christopher ADF Support Team Threadmaster Extraordinaire member is offline
Shine Jesus Shine !
Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 792 Location: Gladstone, Ore
Re: Is persecution always good for the Church? « Result #1 Today at 4:56pm »
Quote:
Ouch. Doesn't it seem like you're making God the author of persecution here, rather than the perseuctors?
Why do we need to make that leap? Can't God use for good what others mean for evil?
Don't hear me say that God's ideal or ultimate plan for the Church is persecution. I'm saying that there tangible ways that Church benefits from persecution and it is often times a refining fire, with the positive consequence of creating believers stronger and more resolve in their faith IMO. It causes people to "count the costs" much more soberly.
I think this has historically proven itself out and is even now proving itself out in many places in the world.
I do not want or mean to make light of persecution or talk about it in a flip manner. Quite the opposite.
carebear ACF- W Intermediate Member member is offline
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 48
Re: Is persecution always good for the Church? « Result #2 Today at 4:29pm »
You know Vio does have great insight into what it's like to live in a country persecuted in many ways (dictator orphaning millions of kids, starving families, instilling no hope for future by taking all jobs/all personality/all creativity/all entrepreneurship, etc). He lived in a country where the older people also saw the first hand effects of Hitler as well and what they did to their spirit as a nation. I don't have a whole lot to add....I think vio needs to get in on this .
I would say the mentality many of us have is that persecution is needed to bring Christians closer to God, but I think a more effective tool God likes to use to bring His people closer to Him is just plainly pouring His love on them and revealing to them more who they are and who He is.....this truly frees people from their chains and gives them boldness to share God's love with others (the gospel). God loves to free, not bind. Persecution comes when Christians are operating out of His love and power, and living in a way that "offends" the flesh/world (but ultimately destroys it! Amen!) and therefore they MAY get persecuted.....I don't think God authors or wants persecution.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Is persecution always good for the Church? « Result #3 Today at 2:05pm »
Quote:
Is it always a bad thing for the church to have it's numbers dramatically decreased? One could make the argument that God is separating wheat and tares
.
Ouch. Doesn't it seem like you're making God the author of persecution here, rather than the perseuctors?
christopher ADF Support Team Threadmaster Extraordinaire member is offline
Shine Jesus Shine !
Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 792 Location: Gladstone, Ore
Re: Is persecution always good for the Church? « Result #4 Today at 1:43pm »
"Good for the church" and "growth" are terms that have relative perspective.
Is it always a bad thing for the church to have it's numbers dramatically decreased? One could make the argument that God is separating wheat and tares.
Jesus told His disciples to flee to the next place when they were persecuted in another. I think this is good advice since remaining would likely involve either compromise, incarceration, or death. None of which directly promote the gospel*.
*Of course, martyrdom can have the indirect effect of promoting the kingdom just as your Tertullian quote suggests. But the person can no longer personally preach the gospel....dead men tell no tales.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Does God Exist? « Result #6 Yesterday at 9:28pm »
Quote:
Therefore it follows that the conclusion is also not true.
Actually, therefore it follows that the conlcusion cannot be proven.
I actually think Anselm is right and has a great idea here, but the Ontological Argument founders in its ability to truly prove it's case. That is why, in the above article, I did not use Anselm's ontological argument to make my case.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 434 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Re: Does God Exist? « Result #7 Yesterday at 9:23pm »
An great summary of a great arguement in favor of God existing. Anselm's Ontological Argument Disclaimer
* This text is copyrighted to Chirag Mehta, 2001. * For reproduction / copyright information contact me. * I've tried my best to make sure that all the information herein is 100% accurate. * But you can't sue me if there are some discrepancies. * And remember... Plagiarism is uncool.
Headers
* Chirag Mehta * Philosophy: 104 (Sec: 03) * Martin Bunzl (TA: Walter Dean) * 26 Feb. 2001 * Grade: A
Anselm's Ontological Argument
"And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist..." - St. Anselm, Proslogium - Chapter III. In the 11th century, Saint Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed the first and best-known ontological argument for the existence of God. An ontological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by thinking alone. The premises for an ontological argument are derived from sources other than observation of reality, that is, solely from reasoning. This idea of proving the existence of God by thinking alone was later adopted by many, including Rene Descartes in the 16th century.
