StitchInTime Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I'm pretty certain it doesn't work out in the end for those going to Hell. Such a view doesn't really mesh with the Bible' date=' in any case... Then again, if someone could point me to a section of it talking about how Hell is temporary and 'cleanses' those who were there to be ready to go to Heaven, then I'll be happy to concede the point. ^^[/quote'] The idea of hell fire or burning in hell forever does not come from The Bible, originally, but was added afterwards, mostly from Greek sources. Nonetheless, I was speaking more about humankind in general, but using a specific example of how stories tend to be constructed. Whoever put The Bible together did a good job of making it into a story, even though some of the books are not really in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrtim Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 . The actual conversation I had with my co-worker started with what "J'had" means. Apart from what the media tells us, J'had means "holy war." But if you take a look at the circumstances under the terms of J'had it usually is declaired when one by military means takes over your "Land." J'had was proclaimed during the crusades, Russia's occupation of Afganistan, our presence in Iraq. . Strictly speasking this is only partially correct. In a military sense J'had does mean holy war. Or, more precisely: It means the "legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims." (Daniel Pipes, danielpipes.org) The purpose of a militray jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power. In a greater sense as I understand it, a jihad can be proclaimed for virtually anything though, not always "Holy War". For instance, you could proclaim a jihad against smoking or illiteracy. It is simply a communal effort to address some need or redress some imbalance. In this sense, a jihad could be quite a useful thing. As an aside, and one that has always high-lighted for me the stupidity of your average human being: the "big 3" religions:Islam, Judaism, Christianity all believe in the same supreme being God, the God. The disagreement as I understand it is one surrounding the claims as to who the son of God is. (Islam = Mohammad, Christianty = Jesus, Judaism = Yet to come). How can anyone take these people seriously? Its like fighting over your favourite brand of breakfast cereal. If there is a second coming I hope the first thing to come of it is that all the Jew, Christians and Moslems are given a good hard kick in the arse by their respective prophets / potentates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 If he were free to go his own way' date=' he wouldn't have needed to try and overthrow God... and he wouldn't have found so many other angels to go along with him.[/quote'] It wasn't enough for Lucifer to go his own way. He expected all others, including God, to go his way also. He raised an army of like-minded angels to sieze power and force his will on all others. He failed and the penalty was to be cast down into the depths of Hell. GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass' date=' when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (NKJV)[/quote'] http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/gen6sons.htm These angels went their own way and did not need to overthrow God to do it. That is my point. You can obey or disobey God as you wish. What tyrant gives anyone that choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 If he were free to go his own way' date=' he wouldn't have needed to try and overthrow God... and he wouldn't have found so many other angels to go along with him.[/quote'] It wasn't enough for Lucifer to go his own way. He expected all others, including God, to go his way also. He raised an army of like-minded angels to sieze power and force his will on all others. He failed and the penalty was to be cast down into the depths of Hell. You must have been reading Paradise Lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 The disagreement as I understand it is one surrounding the claims as to who the son of God is. (Islam = Mohammad' date=' Christianty = Jesus, Judaism = Yet to come).[/quote'] Mohammad is not considered the son of God, but a prophet. Muslims also consider Jesus a prophet, but not the son of God. In Judaism, as I understand it, the Messiah is not the son of God either, but also a prophet. They don't agree on the same God either. Each considers their God to be 'the' God, the one and only God, and the others are considered false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass' date=' when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (NKJV)[/quote'] http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/gen6sons.htm These angels went their own way and did not need to overthrow God to do it. That is my point. You can obey or disobey God as you wish. What tyrant gives anyone that choice? That's funny... I thought that was just a way to help convince other nearby cultures to adopt their beliefs. Others nearby believed in half-divine heroes, and so they explain it away by saying, "Oh, THOSE guys are actually... um, um, HALF ANGELS! Yeah, half angels!" ... every religion does that if nearby beliefs are from compatible religions (i.e. unlike the worship of Moloch and Ba'al). That doesn't make me any more inclined to believe... StitchInTime: Yeah, I must've been thinking about Paradise Lost... Ah, well. My mistake Satan was a bastard trying to take over and run things his way... Still, does the ability to settle down and have a family really change a lack of freedom? They -were- still subject to God's