anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
Well, what do you think was meant by your quote? What do I have to do which will make me not "save" my own life?
Last edited:
i need to ask a Christian a question
- Thread starter alain
- Start date
Well, what do you think was meant by your quote? What do I have to do which will make me not "save" my own life?
Just read this whole thread, and I must say, these forums really keep me agnostic.
David F and SouthStar, you guys are great. I love reading your posts, it's like a theological sword fight. But I too, need to ask a Christian a question.
This is a sentiment I see expressed in a lot of Christian explanations of why there's suffering in the world.
Overlooking some terrible analogies, this raises two serious questions for me.
1. How does free will address natural disasters? Why does God cause so much suffering with earthquakes and hurricanes?
If someone could pick this second bit apart piece, by piece, I'd be greatful. I don't read the bible, so I'm just assembling the Christianity I pick up on these threads.
2. God creates man with free will. Free will causes sin, and sin causes unhappiness. In order for God to remove unhappiness from the world, he'd have to remove free will.
So my question is: what's so great about heaven? If everyone's happy in heaven, do we have any free will there, or in order to be happy, we become puppets?
And if it is possible to be happy in heaven (we must assume so, since the Bible says so), then why weren't humans created in the heaven state?
Is it because we need to know pain to before we can know how great it is to sip nectar with Jesus?
After 1000 years in heaven though, wouldn't we forget pain and become bored?
Or is it impossible to become bored and unhappy in heaven (which removes our choice to be bored or unhappy)?
Are we constantly reminded of our pain, so we can see how great heaven is, or is it like a morphine drip, but with an infinitely high saturation level?
David F and SouthStar, you guys are great. I love reading your posts, it's like a theological sword fight. But I too, need to ask a Christian a question.
This is a sentiment I see expressed in a lot of Christian explanations of why there's suffering in the world.
Overlooking some terrible analogies, this raises two serious questions for me.
1. How does free will address natural disasters? Why does God cause so much suffering with earthquakes and hurricanes?
If someone could pick this second bit apart piece, by piece, I'd be greatful. I don't read the bible, so I'm just assembling the Christianity I pick up on these threads.
2. God creates man with free will. Free will causes sin, and sin causes unhappiness. In order for God to remove unhappiness from the world, he'd have to remove free will.
So my question is: what's so great about heaven? If everyone's happy in heaven, do we have any free will there, or in order to be happy, we become puppets?
And if it is possible to be happy in heaven (we must assume so, since the Bible says so), then why weren't humans created in the heaven state?
Is it because we need to know pain to before we can know how great it is to sip nectar with Jesus?
After 1000 years in heaven though, wouldn't we forget pain and become bored?
Or is it impossible to become bored and unhappy in heaven (which removes our choice to be bored or unhappy)?
Are we constantly reminded of our pain, so we can see how great heaven is, or is it like a morphine drip, but with an infinitely high saturation level?
W
what768
Guest
Roman said:
Free will gives us an ego. We think "I" have a personal existence, and that I am not within "everything", and that everything is within me. Natural disasters are not good or evil, and so is God. Our attachments to the world makes us suffer through natural disasters, which God doesn't see as evil, but something necessary for the world to function properly. Everything in the material world has a beginning and an end.
The meaning with life is to give up our free will to do the right thing. We will be with God, and he certainly isn't a puppet, but the master of all puppets!
We were created in the heavenly state (paradise), but we ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Our advanced brain gave us free will, and we wanted to go our own way rather than the ways of God.
That's the reason why God doesn't take you to heaven, because you still want, and need to be here. If he would take every human to heaven, we would instantly sin again, because we didn't get there by our own free will. But if we have fought for hundreds of thousands of years to get to heaven, we won't become bored. You see, when we are happy, there is no time, and when we are unhappy time seems to have stopped.
Heaven is like the best feeling on earth, but in heaven it lasts forever because it is not limited to the material law of beginning and end.
I've only got a minute, but let me make a few quick comments.
First, God did create man in a heavenly state. Man decided not to obey and caused his own demise.