The following two stanzas from "The Ballad of St. Anselm" - Charles S. Harris, very clearly describe Anselm's ontological argument:
If that than which nothing greater can be conceived Can be conceived not to exist, Then 'tis not that than which nothing greater can be conceived: This is unquestionable, I insist.
For in that case a being greater can be conceived, Whose major traits we can easily list: Namely, that than which nothing greater can be conceived And which cannot be conceived not to exist. In other words, Anselm's argument rests on the following five premises: 1. Premise 1: It is possible to conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, namely God. 2. Premise 2: It is possible to conceive of a being that must exist, that is, a necessary being. 3. Premise 3: It is possible to conceive of a being that may not exist, that is, a contingent being. 4. Premise 4: A necessary being is greater than a contingent being. 5. Premise 5: Since God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and a necessary being is greater than a contingent being, God is a necessary being.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists. This argument is both conceptual and modal. The use of the phrase "conceive of" makes it a conceptual argument. Premises two and five refer to a necessary being, classifying this as a modal argument. It is important to note here that Anselm's argument is a priori that is the premises are not empirical but conceptual.
Anselm's God is a God than which nothing greater can be conceived. So even if he does prove God's existence, the God that he has proved is merely one than which nothing greater can be conceived. Actually Anselm's argument belittles the definition of God, since it cannot be derived from his proof whether God is all-powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent or not.
Over the centuries, many philosophers have presented criticisms against Anselm's ontological argument, from Gaunilo to Descartes and Locke to Lotze. Written during the same period, Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's argument, "In behalf of the fool" is considered a special case since Anselm replied to the same in "Anselm's Apologetic."
Gaunilo argued that just like conceiving about God, it is also possible to conceive of an island, than which no greater exists. Applying Anselm's argument to this "lost island," it can be proved that such an island positively exists somewhere in the world, since necessary existence is greater than contingent existence. Similarly anything, even an impossible thing, can be proved to exist using Anselm's argument. But this is ridiculous.
Anselm in response said that conceiving the existence of an island or any other object is not the same as conceiving the existence God. Gaunilo talked about conceiving of an island than which no greater island can exist. But Anselm's God was a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Anselm conceived of a God which was greater than everything, including the greatest islands, men, and bagels.
Despite the fact that Anselm's argument seems valid, it is not regarded as sound. Using the number example, it can be argued that the first premise is false. Just like there is no last number, it may be possible that there is no greatest being. If the last number is impossible and we imagine the greatest being to be impossible, then Anselm's argument is refuted instantly. However, suppose the first premise is true, then it is possible to conceive of a necessary and a contingent being, so second and third premises hold true.
Hidden within his argument, Anselm takes the fourth premise to be true, that is a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. Is necessary existence a great-making property? This seems very questionable and Anselm does not provide the proof for the same anywhere. In 18th century, Immanuel Kant rejected existence as being a property of a being. As a result, premise five cannot be proved to be true. Therefore it follows that the conclusion is also not true.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 434 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Re: 3. The Enemy « Result #8 Yesterday at 9:21pm »
I like it, lets say that Christianity is part of our Culture and is nominally Good. Look at Pan Islamic countries, they are overwhelmingly Muslim, you get your religion the same way you get your airlines, you are visited upon by the Sins of your Father or Mother.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 434 Location: Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Re: Is Jesus Christ the only path to salvation? « Result #9 Yesterday at 9:20pm »
God has created a place of utter suffering and misery for all eternity. If you for whatever reason do not accept his son, then you will be sent to this place of pain and suffering for all of time. By the way, God loves you!
