Is it possible to commit an act against God?

I didn't see the movie, but I know someone who did, and apparently, it was quite ridiculous.

 

go see it for yourself. great war scenes. and it shows very accurately the things i mentioned. It was quite ridiculous in terms of the ability of the armies. {the mussilums were light cavalry for the most part, not heavily armored monguls.} {the christians got beaten much worse than that on every front, and they speeded up Sieging to a mere 40 second event, it took about 10 minutes for siege towers to get set up and in place.} so other than a few small inaccuracies in terms of ability, its a good solid movie, and further proves to me why religion is such a horrible thing.

 

I think more importantly, you'd want it to accurately reflect history, not the ideas that you like.

 

I think more to the point is the films depiction of the futility of conflict over religion, whether or not it was completely accurate or not.

 

agreed

 

WARNING!! Ridiculously Long Post Ahead

WARNING! The following post is in response to someone's specific question. If long posts with Bible quotes annoy you, please skip to the next post in the thread. Thank you!

My concern was exactly what AikiMac brought up: that many of the statements and questions on this thread are not really for open discussion or requests for information, but opportunities to 'score points' or belittle others' beliefs. Why even debate the existence of God if we are not also willing to accept the logical consequences of such belief, if it is shown to be true? If God really exists, than surely He must know more than us, and be better equipped to see and state what is good, right, pure, and what is evil, detestable, and deserving of punishment. If He created us, then we must at some level be accountable to Him for our response (or lack thereof) to Him. I think many people post questions they've picked up from other Internet sites, for the sole purpose of saying, "So there! Take THAT!" I will choose, however, to take you at your word, that you are open to new information, and that, even if you disagree with my conclusions, you are willing to discuss and try to understand them.

Please keep in mind that I cannot claim to speak for all Christians, or claim to be an expert on all-things-Biblical. Others can chime in where they disagree or see things differently, and we can all still be friends. For what it's worth, here are my understandings regarding the points you posted:

1. Jesus .....vowed to redeem their suffering and to establish the Kingdom of God* on earth.. Jesus did this, not just within the lifetime of the disciples, but within His own lifetime on earth. He Himself said that "the kingdom of God is among you." The kingdom of God has never been (yet) a visible government with armies and rulers, but a one-by-one change in the hearts of individuals, so that they became 'dual citizens', having citizenship in the nation of their birth and God's eternal kingdom and family. Entrance into this kingdom was established by Jesus preaching a gospel (good news) of repentance, that God was not holding our sins against us, that He would welcome us back to Him as any father would welcome back a repentant wayward son. This was drastically different than the view of God commonly held at the time (or held by many today) of God as a stern ruler smiting with glee all who offend Him. The change in people's lives by having a relationship with a God who is near would mark them as different than others in this world. (see Luke 17:20-21, Eph 2:19, Mt 12:28, and all of Matthew chapter 13.)

Jesus also said that the kingdom of God was like yeast (Matthew 13:33)-a baker works just a dab into a large clump of dough, until the whole loaf (not just the yeast) is affected and rises. Take your example of the Crusades: Yes, they were barbaric and many people suffered and died needlessly. But people have been treated barbarically throughout history, and suffered and died throughout history. What was new was that the spread of the kingdom of God slowly (like yeast working into bread dough) resulted in a change, even in those that went on the Crusades (most of whom were not Christians). Because of the influence of the gospel and the growth of the kingdom of God into Europe, the culture at the time of the Crusades included things like 'rules of war', safe passage for non-combatants, quarter for the wounded, respect for the treatment of prisoners-of-war, and charitable groups setting up hospitals and hospices to treat wounded from both sides. The effect of the Kingdom of heaven on the history of humankind can be seen through the advance of personal liberty, freedom, science, medicine, charitable work, education, etc. all growing and following the growth of the gospel as it spreads around the world. Before you berate this assertion, please find and read a copy of the book, "Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry" by Carroll & Shiflett, which delves into this exact issue with far greater clarity and detail than I could hope to achieve in a forum post.