Second, yes, it is apperantly necessary for us to suffer for a little while. Jesus learn obedience by the things he suffered:
Later Edit: This is the choice - will I submit and obey or do I insist on excercising my free will and living my own life the way I choose to live it? This is the dilema every one must face (especially every Christian). Do I wish to live free and do anything I damn well please, or will I be humble and obedient to my Creator? Choices always have rewards and consequences. In this case, the reward is Heaven and the consequence is the Lake of Fire. Being Good means nothing. Being humble, contrite and obedient to God is the ticket to Heaven.
First, God did create man in a heavenly state. Man decided not to obey and caused his own demise.
Second, yes, it is apperantly necessary for us to suffer for a little while. Jesus learn obedience by the things he suffered:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
but then again, that's the whole point of heaven, that we will already have learned that lesson so we won't have to suffer any more. God, no doubt, knew Adam would fall and knew he needed to learn obedience through suffering. But, God didn't want man to blame Him for the suffering so He let man cause his own suffering.Later Edit: This is the choice - will I submit and obey or do I insist on excercising my free will and living my own life the way I choose to live it? This is the dilema every one must face (especially every Christian). Do I wish to live free and do anything I damn well please, or will I be humble and obedient to my Creator? Choices always have rewards and consequences. In this case, the reward is Heaven and the consequence is the Lake of Fire. Being Good means nothing. Being humble, contrite and obedient to God is the ticket to Heaven.
Last edited:
You have free will. The life altering question is, will you give up that free will to Christ? You don't have to - that is the free will choice God gave you. But, God's rewards are reserved for those who choose Him. Yes, there is a price to be paid to enter Heaven - that price is your free will - the price for each man is everything, including ones own life. "...whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." The life you lose is your free will. The life you save is your eternal life. We must voluntarily make Jesus our master, but he is not a hard task master.anonymous2 said:
Matthew 11:30
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
The choice is totally up to you and no one, not even God, can make it for you.For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
I want to continue on the words eternal, everlasting, and forever.
These words all come from the familiar time related word, Eon (Greek Aion) which means a long, undefined period of time. The word for eternal or everlasting (both seem to come from the same Greek word), is Aionios, meaning time without beginning or end as in:
In the verse:
The problem here might be that the KJV translators were not that far removed from centuries of Catholic dominance and false teachings. It is understandable that they would translate these things in a way they understood them to be, rather than what the actual scriptures say. In any case, the mistranslation is very slight although it seems to mean a great deal to some on this forum. The difference between Aionios and Aionos is very tiny (one letter) so perhaps the translators can be forgiven this small oversight. You can see the difference in the words by going to Revelations 20:10 and clicking on the words themselves. If you click on the words, you will notice that the word "ever" is Eon (Aion - #165) or a long period of time, while in 2 Thessalonians 2:16 you will notice the word Aionios is used (word #166) or never ending time.
All this is vaugely interesting since the words are similar, but in either case, the unrighteous are still burned in the Lake of Fire - we are only discussing how long it takes.
These words all come from the familiar time related word, Eon (Greek Aion) which means a long, undefined period of time. The word for eternal or everlasting (both seem to come from the same Greek word), is Aionios, meaning time without beginning or end as in:
2Th 2:16
Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
2Th 1:9
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
The word destruction here is Olethros, which means ruin, destroy, death. This does not mean everlasting punishment but it means to be destroyed never again to exist, to spend eternity dead.Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
2Th 1:9
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
In the verse:
Re 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The word translated as "ever and ever" is aionos ton aionon which is close to Eon (Aion) but with the added suffix means "for a period of time - an age." (which is roughly the same as what Eon means) or an "Eon of the Eons." which in no way means the same as Aionios - eternity/everlasting.And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The problem here might be that the KJV translators were not that far removed from centuries of Catholic dominance and false teachings. It is understandable that they would translate these things in a way they understood them to be, rather than what the actual scriptures say. In any case, the mistranslation is very slight although it seems to mean a great deal to some on this forum. The difference between Aionios and Aionos is very tiny (one letter) so perhaps the translators can be forgiven this small oversight. You can see the difference in the words by going to Revelations 20:10 and clicking on the words themselves. If you click on the words, you will notice that the word "ever" is Eon (Aion - #165) or a long period of time, while in 2 Thessalonians 2:16 you will notice the word Aionios is used (word #166) or never ending time.
All this is vaugely interesting since the words are similar, but in either case, the unrighteous are still burned in the Lake of Fire - we are only discussing how long it takes.