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Keith Green « Result #10 Yesterday at 7:25pm »
Shortly after Rich Mullins died I attempted to write a poem in honor of my three favorite short-lived Christian musicians (Keith Green, Mark Heard, and Rich Mullins)
Here's the poem for what it's worth (not one of my best, but):
Enoch, Moses, and Elijah inspired by the lives of K. Green, M. Heard, and R. Mullins
Keith pledged his head to heaven And laid his life before Your throne He was the music of my renaissance Ten years after he had flown Sometimes a precious kernel Must crash to the ground and die So that a voice rings ever stronger As the speeding years go by
Mark was a rough-hewn troubadour Who just wanted to be warm With a knack for deep introspection And a heart weathered by storms But he knew one thing for certain As he played on that last stage His Redeemer lives triumphant And was waiting beyond the grave
Rich was a passionate ragamuffin Seeking beauty and paying attention Taking God at His Word and pressing on Past ‘prison bars’ and unanswered questions He went out like Elijah, just as he asked With a whirlwind to fuel his chariot of fire And now he sings the praise of an awesome God Held by Jesus, his hearts one desire
And I look on these strangers lives As friends I have always known I want to learn their lessons well And live by the light they have shown To make my life a prayer to God Rejoicing in a love so blind Letting mercy lead me on in faith Until I also someday leave the world behind
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Is persecution always good for the Church? « Result #11 Yesterday at 6:11pm »
I used to think so, but I've modified my perspective on this due to the evidence from history as well as the input from Vio and his perspectives growing up in the iron curtain.
Yes, persecution has often grown the church. As Tertullian said, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church".
But the Roman persecution he was referring to, though awful, was intermittent and rarely systematic.
Other persecutions of the Church throughout history have actually been quite successful. There are countries in which Christianity's presence has been virtually wiped off the map for centuries.
One day I made a flippant comment about how Christians in America needed to experience persecution and Vio stopped me short and basically told me that I have no idea what I'm wishing for.
His experience, having grown up in Communist Rumania, is that persecutors can indeed be quite effective in decimating Christian witness. Millions have flocked to America to escape such crushing perseuction over the centuries, and it would be a travesty for this refuge to be snuffed out.
I have not forgotten his remarks. Who am I to speak so casually about something I have no first hand experience with.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Keith Green « Result #12 Yesterday at 2:41pm »
I like his sillier songs too- especially Dear John Letter, Lies, So You Wanna..., etc.. It was just hard to list them as "favorites". But I've been playing these ones for my son Justus and he's really digging them.
Re: Keith Green « Result #13 Yesterday at 12:57pm »
I know that the free records angered a lot of Christian musicians who thought that he was setting some sort of bad precedent. I personally think that many of these musicians were jealous of Keith's popularity and success.
Keith Green was very counter-culture in the Christian music industry. He was also very "in-your-face" with his ideas and expectations for Christians. This is hard for a lot of comfortable Christians to listen to because it might challenge them a little too much.
I think that a lot of his music seems dated because he developed a sound that was unique to him alone, but there were a lot of electric organs and other techniques that were used which should be left in the '70s.
I have to confess that his silly songs have always been my favorite. "So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt" and [i]Dear John Letter to the Devil[/i] were my faves as a kid, but I have really grown to love the deeper messages behind "Pledge My Head to Heaven" and "Easter Song" (which I appreciate better than the 2nd Chapter of Acts Version).
I've appreciated him since my childhood due to my parents influence.
Well, I'm still reeling from THIS quote, but I'm sure I'll get over it...
Keith Green was The Man when we were in college. I would agree that many of his songs are dated now, but the lyrics can be pretty piercing. We always thought it was especially interesting how he had such a drive to preach how Jesus' return was right around the corner---and it turned out it was around the corner--for him.
Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 146 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Strange and random personal facts « Result #15 on Dec 14, 2009, 10:14pm »
Quote:
WWWHHHHHYYYYYYY????????
Rub it in, why don't you. Because I was an idiot. Whatever I was planning on doing seemed more important at the time. Sad thing is that he died about 6 months later. I deeply regret it.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Keith Green « Result #16 on Dec 14, 2009, 10:07pm »
I really like about 1/2 his songs. The rest- well, I tend to like almost all his lyrics, but he does have some songs that sound dated.
Still, there are quite a few that I think have really stood the test of time and changing musical styles. These tend to be primarily the piano driven songs that avoid the use of the synthesizer.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Paul: spiritual or physical resurrection? « Result #19 on Dec 14, 2009, 9:55pm »
Last pubagetics we discussed the somewhat popular argument that Paul's writings (the earliest of the New Testament) reflect a belief in a spiritual raising of Jesus, but not a physical one.