2. To heighten their expectations he assured his followers that most of them would live to see all of this come to pass. If referring to the second coming of Jesus, physically, to the earth, I disagree with this statement of yours. I believe it is a misinterpretation of what He said, and as a result, your argument for Jesus having lied is flawed at this point. I'll look at individual scriptures you used to support your assertion in detail in the following sections. However, please consider this: if your eternal destiny rests on what you do with Jesus, you might not want to make or break your decision based on one of the areas of greatest dispute and disagreement among practicing Christians (i.e., end-times prophecy). Personally, I think you'd be better served by delving into those subjects at the core of Christianity, about which Christians of every stripe agree.

Anyway, here are some specifics from your post:

Both of these passages refer to the exact same events, and are independently recorded by the apostle Matthew (who was there at the time) and the disciple Mark (who from history probably got his information from the apostle Peter, who was also there at the time). The passage was fulfilled literally and exactly the very next scripture verses, six days later, starting at Mt 17:1, and Mk 9:2. Jesus took three of his closest disciples with Him as He went up the mountain where He was transfigured (transformed) right before their eyes, and stood talking with Moses and Elijah. The voice of God boomed from heaven, confirmed that Jesus was in fact God's Son, and commanded them to obey Him, with power and great glory.

The word translated 'generation' in the King James Bible also means 'race' or 'people-group'. Many passages in the Bible (see especially the Psalms) speak of the 'generation of the righteous', the 'generation of the upright', the 'generation of the wicked', the 'generation that seeks God', and many other 'generations', all that clearly have absolutely nothing to do with a specific group of people born at/near the same time. Beware of assuming that a word in a foreign language has the exact meaning of some word that has a surface similarity in English. Many Bible scholars believe that the passage refers to those of the 'generation of faith' (those that trust and follow the Lord Jesus as Messiah and king), and we are still here, nearly 2000 years later, alive and well . There is some disagreement, though, and many other Bible scholars believe that the 'generation' is refering to the race of the Jewish people, to whom Jesus was first sent with the message of redemption. Either way, both 'generations' are still here, in spite of several notable attempts to wipe us both out.

Same as above, but with a twist. If you read the whole of Luke chapter 21 carefully, and compare it with the whole of Matthew 24 (they record similar discussions with two different groups of people), you will note some interesting differences in words and emphasis. The passage in Luke emphasizes some details about the total destruction of the city of Jerusalem. This was literally fulfilled during the lifetime of many present, when Titus marched on Jerusalem in 70 AD. The destruction was so complete that hills for miles around the city were stripped bare of trees, so enough beams could be made for crosses, to crucify thousands of Jerusalem residents. Whole families were stripped and crucified, many hung in grotesque configurations, nailed directly to the city walls because there wasn't enough room for the Romans to torture them all any other way. The city was completely broken down. Not one stone was left on another in the beautiful temple: soldiers pried the temple apart stone-by-stone to get out the gold leafing that had melted into the mortar while the temple was being burned. The only 'wall' remaining (the famous wailing wall) was not part of the temple at all, but part of the retaining abuttment that held the temple mount together. There was, however, one group of Jerusalem residents who escaped virtually unharmed during this siege. Because of Jesus' prophecy, a large group of Cristians in the city heeded Jesus' literal words, and when they saw the city surrounded by the army, didn't even go back into their houses but fled to the safety of the mountains (the area around Petra) immediately. All others missed the last opportunity to escape, and those not fortunate enough to be killed instantly were tortured or deported into chattel slavery.

There is nothing in the passage that says or implies that this would happen during Caiaphas' lifetime. Here is the whole passage in context: (Matthew 26:63b-65a):
"The high priest said to Him, "I charge you under oath by the Living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses?"
Jesus was quoting a prophecy from the Book of Daniel when He made this assertion. That prophecy (Daniel 7:13) says, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all people, nations, and men of every language worshipped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." To those present, who daily read and studied the scriptures, Jesus' meaning was very clear. They would have instantly recognized what Jesus said and known all that followed (including that they would one day bow down and worship Him). According to the prophecy, this will yet be fulfilled, literally, on the day when "every eye shall see" the One who was pierced on the cross.