Last edited:
anonymous2 said:
Everyone has the same opportunity to know God, to be born again. It doesn't matter where you are or what brand of organized religion is popular there. God is everywhere, and in the hearts of men everywhere. Location will not thwart God...nothing gets by Him you know. And His Word is reaching the farthest corners of the earth. He takes into account everything...all circumstance...and He knows what is inside each man's heart, and what each man has been exposed to, and has knowledge of. I don't care what organized religion you may or may not participate in...if you want to know God, He is there, and can let you know personally, and without a doubt that He is there...for you. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of those who involve themselves in organized Christian religion, here in the US and in Europe, where it is so well-known and so prevelant, will not be entering the Kingdom of God? That is because it is not about organized religion...it is about what you seek in your heart...it is about HIM. Nothing is impossible with God...HE'S GOD. So seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened. He WILL find a way to show Himself to each and every one who does.
Love, Lori
More like 4000 years, but I see nothing in the NT which says the people before Jesus are not also covered under the same salvation. Does it say somewhere that salvation is time limited?Roman said:
It seems quite clear that Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Noah, Enoch,... were all saved, and it even mentions Abraham as being in Paradise. If these well-known figures were saved, but waiting (Paradise was not Heaven but a place of waiting), then why not all the other not-so-well known figures? By your reasoning, John Baptist would not be saved since he died before Jesus, yet Jesus called John the greatest man born of woman up to that time.
No, Jesus died for all men of all time.
Last edited:
How can you repent if you're already dead?
If you died prior to 0 AD as a heathen, do you get a chance to convert?
Wouldn't the chance to convert be a little biased, since you've already died and know all about purgatory?
Or are those pre-saved people automatically get entry to heaven, or is it just the good ones, who did well in their heart, despite not knowing God?
In which case, Christianity is superflous to good works.
If you died prior to 0 AD as a heathen, do you get a chance to convert?
Wouldn't the chance to convert be a little biased, since you've already died and know all about purgatory?
Or are those pre-saved people automatically get entry to heaven, or is it just the good ones, who did well in their heart, despite not knowing God?
In which case, Christianity is superflous to good works.
Sorry, I thought you were just being amusing again.§outh§tar said:
That's a rather long post, some of which is just saying "I don't believe you - so there" to my earlier comments. To those I already answered, there didn't seem to be any response necessary since I didn't want to spend the energy to argue (did not/did so/did not/did so/did...there is really very little point).
Some of your comments seemed to be arguing whether Moses actually wrote the end of Deuteronomy... obviously not, nor do I see any claim that he did. I can't even be sure that Moses wrote anything with his own hand - he might have had a scribe (Joshua?) I simply don't know, nor does it change anything one way or the other. It makes no difference, it is not a contradiction, and is not worth arguing about.
What specifically would you like for me to answer?
Edit: Oh, I see you asked me who the father-in-law of Moses was (one answer). The answer is Jethro. No doubt you will quote:
Judges 4:11
Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
This scripture is talking about Hobab. The actual Hebrew is:W-Cheber ha-Qeeyniy nipraad mi-Qayin mibneey Chobaab choteen Mosheh... Notice the word Chobaab which is translated as Hobab. Notice the name Mosheh which is translated as Moses. Notice the word in between the two names - choteen, which means In-Law. Try to find the word for Father - Abba. You don't see it do you? There is no father-in-law here. The translation literally says ...children of Hobab the in-law of Moses.... If you would like to look at the verse yourself, you can go here and click on each of the words themselves to see them in Hebrew. You will of course notice that there is no link on the word father because, as you can see above, it is not really there.Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
Last edited:
David F.: Some of your comments seemed to be arguing whether Moses actually wrote the end of Deuteronomy... obviously not, nor do I see any claim that he did. I can't even be sure that Moses wrote anything with his own hand - he might have had a scribe (Joshua?) I simply don't know, nor does it change anything one way or the other. It makes no difference, it is not a contradiction, and is not worth arguing about.
*************
M*W: I spoke to a Jewish scholar a while back, and he said that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch nor did the Exodus really happen. I personally don't know, however I started studying about Moses and the Exodus to see if I could confirm this scholar's beliefs.
*************
David F.: I see you asked me who the father-in-law of Moses was (one answer). The answer is Jethro.