The argument then runs that it was only later, around the time the gospels were written, that Christians attempted to make the claim that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
This argument is usually supported with the following passages from Paul:
1 Cor. 15:42-50 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
We discussed reasons why the above is a misunderstanding of Paul's theology, such as:
1) Paul was of the Pharisitical school of thought on resurrection, which insisted a physical resurrection.
2) Paul's use of the word "flesh" (sarx in the Greek) is not used to describe the "body" but what he elsewhere calls the "natural man", or "corrupted flesh"- what could be called the "sinful nature" or aspect of our physicality.
3) Paul was not a Platonist despiser of physicality, but was thoroughly Jewish in the outlook that the physical things God had created are "good"
4) Old Testament passages indicate the Jewish belief (or at least the interpreation of some) that the Messiah would not see "corruption in the grave"
5) Luke definitely believed in a physical resurrection- and Paul and Luke were ministry partners with no gap of time between them. If they had disagreed on such a fundamental issue, where is the evidence?
Anyway, Douglas and Karen came over the other week and Douglas pointed out to me perhaps the best counter arguments yet:
1) If Paul wanted to say that the physical body is not raised, he should have/ could have/ would have used the Greek word "soma" rather than "sarx"
2) In Romans 8:11 and 8:23-24a Paul says:
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved
How much clearly could he be that he sees resurrection not as a bodiless afterlife, but as the transformation of our perishable physical bodies into imperishable physical bodies?
Thanks, Douglas. Interesting that two great verses were there right under my nose.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Keith Green « Result #20 on Dec 14, 2009, 9:34pm »
If I recall Keith Green was sometimes accused of being too perfectionistic (towards himself or others), though he seems to have gone through a personal journey of growth in understanding the delicate interaction of grace with truth.
He was also known for hyperbolic, extreme statements that could have bothered some.
One thing I really like about Keith was that he often offered his albums for free (and certainly to anyone who couldn't afford them).
Another was that he was always hospitable to strangers, down-and-outers, often giving them what little he had, picking up hitchhikers, letting people stay with him, etc..
christopher ADF Support Team Threadmaster Extraordinaire member is offline
Shine Jesus Shine !
Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 792 Location: Gladstone, Ore
Re: Keith Green « Result #22 on Dec 14, 2009, 9:20pm »
I haven't heard much Keith Green, but everyone I know that has listened to his music loves him. I don't know why I never tried to become familiar with his music, but to be honest, I don't buy a lot of Christian music. I found that I dislike about 90% of it so it's a crap shoot I'm usually not willing to take unless I've heard it first.
I think some of his controversial views were of the Open Theist sort. He was a big fan of Charles Finney (another open theist) from what I understand.
I wouldn't have any problem with that, I'm somewhat sympathetic (though non-commital ) to the view myself.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Pagan Christianity? « Result #23 on Dec 14, 2009, 8:02pm »
Ben, I read up a bit on the book you're reading (Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices) and it sounds interesting, yet I'm left with the question:
What's so bad about pagan roots? Is the problem that the roots are pagan or that they are contradictary to our faith?
It seems to me that the real question shouldn't be: is this tradition, practice, or belief pagan? But rather, first and formost, is it true? (even if it is pagan) And secondly, is it effective for the gospel? (even if it is pagan)
"The more I get to know You, the more I get to know Truth - and through you; I see who I am" --Tedashii (Christian Rapper)
"If you wouldn't commit a sinful deed in front of your parents, you wouldn't commit that deed in front of God. That means you wouldn't commit that deed at all because God is omnipresent and is always watching." -- Me
Yeah, I bet it was a real shock to you when the phone was invented, Chris
Margot: yeah, what's up with people texting while you're talking to them, or when they're sitting in a group of people?