whim, whatever it was, even though they weren't in heaven anymore... and remember, this IS the same God who ordered the wiping out of the Midianites men and non-virgin women, while taking all the virgin women and children. Among other things, I find that a -central- issue with the concept of a forgiving, nice God and a big sign of how dramatically his personality changed by the New Testament. It's not as if other peoples' were any less likely to try to convert believers in the Bible into the worship of idols and other gods. Anyways... just a question, though... every version of Christianity today has hell as an afterlife destination, so it IS effectively part of the religion (although if I'm mistaken, I'd love to hear about it...) Also, I'm very certain I've read about the 'lake of fire' etc. in the Bible at several points... are you -sure- it wasn't in the originals? thedrtim: There's only one of the Big 3 that believes in a Son of God dropping by, and that's Christianity. The others hold either that there IS no son, or that he'll be coming by at some point in the future, maybe. Also, they each think the others are 1) mistaken, 2) treating a mere prophet as more than that. If I remember correctly, the Koran (or my english translation of it, given that the only -real- Koran according to Islam is in Arabic) mentions something about Christians and Jews being misguided and NOT totally mistaken... All three at least nod to the Old Testament, although Christians also have a New Testament, and Muslims accept both Old and New Testaments only when it isn't contradicted by the Koran (which trumps all, in their opinion, and denies that Christ was the Son of God... which actually does leave the NT rather diminished). I could be mistaken about the Koran's conditional acceptance of the New Testament, however... but I'm sure it does mention him as a prophet, and he only shows up in the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 StitchInTime: Yeah' date=' I must've been thinking about Paradise Lost... [/quote'] That's okay. Milton actually believed that he was inspired by God to write it. Anyways... just a question, though... every version of Christianity today has hell as an afterlife destination, No, they don't all have it. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the burning in hell scenario. They believe you get everlasting destruction, as in being erased forever form the memory of God, i.e., permenantly dead. Not only that, but they don't believe people go to heaven right after they die either. They believe that people who are 'good' will be resurrected after the second coming of Christ into perfect bodies that don't sicken, or age, or die. A small minority, referred to as the 144,000 (as described in Reveleation) are supposed to go to heaven, to rule at the side of God. The vast majority of 'good' people, however, are supposed to live forever on an earth restored to a state of paradise. Also, I'm very certain I've read about the 'lake of fire' etc. in the Bible at several points... are you -sure- it wasn't in the originals? There is mention of that, but this is where interpretation comes in, because in Judaism this kind of thing is metaphorical for destruction, and since Christianity is built on that, that's the way some theologians take it. Remember that in the new testament Jesus says that he did not come to do away with the law (that's Jewish law) or the prophets, but to fulfill the prophecies of these Jewish prophets. Also, they each think the others are 1) mistaken, 2) treating a mere prophet as more than that. If I remember correctly, the Koran . . . mentions something about Christians and Jews being misguided and NOT totally mistaken... All three at least nod to the Old Testament, although Christians also have a New Testament, and Muslims accept both Old and New Testaments only when it isn't contradicted by the Koran (which trumps all, in their opinion, and denies that Christ was the Son of God... which actually does leave the NT rather diminished). I could be mistaken about the Koran's conditional acceptance of the New Testament, however... but I'm sure it does mention him as a prophet, and he only shows up in the NT. Well, when I studied the history of the three faiths, I learned that Jesus was viewed as a prophet by the Muslims and the Jews, and the rest of what you say here sounds consistent with what I was taught as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrtim Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Mohammad is not considered the son of God, but a prophet. Muslims also consider Jesus a prophet, but not the son of God. In Judaism, as I understand it, the Messiah is not the son of God either, but also a prophet. They don't agree on the same God either. Each considers their God to be 'the' God, the one and only God, and the others are considered false. Before we begin, it is important to understand that none of these religion is monolithic; there is no single "Judaism", as there is no single "Christianity" or single "Islam". Instead, there are wide variations on a theme concerning belief and practice both among individual Jews, Moslems and Christians and between different Jewish, Islamic and Christian groups. IE Catholic and Proestant,, Shiite and Sunni, Hasidic and Masorti Jews. As i understand it this is where things stand: Jews, Christians and Moslems all believe in the one God, the one true God as they call it. We can, if you want argue the point beginning at the Tetragrammaton and working forward through the 100 names of God describing in detail how we come to this assertion, but for the sake of brevity we'll just take it as read that they