me, it is blasphemy for anyone (and in particular church leaders are in a dangerous position to commit this,) to decide that any member of their body of believers is no longer welcome within their church. Essentially, by this explanation, it would be blasphemy for anyone to claim that someone else is not God's child, or to turn someone away from God's house, since only the Holy Ghost can proclaim such knowledge and has the right to deny entrance into Heaven. I don't know if this explanation is entirely right either, but of all the ones I have heard, it makes the most sense to me.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:43 am
@Solace,
To blaspheme the Holy Ghost is to blaspheme truth/honesty.

It's tough to do, really. Ignorance is something, after all, to be forgiven. The point, I think, is to keep oneself honest toward the truth, as best as one can do. Something along the lines of what might be termed "right attempt". Do your best and do not abuse spiritual teachings for egoistic ends. Something like that, anyway.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 01:28 am
@Alan McDougall,
Didymos Thomas


Quote:

To blaspheme the Holy Ghost is to blaspheme truth/honesty


I understand what you think and it might be too profound for the simple unschooled

to blaspheme truth/honesty a little to "oxymoron",? but I can unravel what your mean and I agree with-it
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 11:21:30