A recent problem that I've been seeing is that when there's a group of people, sometimes people text others in the group to talk about someone behind their back that they can't say out loud. It happens all the time at social events that I go to. (I sometimes tend to look at other people's text messages occasionally while they're typing them...I can't help it Especially when they're being rude about it and making eye contact and body language with people in the group because of the text messages)
EDIT: Just to prove that this is a problem, there is a facebook page with currently 2,258,668 fans and growing. Ten or more of my friends seem to be fans of this group as well. :\
"The more I get to know You, the more I get to know Truth - and through you; I see who I am" --Tedashii (Christian Rapper)
"If you wouldn't commit a sinful deed in front of your parents, you wouldn't commit that deed in front of God. That means you wouldn't commit that deed at all because God is omnipresent and is always watching." -- Me
Re: Questions « Result #30 on Dec 14, 2009, 4:01pm »
Quote:
These are very good questions. How long have you been a Christian?
I've been raised in a Christian household all my life, but I truly accepted Christ in about 7th grade. (so about 3 years).
Quote:
I don't know the answer to this. I don't think anyone really does. But there are a few things to know -- the Bible specifically says that people did go to be in the presence of God after they died, even if they lived before Jesus. There are several ways to look at this, but I think it is important to drop the idea of going to a certain place -- it isn't important. All that is important is knowing that we are talking about eternity in the presence of God vs. isolated, away from God.
What did Jesus do? Yes, he forgave our sins... but wasn't Jesus God, and hasn't God forgiven sins before hand? Isn't the old testament full of God's wrath contrasted with God's forgiving nature? I think God in the Old Testament has to be viewed (simplistically) as the judge who throws the book at people, but also is very forgiving and simply lets some people off -- it's based on the circumstance at hand. The fact that a person was a Jew and that they worked hard to be in line with God certainly played a big part in this process.
But really, Jesus must have done more than simply forgive when he died on the cross. Jesus provided the fix for the human condition of imperfection. God did, does, always did have the power to forgive those who asked for it and worked for it, but Jesus fixed the base problem.
After Jesus, God takes on more of the role of the judge who is looking at every case before him as being either paid for already, or not.
Again, this is simplistic, but it gets you into the right place for thinking about it fully.
Very good point.
Quote:
Your confusion here is simply that you are confused. Unless I'm totally wrong, there really is no difference. Born again and calling on Jesus to allow him to do his work in your life are one in the same, just different terms.
The term to be "born again" is more of a metaphor. It is also manifest in the act of being baptized -- a symbol to say that you are a Christian, you are born again, you have come up from a life of death.
As far as whether you are saved or not when you call on Jesus, that's between you and Him. I believe people are saved once, that's it. But I also know for a fact that salvation is a process. There is a POINT in time when you are SAVED but you will spend the rest of eternity learning and becoming more and more like Christ.
I was confused of the meaning "Born again". I always thought that "born again" means that you were totally repented from your past sins and have no intentions of going back.
Quote:
No. Good works are a result of being saved, not a prerequisite of being saved.
I see.
Quote:
God most definitely does not desire that you live in fear about these abstractions. If you've turned to Him, He will not cast you out due to technicalities.
Okay, awesome. Thanks for the replies all it helped a ton.
"The more I get to know You, the more I get to know Truth - and through you; I see who I am" --Tedashii (Christian Rapper)
"If you wouldn't commit a sinful deed in front of your parents, you wouldn't commit that deed in front of God. That means you wouldn't commit that deed at all because God is omnipresent and is always watching." -- Me
Re: Keith Green « Result #32 on Dec 14, 2009, 1:34pm »
Definitely one of my favorite CCM personalities. This guy continues to challenge through his lyrics and other works despite having gone home to be with the Father nearly 30 years ago.
Like you, Josh, I like his music, but don't play it terribly frequently. I'll pop some of his stuff on for a couple of days and then get sidetracked by something else. Last time I was listening to some of his stuff the message really kicked me in the stomach and helped wake me from some kind of malaise.
A collection of sermons that he gave was released about a decade ago called "A Cry in the Wilderness". Some of his messages were considered controversial, but I have been greatly challenged by them. This book is one of my top 5, and is one of few books that gets reread.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Questions « Result #34 on Dec 14, 2009, 11:52am »
Amen.
