100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: IS GOD RESPONSABLE FOR EVERYTHING OR NOT | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/23/08 12:39 AM
|
|
Yeah, just killing Pagans. Besides Eljay, what you have determined to be "my objectives" are to not hurt people and persecute them because they might have a different world outlook or a divergent form of spirituality. Clearly the Romans were miffed with these early Christians (Valerian and Nero specific) and the methodology that they chose to employ in which they would systematically seek to suppress Christianity truly back-fired. That was what I meant in my post by "two wrongs do not make a right". However, I am not even to this day seeing how Christians (you included in that designation) truly embrace the concept of acceptance of other spiritual paths. On the other hand, I have NEVER once met a practicing Pagan in my life who harbors any resentment towards Christians. Its a fundamentally different mindset.
Indeed, the OT is still alive and well in the hearts of many. I dont believe you can simply disconnect yourself from it though I dont blame your meager attempts to do so at this point. If it was not "divinely inspired" and imparted to these crazy fools in some respect by YOUR GOD, then those books would not have been accepted. I also have issues with the NT so that argument is moot once again. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay wrote: However - for the sake of argument - I will return to my former post of accepting for the moment that evil is something that exists beyond a lack of righteousness, and re-introduce the idea of your posturing some alternative action on God's part that would have eliminated man's ability to be evil, without having to give up freedom of choice. Since - if I'm not mistaken, you find that he is a fool and lacks in wisdom for having allowed this into creation in the first place. tribo replies: well I've actually stated it before Lar, but this time you want to add barrier's to it, guidelines i have to stay with in, but I'll say it as i already have before - """don't create man to begin with""" . be "satisfied" with what you've already created, you seen what happened with the angels rebelling, why continue - whats the point? ask yourself god - do you really "NEED" more people to worship you? knowing that most won't and you'll end up destroying them anyway? what's the point? are you that needy that you have to put man in harms way to serve your purposes? You just can't live without mans serving you and praying and worshiping you? what's the point? Sorry god if your ego is that big and you need to be worshipped to feel good about yourself, find another way, destroy all the bad angels and and create more good ones - or cant you destroy them? - maybe it will work out better the second time around. And at least if you must - be courteous enough to ask me if I'd like to participate in your plans!! i wish you no ill just leave me out of it!! I wasn't informed of any rules or regulation i'd have to follow, nor was i given the choice of being born, yet you condemn me to hell for not wanting to play? What's the point? you give me freedom of choice? but only after the fact? No! freedom of choice is having it before the game begins - allowing me to review the rules and regulations and making a sound and logical choice to participate if i want to. as i said - you should have stopped with the animals, you yourself said they were good, and you gave them no freedom of choice so they would not rebel against you correct? but noooooo, you wanted some creation that would worship you by choice - out of love and gratitude - how's that working out for you? Yeah so i can see. Hmmm... This thread has added a number of pages since I last viewed it. Forgive me for having had to take so long to catch up. So... for the sake of those who see themselves as the center of all things, and having done so, chose themselves instead of God you would have God not create man? Makes no sense. Remember - God gives every man/woman the desires of their heart. For those who's desire is not to "play along" and see him to be that which - through His prophets - he claims to be, he gives them exactly what they desire: Their eternity separate from him. Now, if he is as he claims to be, the creator of all things, than those who spend eternity apart from him are getting exactly what they want... However, that is not to say that they are allowed to get the eternity that they have created for themselves through either their own imagination - or that of someone else, so if their destination is hell (assuming there is one) they are going there, not because they chose to be there, but because they have chosen not to be with God, and all that there is in that reality is that which he created. Essentially for the same reason we live here on earth and not on Jupiter. For we know that Jupiter is there, but despite any desire we may have to relocate there and occupy it as an alternative to earth, it's not happening. Simply put - it's the way it is. so - we live here on earth and make the best of it. Now - on the other hand, there are those who - for whatever personal reason, be it looking up from the low of lows, or having been introduced to it in their youth, and never having found reason to turn away - chose God. Most of these (at least an overwhelming majority of those whom I have crossed paths with) find no fault with the plan of God, and go through life accepting the blessings, and dealing with the obstacles. For it is more often than not that those who are believers in God suffer the consequences of those who are not - and it would be nice if the option to eliminate such as these were readily available - but, alas - it's not. Just like relocating to Jupiter is not an option. Now - despite the fact that there is a lot of things within life on this planet that cry out - SCREAM out to be remedied, the end of war, poverty, hate, bias, bigotry, the list goes on... It has never seemed to be within the desires of man to stop these things. They cry out to God to end these things, then tell the homeless guy on the street to "get a job", since they themselves can't get a clue. So - while it may be true that evil exists, and if you wish, God created it - he's never been one to twist any one's arm to participate in it, or to be a part of it. That I'm afraid is entirely man's doing. And I don't get the sense that just not creating man is a solution to eliminating his propensity to be evil, without giving up his free will. That isn't a solution that is better than what God offers. He offers His son as a solution. What you suggest is no solution at all. For by it - you punish the righteous for the acts of the selfish, thereby catering to the wishes of those who's very intent is self centered, despite the consequences to those around them. Is that not attempting to eradicate evil by evil? I don't punish anyone eljay, here again as usual your speaking of "after the fact" situations - everything you tell that is wrong with my view refers