believe in the one God for now. As i said before, the most obvious point on which they differ is that, although Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, it breaks with the belief of Christ as the son of God. Muslims do not believe that ..."Christ was the "begotten son of God"" in literal terms, as if God were a male human, but rather that he "was a prophet brother who brought to mankind a closer relationship with God and each other". In turn the Christian religion has always recognised Mohommad as a prophet while preaching the tenet that Jesus was the son of God. The Jews on the other hand say that although they agree that both were prophets, they differ on how important either of them were and instead say that the son of YWYH is yet to return. Lets remember that the "big 3" all sprang outof the one geographic location over several thousand years. The similarities between them is therefore quite striking. Oh and the word Messiah, common to all three in different ways, simply means the annointed one. In Judaism, the Messiah though is also the anticipated saviour of the Jews who is yet to come so although no, strictly speaking the messiah is not the son of God you could argue as he is yet to arrive and save the Jews he is the son of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Hmmm... I didn't think Jehovah's Witnesses were still in the fold of Christianity proper classification-wise, so I didn't consider them. I thought it was a religion all it's own, really... split off from a Christian root but unique due to it's rather large differences... ... then again, it's tenets are all connected to the bible, so I guess it's really a form of fundamentalist Christianity... Edit: Also, I think Christianity is also unique in having the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), which is one of the big issues the Koran had with them other than the Christ as Son of God thing. Then again, the Holy Trinity is only meaningful for Christians, given that Jesus in one of those three ^^' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrtim Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I think the JWs can be classed as enigmatic and left at that. Unless they come knocking or you move to Utah they shouldn't bother you at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 "No, ZOD" I couldn't resist ;p sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 i'm GOD at least I am to me there IS NO God if there was there wouldn't be pedophillia I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrtim Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 How do you justify that? There is a God. If there weren't, there wouldn't be xxxxxxx and xxxxxx jammin!!!! MOD: REMEMBER, THIS IS A FAMILY SITE. RE-READ POSTING RULES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiggy Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 My best advice is is dont believe in God.......believe in yourself. You will be more successful and live longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Hmmm... I didn't think Jehovah's Witnesses were still in the fold of Christianity proper classification-wise, so I didn't consider them. I thought it was a religion all it's own, really... split off from a Christian root but unique due to it's rather large differences... ... then again, it's tenets are all connected to the bible, so I guess it's really a form of fundamentalist Christianity... Yes, I think they could be classified as 'fundamentalist,' but they would shudder at that because they don't see themselves that way. They started out as a Bible study group in the 19th century, and they just view their interpretation of The Bible as the only correct one, that's all. So, they are just another version. As far as being a breakaway sect, so was Christianity, which was a Jewish sect that broke away from mainstream Judaism, and so were the Protestants during the Reformation, and, . . . the saga continues. I think the JWs can be classed as enigmatic and left at that. Unless they come knocking or you move to Utah they shouldn't bother you at all. No, they are no more enigmatic than other sects, and there are millions of them, world wide. What about the sect that considers the handling of live rattlesnakes an important part of their daily religious practice, or the itinerant preachers who go about healing people as their main ministry? And, speaking of Utah, isn't that the place where having multiple wives is considered part of God's plan? I don't think any other sect has that. So, there are lots of variations, of which JWs are simply another one. Besides that, in the early Christian church, there was no trinity, no concept of heaven and hell as it exists today, and many other differences. But, the church was Romanized. Before that, the JWs would have been considered more mainstream, and some of the others oddballs. The Roman version won out in the West, and the Orthodox version in the East. After that, however, in the West, the Reformation came along, . . . and then who were the oddballs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrtim Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 refer to my post RE: monolithic religions. oh and on the enigmatic, point perhaps i should have said they are a "riddle". semantics can be tricky in print and synonyms are a pain in the butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 i'm GOD at least I am to me there IS NO God if there was there wouldn't be pedophillia I rest my case Explain to me exactly how the mere existence of a supernatural being would prevent adults from raping children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now