God most definitely does not desire that you live in fear about these abstractions. If you've turned to Him, He will not cast you out due to technicalities.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Buddhists and Desire « Result #35 on Dec 14, 2009, 11:47am »
Thanks for the response, Lincoln.
Quote:
The Buddha didn't see the physical as evil or bad, just something that kept you bound to the wheel of death and rebirth.
Again, one of the major points of divergence between the Christian and the Buddhist- the Buddhist desiring to cast off the physical, the Christian desiring to be clothed with imperishable physicality, as Jesus himself was*
*Just one major difference between the Christian idea of Savior and the Buddhist bodhisattvas.
marcus Winding Road Subforum Mod Advanced Member member is offline
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 129
Re: The parent I thought I'd be before children... « Result #37 on Dec 14, 2009, 2:49am »
Naw, I'll take your word for it. I'm joking really, since you're completely right, everyone idealizes themselves until they become parents. Then it's reality time;).
So, what happens when everyone achieves oblivion? Is there any reality left? Thinking about this kinda makes my head hurt
I have no idea. I don't think oblivion was the right word for it, but I don't really have another one that describes it better. We definitely have a aversion to the idea of oblivion - of not being. And I'm sure that someone who had actually experienced Enlightened states of mind would say I was full of crap and I have no authority to be talking about this stuff, and they'd be right.
Re: Buddhists and Desire « Result #39 on Dec 14, 2009, 1:51am »
That was just a description of what I've learned about Buddhist thought, which, by the way, has evolved over time. Basically the Buddha was born into the worldview of ancient Indians, which was pretty close to Hinduism today, with some of the gods moved around. So, when he looked at the system, which had us going through incalcuable lifetimes, and looking around at his world at the time and seeing that for the most part, everyone was suffering, he sought for an escape from this cycle. Back then there was no distinction between the spiritual and the physical, the political and the religious. Everything was intertwined. There was one God, Brahman, but he had many faces. So to the Buddha, their was no need for salvation, just escape from the wheel of eternal suffering. We have successfully killed off all the old gods, and have in the west inherited the duality of flesh and spirit. The Buddha didn't see the physical as evil or bad, just something that kept you bound to the wheel of death and rebirth. For the early Buddhists, and recent I assume, the phyiscal wasn't something to overcome, it was something to just forget about so you wouldn't be attached to it and return to the wheel of death and rebirth. I have no opinion about Jesus - who am I to say? I regard him as the Son of God and the Savior of the world. But this is also how the Buddhists talk about bodhisattvas. I don't adhere to the old Indian gods, like I said, they are us moot. We have flushed them out with science and reason, but science can't flush out the final cause. It can't even speak about it. That is why so many scientists who consider themselves athiests don't even talk about God - there is no way to prove or disprove, scientifically, the existence of God. So, going back to Buddhism, their worldview in the beginning was so different than ours that we could say they lived in a different universe where there was no question Ishwara was the god the interacted with humans, that Indra caused storms, and that Shiva would open his third eye at the end of the Kalpa and the universe would begin again. So, in the face of this, instead of looking for a way to heaven, to the seat of the gods, which would ultimately in their worldview end and begin again, continuing the whole cycle of death and rebirth, suffering and pleasure, the Buddha looked for a way out. Many of the Enlightened masters who followed after in the millenia after his Mahasamadhi (final samadhi - leaving the body - death) found that Enlightenment was possible before death, so that you could still live in this world, and yet not be subject to the cycles of pleasure and pain, and that this would lead to fewer and fewer incarnations, and eventually the Final Incarnation of the Tathagata and you wouldn't incarnate anymore. They never said where you go - just that you wouldn't come back here.
And you are absolutely right - Buddhism has more in common with Manichees, Gnostics, Cathars, and uber-Platonists* than with Christianity. I would venture to say that many of these "heresies" were directly influenced by Buddhist thought brought back by the Greeks living in Bactria. One of the great Buddhist kingdoms was in post-Alexandrian Afghanistan, the Greco-Buddhist center of Gandahar. When Alexander came here, and after Alexander's generals split up the world, the Seleucid Greeks encountered Buddhism from India. Some experts believe that Greek thinking influenced the shift towards Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana, or Greater Vehicle, originated around the 1st century bce and introduced most of the Buddhist art and thought that we are familiar with today. As well, there are many Buddhist elements among Jewish Gnostics, like those in Qumran, and the Gnostic Christians.