back to mankind that exist and how god looks at it and you from the point of existence. Such comments as self centered, center of all things, wanting their way, etc.. well maybe their are those who do - that has nothing to do however with god being responsible of bringing the potential for sin/evil into creation. Before the beginning of creation there was what? - >>>god<<< - nothing else! Everything that proceeded from that point is gods handiwork, talk of all the things that eminate after the time of creation do not enter the picture my friend - its moot! the question [or statement] remains - who is responsible for everything that happens? the answer is god. if this is true then god is the only one blame-able for allowing sin/evil potential to exist inside or outside creation. continued talking about what mans responsibilities are or should be or might be or can be is of no avail, it's moot. challenging my statement that god should have stopped with the animals and then bringing man back into the picture to say what you do, is moot, leave uncreated man out of the scenario and you have no case at all. yet you want to put on me the idea that thats not fair, thaat i am in someway condemning the good with the bad by not allowing god to create mankind? that somehow i or my atatement is unjust or not allowing others to exist? how my friend - if man is not created would he know anything to begin with or make any statements or be emotional or rational in any way what so ever? You cannot feel justice or injustice if you never existed! you cannot be mad or happy or anything else, you can't rant against something that doesn't exist to rant about can you? Am i missing something here? can man if he never existed have a voice in anything, a thought of anything, a feeling of anything? how? So if thats the case, how would my reccomendation for him to have stopped with the animals be in some way hurting anyone or anything - OTHER than gods own original flawed plan? {flawed in the sense of you asking what i would have done diff.] Only god himself had selfish desires to bring about man to add in the creation scenario for his own egomaniacal reasons and if thats the case then my statement stands unabridged and straight foward once again - it is his fault that sin/evil came into existance to begin with, not mans. now go back and brush up on your cult books and get ready for a visit form the next wave of cultist knocking at your door -  
You speak of God's plan as "flawed". Could you clarify that for me? I don't see what is flawed about it. You see - I don't understand why you would presume your life would have been any better had A & E not sinned. What do you presume your life would have been like? What evidence can you present that the life you have lived, and the choices that you have made were going to be any less than they would have been in a world without sin? What if you were a mere autotomiton, going through life like a worker ant - not knowing the difference between the joy of desire and accomplishment if you were not aware of grief and failure? Sure - we can look about us and see the misery of the effects of sin and greed in this world, which can be directly traced back to the dicisions and actions of man, despite your gallent efforts to excuse him fromit because of a guilty God who has allowed it. But you also ignore the remedy from it that has been put into place since the day of creation. Simply put: The cross. There are no other remedies for the actions and decisions of man. There's no whising them away - ignoring it doesn't seem to remedy the ills of the world, and claiming that sin doesn't exist has done little to irraticate it. No amount of reincarnation over the ages has seemed to have stemmed the tide of man's abuse to his fellow man, so this doesn't seem to be working as a remedy for this "sin" issue - or whatever one wants to call the evils of this generation, and those that preceeded it, and surely of those that are to come. So despite the hypothetical that you introduce - of a world with only animals, as a "better creation" scenario, that is a mere presumption on your part as you are aparently still grappeling with the solution, or remedy if you will, of the implication of your OP. Which I'd like to add a few corrections to your reposting of it through the thread (which I'm finally catching up with.) You said if God had not created man - there sould be no evil. Well - what of the actions of the angels who rebelled? Also - you have no idea as to whether or not the angels rebelled before man was created. Where does it say in the text that God created Good? What it says is that God saw what he created, and it was good. It was a result of the creation - not a part of it. Just as evil is a result of the actions of man, not something that was created. You said he created everything, however I thing you will be hard pressed to name anything that has been created "evil". Good and evil are not material concepts. Again - responsibility is what you seem to be focused on. But you are extending the assignment of "guilt" to beyond those who should be held accountable for it. Do you feel the responsibility for the poverty in the Ozarks because you are part of a society that allows it to continue? So how is God responsible for the evil's of men? What I percieve God responsible for in this circumstance is using the evil of man for the purposes of good when He is afforded the opportunity through the efforts of those who's intent is rightious. For those who chose to do evil - they will suffer the consequences thereof, but they will do so on his terms - not those of us who base our existance on time. For to God - those consequences are swift, and immediate, though our lack of omniscience prevents us from percieving this. Therefore - through our ignorance, we pass jusgement on God, and pronounce him guilty. Isn't that a bit short sighted? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 10/23/08 12:26 AM
|
|
Hi jfrog88. Welcome to the forum. Hope you're wearing your "thick" skin. You're right in that he knows the who, what and when, but he doesn't have the ability to stop us. The closest he can get to controlling our actions is through the self-conscience which the holy spirit within us. have you heard the phrase "you can lead a deer to water, but you can't make it drink?" That quote directly applies here in that God can give you guidance, but he can't stop you from doing what you're doing or about to do. God had given us free will and the only way to stop one from committing a certain sin is for the person them self to no longer have to desire. If you are going to commit and sin (for example, steal something from somewhere or someone) If you have that thought in your head, and you really want to do it, but somehow you had your hands and feet chained to a fence, in the eyes of God, the fact that you would still do it were you not chained up, is considered a sin. Things can get a little rough around here sometimes. But in general we're mostly a fairly respectful lot - mostly  Here's my take.