After this, the council made the decision to declare Jesus guilty and sentence him to death. (It is interesting to note that Jesus was found guilty for claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God. This is why the council wanted to condemn Him to death. Many today claim that Jesus never clearly stated He claimed to be the Messiah, but apparently the Jewish High Council heard and understood His claims so clearly they wanted to crucify Him over it.)

As an interesting side note, please read Psalm 118:22-27, and compare it to Matthew 21:42-46, and Matthew 23:37-39. Instead of saying anything that could possibly be interpreted as meaning He was promising to return immediately, Jesus seems quite clearly to state that Jerusalem would not see His return until the city as a whole acknowledged that He is the Messiah, the Holy One of God who was promised to come.

Most Bible scholars would say that Jesus' message here is that the gospel would be preached to the Jewish people (the cities of Israel) right up until His return in glory. Jesus' disciples haven't finished going through the cities of Israel yet, and He hasn't returned yet, so this scripture is still being fulfilled. They're the experts, and they're probably right, but I take a much simpler view of the passage. Compare this passage (Matthew 10:23) where Jesus sent out 12 disciples to this passage (Luke 10:1) where Jesus sent out another group of 70 disciples. The instructions were very much the same, but in Luke 10:1 Jesus makes it clear that He was sending them, "ahead of Him to every town and place where He was about to go." In other words, I don't think this passage has anything to do with Jesus' future return in glory, but that He was sending out an 'advance team' ahead of Him to prepare the areas where He, physically, literally, actively was going to come preach in the next few days.

This one makes me wonder if you got a list of 'contradictions' off the 'Net. I think anyone who reads the passage in context will not see any 'lie' at all. The Council was questioning Jesus about what He had said and taught, and instead of defending Himself, He said that they could ask any of the people who had heard Him, because He spoke openly and was always teaching in the synagogues and the temple. It would be no different than if I said that I am always working out at the dojang. No reasonable person would assume that I meant that I never practiced at home or worked out anywhere else, but that I was regularly there, so if you needed to find me, you would know where to look. Also, FYI, Jesus' early ministry (including the Sermon on the Mount) was centered in the Gentile areas, including Galilea and the Decapolis. Jesus' later ministry (including the times when these words in John 18 were spoken) was centered closer to Bethany and the areas in and around Jerusalem (like in the temple). At the time these words were spoken, Jesus was always speaking in the synagogues and temple. As far as 'not telling anything in secret', again the point was that Jesus wasn't leading some secret sedition, and His teaching could be learned by asking any of the thousands of witnesses who had heard Him. As far as the passage in Matthew 16:20, the whole point is that Jesus did not teach the disciples that He was the Messiah--in this passage and another (Matthew 17:5 and 17:9) God Himself revealed directly to the disciples that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Please read the entire section in context, starting in vs 13. Paul is addressing 'we', the believers in Christ, and telling us not to grieve for those who have died believing in Christ. The point is that we shall all be reunited. The dead in Christ (those who have 'fallen asleep') shall rise first, then we who are still alive at the time of Christ's coming (those who are 'awake') shall rise to meet them in the air. It says nothing about the event happening sooner or later, just that it will happen, and that , "whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him." (1 Thes 5:10). Certainly Paul knew that the event wasn't going to happen right away. In more than one place he predicts that it is almost time for his own 'falling asleep' (see for example, 2 Timothy 6-8)

Please define 'soon' in light of eternity. For example, see 2 Peter 3:3-13.

Amen! Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:20)

 

i'm gonna have to read this in the morning cause i am tired and that is long.

 

-okay ill try. I am not super good with internet knowledge and knowing how to do fancy stuff like avatars or sometimes my quotes dont end up looking how I want them to........

 

hope today is not 2 bad

"I do desire for him to show himself, but he dosen't."

-if you desire it, he will. I promise. I have no doubt. None. Just have a little patience and keep that desire. Let me tell you something real quick. If I didnt see God working in my life and hear him and experience him, I wouldnt believe in him. I would see no point in believing in a god that doesnt answer you or isnt powerful. Not only that I myself would never be able to believe in a god that you worship that is a statue. Why? Its made by human hands. Its just a block of wood that some people made. It describes in the Bible/ ....long story but these two wives of this guy Jacob-sara and rachel finally left their fathers house. Rachel stole some of her father's household gods. She hid it under the saddle of her camel and he didnt look there cause she was having her period. You would think that if you were god you couldnt be stolen, you know? Its like yeah, they took everything: my stereo, my tv, and my god. Also, if you were a god you would think that you wouldnt be able to have someone sit on you-while they were having their period! Gross!