*************
M*W: Moses had at least three wives, not including his own daughter with Nefertiti, who bore Moses a son named Gershon after her mother died. So naturally, he would have at least three fathers-in-law if they were all living and named. His first wife was his sister Nefertiti. Her parents were the same as Moses'. After Nefertiti died, Moses married Zipporah, whose father was Jethro. Moses married an Ethiopian Kushite woman that his family was none to happy with. Her father was Hobab, as you have stated.
[From: Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, Ahmed Osman, 2002].
*************
M*W: I spoke to a Jewish scholar a while back, and he said that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch nor did the Exodus really happen. I personally don't know, however I started studying about Moses and the Exodus to see if I could confirm this scholar's beliefs.
*************
David F.: I see you asked me who the father-in-law of Moses was (one answer). The answer is Jethro.
*************
M*W: Moses had at least three wives, not including his own daughter with Nefertiti, who bore Moses a son named Gershon after her mother died. So naturally, he would have at least three fathers-in-law if they were all living and named. His first wife was his sister Nefertiti. Her parents were the same as Moses'. After Nefertiti died, Moses married Zipporah, whose father was Jethro. Moses married an Ethiopian Kushite woman that his family was none to happy with. Her father was Hobab, as you have stated.
[From: Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, Ahmed Osman, 2002].
Hmmm... Well I ignore modern Jewish scholars even more than I ignore modern Christian scholars... and you know my feelings about Moses/Akhenaten - so we will just have to agree to disagree (you are right though that Moses had more than one wife).
BTW, Moses was born around 1600BC, when was Akhenaten born?
Edit: I noticed on one of your other posts that you said S'hual (Saul) means deciever. Actually S'hual means asked for and Jacob (Yacob) means deciever or supplantor.
BTW, Moses was born around 1600BC, when was Akhenaten born?
Edit: I noticed on one of your other posts that you said S'hual (Saul) means deciever. Actually S'hual means asked for and Jacob (Yacob) means deciever or supplantor.
Last edited:
David F.: Hmmm... Well I ignore modern Jewish scholars even more than I ignore modern Christian scholars... and you know my feelings about Moses/Akhenaten - so we will just have to agree to disagree (you are right though that Moses had more than one wife).
BTW, Moses was born around 1600BC, when was Akhenaten born?
*************
M*W: This is where we disagree. The Moses of the book I cited by the Egyptologist Ahmed Osman, says Akhenaten (aka Aminadab, Amhenhotep IV, Tuthmosis) was born in 1394BC. Where the problem comes in is with the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, or Ahmosis, who was born around 1600BC. He ruled Egypt from 1575-1550BC.
*************
David F.: Edit: I noticed on one of your other posts that you said S'hual (Saul) means deciever. Actually S'hual means asked for and Jacob (Yacob) means deciever or supplantor.
*************
M*W: I read where S'haul means deceiver, but that's too minor of an issue to go look it up at this hour. In Aramaic, Paul means 'deceiver.'
I highly recommend you read The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby. He is a Jewish scholar who studied Paul in depth.
[http://essenes.crosswinds.net/glossaryaramaic.html]
BTW, Moses was born around 1600BC, when was Akhenaten born?
*************
M*W: This is where we disagree. The Moses of the book I cited by the Egyptologist Ahmed Osman, says Akhenaten (aka Aminadab, Amhenhotep IV, Tuthmosis) was born in 1394BC. Where the problem comes in is with the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, or Ahmosis, who was born around 1600BC. He ruled Egypt from 1575-1550BC.
*************
David F.: Edit: I noticed on one of your other posts that you said S'hual (Saul) means deciever. Actually S'hual means asked for and Jacob (Yacob) means deciever or supplantor.
*************
M*W: I read where S'haul means deceiver, but that's too minor of an issue to go look it up at this hour. In Aramaic, Paul means 'deceiver.'
I highly recommend you read The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby. He is a Jewish scholar who studied Paul in depth.
[http://essenes.crosswinds.net/glossaryaramaic.html]
David F. said:
Oh no, there is all point. Faith depends on it so go ahead and reply.
Only showing how even attribution of authors to certain books is arbitrary and unfounded.
Well let's try to make some sense of it, see what we come up with.