I don't have time to proof read this - I am writing this between missions and building a base for the Afghanis, so it isn't tight. But I tried to address questions here as fully as possible.
Re: Questions « Result #40 on Dec 14, 2009, 12:06am »
As far as the more technical aspects of what Josh is talking about: I think he is trying to say what I was thinking, but not really saying. My analogy is about getting at the different ways God's covenants with man play out. When I say God forgave people as the judge, I do think he was applying the same rules, just on a different time frame. Or, maybe it comes down to the idea that those who "got it" understood that God would, in the future, send Jesus, and so they had accepted Jesus' sacrifice knowing that it would happen -- which fits very well with all the Old Testament prophecies, and with the beliefs of Judaism as a whole -- they had been expecting, and still are expecting the Messiah.
But I also believe in the sort of metaphysical way that Jesus' sacrifice, though it happened in a certain point in time to for us humans; was for today, yesterday, and forever -- even before it happened, if you get my drift.
But all of this is beside the point that you must come to a point in your life where you are comfortable with the grace of Jesus Christ. Your questioning is how faith is strengthened, it is not a weakness unless you allow it to be. When all else fades away, Jesus and his Grace will be all that remains of any and all theological busy-talk. Focus on that.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Questions « Result #41 on Dec 13, 2009, 10:36pm »
I like what rbbailey said about about those who have died but have not yet received their resurrection bodies; that it's not so much about where they are, but who they are with (or aren't with).
I don't think spirits (or souls, depending on the terminology you use) have the same kind of "whereness" bodies have. When we are all resurrected at the last day we will then have our "whereness" restored.
Quote:
Did they still go to Heaven/Hell even though Jesus hadn't paid the debt for all their sins yet?
I think I might see this one a bit differently than rbbailey. In fact, this came up in our church meeting today at Aletheia.
I believe that every time God has ever forgiven anyone it has been because of the sacrifice of His son- regardless of whether that forgiveness took place before or after Jesus' crucifixion.
I think there is some scriptural support for this notion, such as Revelation 13:8, which says:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
The fact that Jesus is said to have been slain from before or during the creation of the world seems to indicate that His sacrifice is timeless in some way- in some way it has always been in effect.
I think that God cannot forgive sins with, as it were, a snap of the fingers, because that would not satisfy His justice. But in light of His Son's sacrifice, all sins can be forgiven and mercy and justice are both appeased.
But this is a question that has been debated by many a great Christian mind, with various perspectives.
As to the born again/ calling on the name of the Lord thing....
I'm fundamentally in agreement with rbbailey there too. They are one and the same and being born again is not a work, it is something God does in you as you open up your heart to Him.
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 5,909 Location: Clackamas, Oregon, USA
Re: Buddhists and Desire « Result #42 on Dec 13, 2009, 10:21pm »
So, RobC, is Jesus merely an "intermediary god in the lower heavens for a time" to you or are you just describing what you've learned about Buddhism? From other comments you've made, you seem to see Jesus as the savior of the world, but are you really saying He is just one more bodhisattva?
Where did people go after dying before the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did they still go to Heaven/Hell even though Jesus hadn't paid the debt for all their sins yet?
I don't know the answer to this. I don't think anyone really does. But there are a few things to know -- the Bible specifically says that people did go to be in the presence of God after they died, even if they lived before Jesus. There are several ways to look at this, but I think it is important to drop the idea of going to a certain place -- it isn't important. All that is important is knowing that we are talking about eternity in the presence of God vs. isolated, away from God.
What did Jesus do? Yes, he forgave our sins... but wasn't Jesus God, and hasn't God forgiven sins before hand? Isn't the old testament full of God's wrath contrasted with God's forgiving nature? I think God in the Old Testament has to be viewed (simplistically) as the judge who throws the book at people, but also is very forgiving and simply lets some people off -- it's based on the circumstance at hand. The fact that a person was a Jew and that they worked hard to be in line with God certainly played a big part in this process.