I'll just start with one issue. If God created the ability for sin, and knows exactly who is going to commit what sin and when, and posesses the ability to stop it, then He cannot be held completely blameless for sin. He must take at least some responsibility for it.God didn't create sin, only the ability to do so. By giving man(people in general, not just males) free will, and the ability to do as we wish, he had given us the ability to sin. God did this, because he knew that man would fall from grace, knowing the difference between good and evil through the temptation of Lucifer. God did this, so that we would be able to make a choice, to either live a life of sin, living only to please the flesh with the things of the world, or choose to live a righteous life, glorifying Him. God didn't create man to be robots, to forcefully worship Him but to give Him glory and honor out of our own free will. It's not like God put man on the Earth and was surprised that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew they would. It was because of that action that we as people now have the decision to live for the world with temporary satisfaction, eventually falling to Hell along with Satan, or to live a life that pleases our Father and rising up to Heaven to live forever with God and truly love him, not just loving him because he makes us love him, but with all our heart, of our own free will. So now I'm curious - what exactly are the abilities of this god? What else is he unable to do? If he can't stop me from doing what I want to do, can he force me to do what I don't want to do? And how does this relate to the alleged heaven and hell? Can he stop me from going to heaven? Can he force me to go to hell? The biblical God can, at any moment in time - stop anyone from doing anything. However, it would be against his nature to cause that individual to do something that would go against their freedom of choice. It is not that he "can't" force you to do something you don't want to do - it is that he won't. Yes, that is the standard answer that I am used to hearing. But this one was a little (or a lot) different from anything I’d ever heard before and some of the implications were pretty astounding to me, so I was curious where the logic would lead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELJAY said: While you may see this as an example of what you are refering to - you are sighting this passage to support a pretext. It is not the context of scripture that God "creates" evil. Also - the text is setting up the extreme of opposites to illustrate a point. The opposite you want this to refer to is "good" - however the text states "peace". Not the same thing. In the NIV the text is translated "I bring prosperity and create disaster". In light of what Isaiah is writing about - this understanding is not that to which you are refering to in your OP. In order to get an accurate picture to you OP - one should study out the idea of Good and evil, and how these terms are referenced or related to God - to see if in fact this passage is refering to God creating evil. To fully satisfy your interpreteation, shouldn't the passage say "I created evil"? For that is what you are wanting me to interpret it as saying. I can't agree with your conclusion on the interpretation of this passage supporting your argument that this is a biblical concept - it only supports your pretext. TRIBO: tell me which one of the translations whether it be the niv, KJV, LXX, YOUNGS, or the myriad of others does not translate evil as - any of the definitions given in strongs? - whether it be evil, disaster, calamity, or several other - are they not all at thier core EVIL things? Or do you concider any of them good? if so which ones? it's not pretext my freind it's what i see as the definition - to me all those words are evils not goods or even acceptable as some type of righteousness in favor of gods character as you see or view him. evil is evil be it linked with peace or good or pleasure ad infinitum. are some things concidered more and less evil? by whom - you and me? so what- were not talking you or me's concept or tolerant levels were talking what the word means - unrighteousness, less than perfect , unworthy behavior for me or a god, non virtous actions of some type. etc.. we could continue this for weeks. But your correct my OP was about whether gods responsible for everything or not - and i still say he is the very fact that he and he alone brought everything about accordint to his wishes based on his scenario and want and needs, there is no one else to blame - the buck stops with him there is no one else to point a stick at and say he did it. Despite hat you may think - it is exactly that: Pretext. That is not to say that the context may not be in line with what you are presuming the text to be, but you stated your premise in the OP and grab this text to support it. That's attempting to prove your point by pretext - not context, else you should be finding other texts that support your premise as context. Attempting to associate calamity with evil is a shifting middle. God may cause the sky to bring forth rain at an accelerated rate - thereby causing flooding to occur. That is a calamity. But when a man murders another, that is not a calamity - that's merely evil. These two are not equal concepts, but by your "supportive passage" you would have it be presumed as such. That's pretext. Remember my friend - your dealing with a former Cultist here. I know my pretext. Are you sure your a former cultist?? 
Yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should stay clear of cults Eljay, Christian or other. They are bad news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WE ARE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL,WE ARE CHOICE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WE ARE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL,WE ARE CHOICE. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God created man to have a free will. He wanted to give man the choice to choose Him or not. Satan only tempted Adam and Eve. It was there choice to obey the laws that God set up for them to follow. They are the ones who chose to allow the temptation to become a sin. We all have that same choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WE ARE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL,WE ARE CHOICE. Welcome Serendreamer. And thank you for one of the most beautiful and concise statements of our true nature that I've ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God didn't allow sin to enter the earth to show us right from wrong. He set up rules, commands, laws for that. The when we don't follow those rules, then you have sin. The consequences for those sins is complete and total absence from God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/23/08 12:52 AM
|
|
I am starting to suspect that many Christians are actually Deists. You believe god created something or other but then he sits backs and watches us all and he's not personally involved. Thats a distinctly deist view point. Your only clear explanation seems to be that its only because "god granted us free will". If he doesnt intervene then he doesnt. At least the Greco/Roman pantheon was meddlesome.
Your all closet Deists I say!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone prove this stuff is "divinely inspired" or better yet, not terribly agenda driven by men eager to obtain power, control and presumably wealth by espousing this crap and pretending to "hear the direct word of a faceless, formless deity?" And what happened to all of the civilizations and people who existed thousands of years prior to this monotheistic invasion who were Pagan??? 
Well for one thing - none of the disciples obtained power, they maintained control over no one, and they certainly did not accumulate wealth. As a matter of record - they were imprisoned, stoned, fed to lions, and crucified for their "agenda". Kind of underminds your hypothesis of those idea's. All of the civilizations who existed prior to them. I would wager a guess they all died. Eljay, some Christians were indeed thrown to the lions but not nearly the number that they would have us believe. Not all of them were Christians. The vast majority put to death by the Romans were captives and that could have been anyone. And most of them were considered criminals because of desecration of temples, not just because they were Christians. And "they all died" is not an answer. Your post doesn't make any sense. First of all, what does "not nearly the number that they think" - who's they, and I wasn't aware they had any clue as to how many were thrown to the lions. What they knew is if you were a christian and you got caught, you were matryd. I'm sure they weren't keeping track of whether it was burned at the stake, fed to the lions, crucified, run through with a sword... Sure they all died is an asnwer. You know of any of them who didn't? "They" would be referring to Christians. I think you missed the point of the post. Of course there's no evidence, it's just religious propaganda. Not to mention that wouldn't it be a horrible prospect either way? Shouldn't the Christians have realized that two wrongs do not make a right as it would relate to their own treatment of non-believers and Pagans much later in history? No such luck. Romans killed a lot of people, captives were executed for all kinds of reasons, and yes a lot of Christians got killed , and a lot of Jews got killed too, and a whole lot of everything else. Christians, specially Catholics, are just making a big deal of this to amplify their status as martyrs through history. Christians killed Pagans before the Romans fed Christians to the lions. The Pagans were minding their own business but because according to the Christians they were not following the "true god" they got killed because of it. The Romans were just returning the favor. Being an ass, historically, begets, being an ass. "They all died" is not addressing the issue of pre-Christian peoples at all. All the Christians from that time period are dead also. Your point? I think you've got your dates a little confused. Christians were not killing pagens at the time of the Roman persecution - where are you getting this information? My response of "they all died" was a response of equal relevance of the question you asked. If you found no point in my response, it is because there was no point to your question. I actually only copied and pasted up to an extent. I can keep going if you like. Crack a history book Eljay. Thats all I can say. And Im tired of your excuse of "Im too old and done with school." Learning is an ongoing process. 314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks the Gentiles: The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of the Goddess Artemis. 324 Emperor Constantine declares Christianity the only official religion of the Roman Empire. At Dydima, Asia Minor, he sacks the Oracle of God Apollo and tortures its Pagan priests to death. He evicts the Gentiles from Mt. Athos and destroys all local Hellenic Temples. 326 Emperor Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the Temple of the God Asclepius in Aigeai of Cilicia and many Temples of the Goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenice, Baalbek, etc. 330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the Pagan Temples in Greece to decorate Nova Roma (Constantinople), the new capital of his Empire. 335 Constantine sacks many Pagan Temples of Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers". Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatros. 341 Emperor Constas, son of Constantinus, persecutes "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists". Many Gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed. 346 New large-scale persecutions of the Gentiles in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius, who is accused of being a "magician". 353 An edict of Constantius decrees the death penalty for all forms of worship involving sacrifice and "idols". 354 A new edict of Constantius orders the closing of all Pagan Temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Executions of Pagan priests. The first burning of libraries in various cities of the Empire. The first lime factories are built next to closed Pagan Temples. A large part of Sacred Gentile architecture is turned into lime. 356 A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the Pagan Temples and the execution of all "idolaters". 357 Constantius outlaws all methods of Divination (Astrology not excluded). 359 In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire. 361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of Pagan cults declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the Pagan Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus. 363 Assassination of Emperor Julianus (26th June). 364 Emperor Flavius Jovianus orders the burning of the Library of Antioch. An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all Gentiles that worship their ancestral Gods or practice Divination (“sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi uriositas”). Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of Pagan Temples and the death penalty for participation in Pagan rituals, including private ones. And I posed the question what of the peoples who existed prior to the establishment of Christendom as a full blown religion. If you dont see the relevance, then why even bother with a ridiculous and unhelpful response? I can only wonder.