If Heber was a male, and he was Moses' in-law, and he obviously can't be his mother in-law, there really is only one other possibility, like it or not. Of course the alternative is to admit there are unfounded interpolations in the Bible...
Here's a link to the name Saul or S'haul. Paul is a Greek/Latin word and doesn't have an Aramaic meaning. Paul means "little one".Medicine Woman said:David F.: Hmmm... Well I ignore modern Jewish scholars even more than I ignore modern Christian scholars... and you know my feelings about Moses/Akhenaten - so we will just have to agree to disagree (you are right though that Moses had more than one wife).
BTW, Moses was born around 1600BC, when was Akhenaten born?
*************
M*W: This is where we disagree. The Moses of the book I cited by the Egyptologist Ahmed Osman, says Akhenaten (aka Aminadab, Amhenhotep IV, Tuthmosis) was born in 1394BC. Where the problem comes in is with the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, or Ahmosis, who was born around 1600BC. He ruled Egypt from 1575-1550BC.
*************
David F.: Edit: I noticed on one of your other posts that you said S'hual (Saul) means deciever. Actually S'hual means asked for and Jacob (Yacob) means deciever or supplantor.
*************
M*W: I read where S'haul means deceiver, but that's too minor of an issue to go look it up at this hour. In Aramaic, Paul means 'deceiver.'
I highly recommend you read The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby. He is a Jewish scholar who studied Paul in depth.
[http://essenes.crosswinds.net/glossaryaramaic.html]
The funny thing about Egyptian dates is they are based entirely on the bible (weird but true). There are two anchors in Egyptology - the first being the link between Rameses II and the Exodus, and the second being the link between Shoshank I and Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25. All of Egyptology is based upon these two dates. All of the other Mediteranean kings are dated to these supposed "known" dates for Egyptian Pharoahs. Modern discoveries are showing these links to be wrong and all the "known" dates of Egypt (and everything else) to be wrong. Current thinking is that all Egyptian dates are off (too old) by about three centuries. This makes Moses a contemporary of Hammarabi and brings Akhenaten forward to almost 1000BC - making the difference between the biblical Moses and Akenaten almost 500 years. This is especially likely since there are new finds linking King Tut with the reign of King David in Israel.
Last edited:
David F.:Here's a link to the name Saul or S'haul. Paul is a Greek/Latin word and doesn't have an Aramaic meaning. Paul means "little one".
*************
M*W: The link I posted is a short Aramaic lexicon.
*************
David F.: The funny thing about Egyptian dates is they are based entirely on the bible (weird but true). There are two anchors in Egyptology - the first being the link between Rameses II and the Exodus, and the second being the link between Shoshank I and Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25. All of Egyptology is based upon these two dates. All of the other Mediteranean kings are dated to these supposed "known" dates for Egyptian Pharoahs. Modern discoveries are showing these links to be wrong and all the "known" dates of Egypt (and everything else) to be wrong. Current thinking is that all Egyptian dates are off (too old) by about three centuries. makes Moses a contemporary of Hammarabi and brings Akhenaten forward to almost 1000BC - making the difference between the biblical Moses and Akenaten almost 500 years. This is especially likely since there are new finds linking King Tut with the reign of King David in Israel.
*************
M*W: The Egyptians also had several names, titles, nicknames, etc., so it is confusing to try to figure out which one was which. Ramses II was in the 19th dynasty.
*************
M*W: The link I posted is a short Aramaic lexicon.
*************
David F.: The funny thing about Egyptian dates is they are based entirely on the bible (weird but true). There are two anchors in Egyptology - the first being the link between Rameses II and the Exodus, and the second being the link between Shoshank I and Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25. All of Egyptology is based upon these two dates. All of the other Mediteranean kings are dated to these supposed "known" dates for Egyptian Pharoahs. Modern discoveries are showing these links to be wrong and all the "known" dates of Egypt (and everything else) to be wrong. Current thinking is that all Egyptian dates are off (too old) by about three centuries. makes Moses a contemporary of Hammarabi and brings Akhenaten forward to almost 1000BC - making the difference between the biblical Moses and Akenaten almost 500 years. This is especially likely since there are new finds linking King Tut with the reign of King David in Israel.
*************
M*W: The Egyptians also had several names, titles, nicknames, etc., so it is confusing to try to figure out which one was which. Ramses II was in the 19th dynasty.