But really, Jesus must have done more than simply forgive when he died on the cross. Jesus provided the fix for the human condition of imperfection. God did, does, always did have the power to forgive those who asked for it and worked for it, but Jesus fixed the base problem.
After Jesus, God takes on more of the role of the judge who is looking at every case before him as being either paid for already, or not.
Again, this is simplistic, but it gets you into the right place for thinking about it fully.
Quote:
Also I'm a bit confused on something. The Bible says that you must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Often I also hear that once you call on the name of the Lord and ask for forgiveness for your sins that you will be saved and will be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Which is true?
Your confusion here is simply that you are confused. Unless I'm totally wrong, there really is no difference. Born again and calling on Jesus to allow him to do his work in your life are one in the same, just different terms.
The term to be "born again" is more of a metaphor. It is also manifest in the act of being baptized -- a symbol to say that you are a Christian, you are born again, you have come up from a life of death.
As far as whether you are saved or not when you call on Jesus, that's between you and Him. I believe people are saved once, that's it. But I also know for a fact that salvation is a process. There is a POINT in time when you are SAVED but you will spend the rest of eternity learning and becoming more and more like Christ.
Quote:
...isn't that basically saying that you must do good works after recieving Christ as your savior to enter the kingdom of Heaven?
No. Good works are a result of being saved, not a prerequisite of being saved.
Quote:
I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but if if I must be born again..then if I died tomorrow I may not be going to Heaven. I'm still going through some struggles....I'm getting into old sins and some sins I never totally repented from.
If you have accepted Jesus as your savior, he will save you, he already has, your soul is in his hands. Life is not easy, it will be a struggle, and you will stumble and you will get back into old sins, but you will also be saved. The problem you face is not whether you are saved, the problem you face is whether you can fully realize the joy of that salvation by avoiding the pitfalls of the old self.
Allow God to bury your old self. Allow Jesus to take your old self and nail it with him on the cross. Allow him to take it into the grave with him. Let him burn in hell for you -- as he has already done -- then remember that unlike what you would have been able to do, he came back. He was born again, he visited hell on your behalf, and he carries your old self with him the whole way, all the way back to life. You have been born again because Christ was born again.
This is what you asked him to do for you when you called upon him, and he did it. The debt was paid, the check written, all you had to do was pick it up and cash it.
Your response now is to avoid the sins he already saved you from as you live out the rest of this life. It's at once impossible and possible at the same time. Your response now is to thank him by telling others about him. In other words, by telling others about him and doing the good works, you are essentially saying you don't want his sacrifice to go to waste.
Those who died before Jesus? Being born again? « Result #48 on Dec 13, 2009, 8:33pm »
Where did people go after dying before the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did they still go to Heaven/Hell even though Jesus hadn't paid the debt for all their sins yet?
Also I'm a bit confused on something. The Bible says that you must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Often I also hear that once you call on the name of the Lord and ask for forgiveness for your sins that you will be saved and will be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Which is true? And also, if you must be Born Again to enter Heaven, what does that totally mean? And isn't that basically saying that you must do good works after recieving Christ as your savior to enter the kingdom of Heaven? I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but if if I must be born again..then if I died tomorrow I may not be going to Heaven. I'm still going through some struggles....I'm getting into old sins and some sins I never totally repented from.
"The more I get to know You, the more I get to know Truth - and through you; I see who I am" --Tedashii (Christian Rapper)
"If you wouldn't commit a sinful deed in front of your parents, you wouldn't commit that deed in front of God. That means you wouldn't commit that deed at all because God is omnipresent and is always watching." -- Me
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://crombiec.googlepages.com/Jesusoverthecity.jpg)
Logged
.![[avatar]](http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-2/u2-no-line-on-the-horizon-cover.jpg)
![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
Author![[avatar]](http://ryanwjohnson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/indiana-jones.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/avatars/bunny.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/images/hindenburg_colorized_3z3s.jpg)
) to the view myself.
Author
Especially when they're being rude about it and making eye contact and body language with people in the group because of the text messages)
Author
![[avatar]](http://my.datapilot.com/files/thumbnails/000/004/209/chimpanzee-glock.jpg)