You make the same mistake that Abra does. You confuse "christianity" with "churchiology". Because a particular sect of some religion declares a religious war on a group of pagans does not translate into an indeightment on christianity. If you'll examine the text a little closer, you will see that this behavior is a demonstration of what christianity is NOT. Because you read a secular historical account of these matters - does not make it so. That is the same thing as claiming that Islamists are responsible for 9/11, therefore all islamists are terrorists. Most Islamists will refuse to even recognize Osama Bin Laden as an adherant - but that doesn't stop the media from labelling him as such, and for sure the history books will portay him as one. So - no, your response does not help. It only shows that you are willing to accept the presumptions of others as the truth, and that you do little to examine the source text to see if in fact the sources you so easily accept are in fact reliable. You sight them only to support your pretext - which may prove useful to you, they are irrelivant to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God will only intervene if we let him. Most people want to handle things on their own. We have to allow him access into our daily lives, have daily communication with Him. Krimsa, I am not sure what you meant when you said that he would intervene if he gave us free will. I think that if he did intervene, that would take away our ability to choose. He would be making that choice for us. I love my children very much, but if every time they started to get up when they were learning how to walk and intervened before they fell and got hurt, how would they learn to walk. I would just be picking them up, carrying them around. God is like a parent to us, or wants to be if we let him. He isn't going to snatch us up so that we don't learn and grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, just killing Pagans. Besides Eljay, what you have determined to be "my objectives" are to not hurt people and persecute them because they might have a different world outlook or a divergent form of spirituality. Clearly the Romans were miffed with these early Christians (Valerian and Nero specific) and the methodology that they chose to employ in which they would systematically seek to suppress Christianity truly back-fired. That was what I meant in my post by "two wrongs do not make a right". However, I am not even to this day seeing how Christians (you included in that designation) truly embrace the concept of acceptance of other spiritual paths. On the other hand, I have NEVER once met a practicing Pagan in my life who harbors any resentment towards Christians. Its a fundamentally different mindset. Indeed, the OT is still alive and well in the hearts of many. I dont believe you can simply disconnect yourself from it though I dont blame your meager attempts to do so at this point. If it was not "divinely inspired" and imparted to these crazy fools in some respect by YOUR GOD, then those books would not have been accepted. I also have issues with the NT so that argument is moot once again.
You imply that as a christian I harbor resentment towards anyone who is not. Where does that come from? I generally don't concern myself with anyone who has made a choice to believe something other than christianity. I only concern myself with those who's perceptions of christianity are based on false presumptions - then I try to help them see where there presumptions fall short, or with questions posed on christian concepts - as in the case of Tribo's posts. On occasion I will enter into discussion on religions or philosophies outside of christianity that I have spent time studying and researching - but there's no concern or resentment towards anyone for what they believe. I know of no christian who false under this indeightment of yours. Who exactly are you refering to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should stay clear of cults Eljay, Christian or other. They are bad news.
Yes, I know. Been there done that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/23/08 01:19 AM
|
|
Can anyone prove this stuff is "divinely inspired" or better yet, not terribly agenda driven by men eager to obtain power, control and presumably wealth by espousing this crap and pretending to "hear the direct word of a faceless, formless deity?" And what happened to all of the civilizations and people who existed thousands of years prior to this monotheistic invasion who were Pagan???
Well for one thing - none of the disciples obtained power, they maintained control over no one, and they certainly did not accumulate wealth. As a matter of record - they were imprisoned, stoned, fed to lions, and crucified for their "agenda". Kind of underminds your hypothesis of those idea's. All of the civilizations who existed prior to them. I would wager a guess they all died. Eljay, some Christians were indeed thrown to the lions but not nearly the number that they would have us believe. Not all of them were Christians. The vast majority put to death by the Romans were captives and that could have been anyone. And most of them were considered criminals because of desecration of temples, not just because they were Christians. And "they all died" is not an answer. Your post doesn't make any sense. First of all, what does "not nearly the number that they think" - who's they, and I wasn't aware they had any clue as to how many were thrown to the lions. What they knew is if you were a christian and you got caught, you were matryd. I'm sure they weren't keeping track of whether it was burned at the stake, fed to the lions, crucified, run through with a sword... Sure they all died is an asnwer. You know of any of them who didn't? "They" would be referring to Christians. I think you missed the point of the post. Of course there's no evidence, it's just religious propaganda. Not to mention that wouldn't it be a horrible prospect either way? Shouldn't the Christians have realized that two wrongs do not make a right as it would relate to their own treatment of non-believers and Pagans much later in history? No such luck. Romans killed a lot of people, captives were executed for all kinds of reasons, and yes a lot of Christians got killed , and a lot of Jews got killed too, and a whole lot of everything else. Christians, specially Catholics, are just making a big deal of this to amplify their status as martyrs through history. Christians killed Pagans before the Romans fed Christians to the lions. The Pagans were minding their own business but because according to the Christians they were not following the "true god" they got killed because of it. The Romans were just returning the favor. Being an ass, historically, begets, being an ass. "They all died" is not addressing the issue of pre-Christian peoples at all. All the Christians from that time period are dead also. Your point? I think you've got your dates a little confused. Christians were not killing pagens at the time of the Roman persecution - where are you getting this information? My response of "they all died" was a response of equal relevance of the question you asked. If you found no point in my response, it is because there was no point to your question. I actually only copied and pasted up to an extent. I can keep going if you like. Crack a history book Eljay. Thats all I can say. And Im tired of your excuse of "Im too old and done with school." Learning is an ongoing process. 314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks the Gentiles: The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of the Goddess Artemis. 324 Emperor Constantine declares Christianity the only official religion of the Roman Empire. At Dydima, Asia Minor, he sacks the Oracle of God Apollo and tortures its Pagan priests to death. He evicts the Gentiles from Mt. Athos and destroys all local Hellenic Temples. 326 Emperor Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the Temple of the God Asclepius in Aigeai of Cilicia and many Temples of the Goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenice, Baalbek, etc. 330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the Pagan Temples in Greece to decorate Nova Roma (Constantinople), the new capital of his Empire. 335 Constantine sacks many Pagan Temples of Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers". Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatros. 341 Emperor Constas, son of Constantinus, persecutes "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists". Many Gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed. 346 New large-scale persecutions of the Gentiles in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius, who is accused of being a "magician". 353 An edict of Constantius decrees the death penalty for all forms of worship involving sacrifice and "idols". 354 A new edict of Constantius orders the closing of all Pagan Temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Executions of Pagan priests. The first burning of libraries in various cities of the Empire. The first lime factories are built next to closed Pagan Temples. A large part of Sacred Gentile architecture is turned into lime. 356 A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the Pagan Temples and the execution of all "idolaters". 357 Constantius outlaws all methods of Divination (Astrology not excluded). 359 In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire. 361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of Pagan cults declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the Pagan Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus. 363 Assassination of Emperor Julianus (26th June). 364 Emperor Flavius Jovianus orders the burning of the Library of Antioch. An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all Gentiles that worship their ancestral Gods or practice Divination (“sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi uriositas”). Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of Pagan Temples and the death penalty for participation in Pagan rituals, including private ones. And I posed the question what of the peoples who existed prior to the establishment of Christendom as a full blown religion. If you dont see the relevance, then why even bother with a ridiculous and unhelpful response? I can only wonder.
You make the same mistake that Abra does. You confuse "christianity" with "churchiology". Because a particular sect of some religion declares a religious war on a group of pagans does not translate into an indeightment on christianity. If you'll examine the text a little closer, you will see that this behavior is a demonstration of what christianity is NOT. Because you read a secular historical account of these matters - does not make it so. That is the same thing as claiming that Islamists are responsible for 9/11, therefore all islamists are terrorists. Most Islamists will refuse to even recognize Osama Bin Laden as an adherant - but that doesn't stop the media from labelling him as such, and for sure the history books will portay him as one. So - no, your response does not help. It only shows that you are willing to accept the presumptions of others as the truth, and that you do little to examine the source text to see if in fact the sources you so easily accept are in fact reliable. You sight them only to support your pretext - which may prove useful to you, they are irrelivant to me. Well I understand what you are saying there and you make a valid point. Jesus who I consider to be the central character in Christianity was arguably a pacifist if in fact he existed. Thus far I have found some indications that he wasnt totally brown rice and granola but that may have been a survival instinct and you probably could not expect him to not have been prepared to defend himself during these hostile circumstance that surrounded him. I am not proclaiming that ALL modern day Christians are terribly, evil souls that want nothing more than to actually physically harm people. Of course we know there are some of that mindset. My point of contention is really with any fundamentalist or extremist group that promotes intolerance. So that could be Christians, Muslims or ANY religious sect. There are always those types that can become carried away or lose themselves in something or choose to enforce their own power hungry agendas. However clearly Christians persecuted Pagans. That is not unsubstantiated just because you choose to refer to it as "irrelevant" Its documented historical fact Eljay. My point is that Christians seem to STILL adhere to an indoctrination which supports the concept of hell, intolerance and that people who are not practicing Christians are going to hell. That is a hurtful and unnecessary indictment of your fellow humans and sows the seeds of discourse among brethren. You aught not to do that. But thats my opinion. Shrug. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am starting to suspect that many Christians are actually Deists. You believe god created something or other but then he sits backs and watches us all and he's not personally involved. Thats a distinctly deist view point. Your only clear explanation seems to be that its only because "god granted us free will". If he doesnt intervene then he doesnt. At least the Greco/Roman pantheon was meddlesome. Your all closet Deists I say!
Well, not exactly. It isn't that God sits back and watches, it's just that He already knows what is going to take place, and though he may function within the realm of time, He is not bound by it. He does not necessarily involve himself directly with humans - but he certainly has influence on the material world around us, and can at any time cause that material world to affect, and effect man. As well as the animal world. I would tend to think that as becoming personally involved in man - though I wouldn't go as far as to say he was "meddlesome". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a song that says if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Of course most Christians will stand for what they believe, as do any other group of people that have an opinion. That does not make how they treat other ok if they treat them badly. I may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but that doesn't give me the right to look down on them. What they do is between them and God, not me, them and God. I still stand on my belief, but leave the judgement up to God. Also, if someone is not sure if Jesus exists, it should not be hurtful to that person if someone tells them they are going to hell. If someone doesn't believe in God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell, then they should care what others say. Right? Why would it bother them to be told that? Which asks they question, do they really, 100% believe all of that doesn't exist? Do they really want to chance their soul that it doesn't? What if they are wrong, and there really is a hell? What is the harm in trying to follow after God's will? I am not talking about so called religious people, I am talking about those that really live what they believe daily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone prove this stuff is "divinely inspired" or better yet, not terribly agenda driven by men eager to obtain power, control and presumably wealth by espousing this crap and pretending to "hear the direct word of a faceless, formless deity?" And what happened to all of the civilizations and people who existed thousands of years prior to this monotheistic invasion who were Pagan???
Well for one thing - none of the disciples obtained power, they maintained control over no one, and they certainly did not accumulate wealth. As a matter of record - they were imprisoned, stoned, fed to lions, and crucified for their "agenda". Kind of underminds your hypothesis of those idea's. All of the civilizations who existed prior to them. I would wager a guess they all died. Eljay, some Christians were indeed thrown to the lions but not nearly the number that they would have us believe. Not all of them were Christians. The vast majority put to death by the Romans were captives and that could have been anyone. And most of them were considered criminals because of desecration of temples, not just because they were Christians. And "they all died" is not an answer. Your post doesn't make any sense. First of all, what does "not nearly the number that they think" - who's they, and I wasn't aware they had any clue as to how many were thrown to the lions. What they knew is if you were a christian and you got caught, you were matryd. I'm sure they weren't keeping track of whether it was burned at the stake, fed to the lions, crucified, run through with a sword... Sure they all died is an asnwer. You know of any of them who didn't? "They" would be referring to Christians. I think you missed the point of the post. Of course there's no evidence, it's just religious propaganda. Not to mention that wouldn't it be a horrible prospect either way? Shouldn't the Christians have realized that two wrongs do not make a right as it would relate to their own treatment of non-believers and Pagans much later in history? No such luck. Romans killed a lot of people, captives were executed for all kinds of reasons, and yes a lot of Christians got killed , and a lot of Jews got killed too, and a whole lot of everything else. Christians, specially Catholics, are just making a big deal of this to amplify their status as martyrs through history. Christians killed Pagans before the Romans fed Christians to the lions. The Pagans were minding their own business but because according to the Christians they were not following the "true god" they got killed because of it. The Romans were just returning the favor. Being an ass, historically, begets, being an ass. "They all died" is not addressing the issue of pre-Christian peoples at all. All the Christians from that time period are dead also. Your point? I think you've got your dates a little confused. Christians were not killing pagens at the time of the Roman persecution - where are you getting this information? My response of "they all died" was a response of equal relevance of the question you asked. If you found no point in my response, it is because there was no point to your question. I actually only copied and pasted up to an extent. I can keep going if you like. Crack a history book Eljay. Thats all I can say. And Im tired of your excuse of "Im too old and done with school." Learning is an ongoing process. 314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks the Gentiles: The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of the Goddess Artemis. 324 Emperor Constantine declares Christianity the only official religion of the Roman Empire. At Dydima, Asia Minor, he sacks the Oracle of God Apollo and tortures its Pagan priests to death. He evicts the Gentiles from Mt. Athos and destroys all local Hellenic Temples. 326 Emperor Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the Temple of the God Asclepius in Aigeai of Cilicia and many Temples of the Goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenice, Baalbek, etc. 330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the Pagan Temples in Greece to decorate Nova Roma (Constantinople), the new capital of his Empire. 335 Constantine sacks many Pagan Temples of Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers". Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatros. 341 Emperor Constas, son of Constantinus, persecutes "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists". Many Gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed. 346 New large-scale persecutions of the Gentiles in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius, who is accused of being a "magician". 353 An edict of Constantius decrees the death penalty for all forms of worship involving sacrifice and "idols". 354 A new edict of Constantius orders the closing of all Pagan Temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Executions of Pagan priests. The first burning of libraries in various cities of the Empire. The first lime factories are built next to closed Pagan Temples. A large part of Sacred Gentile architecture is turned into lime. 356 A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the Pagan Temples and the execution of all "idolaters". 357 Constantius outlaws all methods of Divination (Astrology not excluded). 359 In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire. 361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of Pagan cults declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the Pagan Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus. 363 Assassination of Emperor Julianus (26th June). 364 Emperor Flavius Jovianus orders the burning of the Library of Antioch. An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all Gentiles that worship their ancestral Gods or practice Divination (“sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi uriositas”). Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of Pagan Temples and the death penalty for participation in Pagan rituals, including private ones. And I posed the question what of the peoples who existed prior to the establishment of Christendom as a full blown religion. If you dont see the relevance, then why even bother with a ridiculous and unhelpful response? I can only wonder.
You make the same mistake that Abra does. You confuse "christianity" with "churchiology". Because a particular sect of some religion declares a religious war on a group of pagans does not translate into an indeightment on christianity. If you'll examine the text a little closer, you will see that this behavior is a demonstration of what christianity is NOT. Because you read a secular historical account of these matters - does not make it so. That is the same thing as claiming that Islamists are responsible for 9/11, therefore all islamists are terrorists. Most Islamists will refuse to even recognize Osama Bin Laden as an adherant - but that doesn't stop the media from labelling him as such, and for sure the history books will portay him as one. So - no, your response does not help. It only shows that you are willing to accept the presumptions of others as the truth, and that you do little to examine the source text to see if in fact the sources you so easily accept are in fact reliable. You sight them only to support your pretext - which may prove useful to you, they are irrelivant to me. Well I understand what you are saying there and you make a valid point. Jesus who I consider to be the central character in Christianity was arguably a pacifist if in fact he existed. Thus far I have found some indications that he wasnt totally brown rice and granola but that may have been a survival instinct and you probably could not expect him to not have been prepared to defend himself during these hostile circumstance that surrounded him. I am not proclaiming that ALL modern day Christians are terribly, evil souls that want nothing more than to actually physically harm people. Of course we know there are some of that mindset. My point of contention is really with any fundamentalist or extremist group that promotes intolerance. So that could be Christians, Muslims or ANY religious sect. There are always those types that can become carried away or lose themselves in something or choose to enforce their own power hungry agendas. However clearly Christians persecuted Pagans. That is not unsubstantiated just because you choose to refer to it as "irrelevant" Its documented historical fact Eljay. My point is that that Christians seem to STILL adhere to an indoctrination which supports the concept of hell, intolerance and that people who are not practicing Christians are going to hell. That is a hurtful and unnecessary indictment of your fellow humans and sows the seeds of discourse among brethren. You aught not to do that. Bu thats my opinion. Shrug. This post is much clearer, and one where I can see the point you are making - however my stance is that there are "people" who persecute pagens, who through misguided zeal think they are doing right by christianity. This is just not so. Those who go into abortion clinics and kill the doctors and nurses there are not "christians" by any sense of the term, despite what they may believe, or claim. It is a mis-conception to think that there is anything in christianity that supports the persecution of anyone for whatever they believe. Certainly not to the point of physical harm in any way. As to the catch phrase "God is going to send a non-believer to hell" - this too is a misnomer. God is going to grant the desires of those based on what they chose. God does not condemn anyone who has not made that decision for themselves. That is the christian concept. He is the creator, and resids in the heavenly realm. Those who will spend their eternity with him in that realm are those who have chosen to do so. But this realm is where God resides. It is not a right for one to end up there, but a privlidge. And is only so because Jesus has reconciled man so that he may enjoy that priviledge. For those to whom this is but myth - their choice to not end up there is their own, not God's - for he has made it known to man what is expected to be in his presence for eternity. He extends the invitation to spend eternity with him to all men, but man does not chose God - they chose their own destiny. So - why does this concern you what people chose for themselves? What do you chose? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/23/08 01:38 AM
|
|
There is a song that says if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Of course most Christians will stand for what they believe, as do any other group of people that have an opinion. That does not make how they treat other ok if they treat them badly. I may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but that doesn't give me the right to look down on them. What they do is between them and God, not me, them and God. I still stand on my belief, but leave the judgement up to God. Also, if someone is not sure if Jesus exists, it should not be hurtful to that person if someone tells them they are going to hell. If someone doesn't believe in God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell, then they should care what others say. Right? Why would it bother them to be told that? Which asks they question, do they really, 100% believe all of that doesn't exist? Do they really want to chance their soul that it doesn't? What if they are wrong, and there really is a hell? What is the harm in trying to follow after God's will? I am not talking about so called religious people, I am talking about those that really live what they believe daily. It would not matter what I personally believe. I know that YOU as a Christian accept hell to be a horrible place where BAD humans go so therefore to tell someone (not accusing you personally of doing that) that they are going to hell based solely on the fact that they are not a practicing Christian is wrong.You can try to explain to me how it isnt but I think you already attempted that. Are you now telling me that its okay to be a horrible, mean spirited person because your religious faith expects that of you? Dont you ever worry that you might end up in hell for telling non-believers they are gong to hell? |
|
|
|
|