"I'll look into those sites a bit later tonight.
then there was the story of that guy. {maybe it was job?}"

-yes it was Job.

"where god killed his family and had him robbed and gave him the plauges. just to prove a point to satan."

-to prove that Job was righteous and wouldnt just give up and curse God as soon as things didnt go his way. He did the same thing with Abraham but he stopped him from killing his son. He was never going to make him kill his son but he wanted to see if Abraham was willing. He was and because of his faith, he made his desendants into the nation of israel and kings and ultimately Jesus came out of his blood line.

"THAT is screwed up and its things like that, along with bold faced lying, that should worry you and make you question him a bit more. "

Sometimes it feels like that. God really knows what he is doing though. In Job's case if you read closely his wife was an unbelieving annoying woman who really could care less about Job. She was always running her mouth off and cursing God. Perhaps he married her because she was beautiful. As far as I can tell, it was a blessing on his part that she died and he didnt have to deal with her. Later on he got remarried to a wife that im sure actually loved him. His livestock was restored twofold and he had seven sons and three daughters later on. It was said the daughters were the most beautiful in the land.

"again, i say you need to go watch Kingdom of Heaven."

-if you really want me to i might check it out

" it shows how horrific this whole debate over whos religion is the right one can be, and how it can warp peoples thinking process and personality entierly. I implore you to go see it."

-do you think my personality is warped? Could be. YOu wouldnt want to see it without God, thats for sure. Warp peoples thinking process? Now I want to be gentle but how are you feeling? Are you feeling like you have peace and a sound mind right now? If not then you might call that a little warped. say we are both warped but I am the one who believes in something. How did your mind get warped then if you dont fight over religion? To conclude for tonight I will tell you a short story. I met a guy who was kind of interested in God- he believed he was real but couldnt really have faith enough to accept him because he was a very rational thinker. He is a very smart guy and it seemed logic blocked him from stepping out on a limb. That is what you have to do, you have to trust Jesus and put aside your arrogance and preconceived notions of what you know and just give it a shot. I met him because he was a friend of a friend. Some how the topic just came up about God. I told him as he dropped me off that I would pray for him and God would show him that he was real. I knew without a doubt he would. A week later the guy calls me back and tells me that he accepted Jesus. I kind of expected it but was suprised too. I was like cool. He was actually more excited than I was which was great for him. Ever since these last few months or so he has been obsessed about learning as much as he could about God and i saw his complete personality, energy, and demeanor change. You know why? Once you accept Jesus you receive the holy spirit and your desires change. You actually desire what God desires and you want to do his will. Even if you screw up(and you will), your desire will be to do the right thing although it is your flesh that tempted you. Before you would have just not cared either way. If you are interested in other religions too there are sermons on that website about popular world religions comparing them to Christianity. Marshillchurch.org - MP3 - Sermons - Practical topics - scroll to bottom. Double click.

good night,

Trav

 

No, because 'good' 'right' 'pure' 'evil' 'detestable' and 'deserving of punishment' are all subjective human values that differ greatly across different countries, sexes, races and religions.

 

I'd say he's on the know, but I don't think any human's the authority one what God thinks. Personally, I'm thinking God's above human pettiness such as judgement and punishment, but I guess I can't be sure until I meet the guy.

 

Actually, they are absolutes. It is just our view of them varies, and our countries, sexes, races, and religions cloud and distort our view. I think that this is why we (humans with all our cultural baggage) are ill-equipped to decide what is ultimately good/bad. Perhaps this is why we are warned not to judge others?

If you and I had a disagreement, we might try to resolve it by going to court. Such a system only works because there is an authority higher than either of us individually, to which we both must submit and give account.

Well, here we are again, right back with the transcendent Law-Giver.

 

Why are they absolutes? In one country(s) it's lawful and 'normal' to have several wifes, in England and America it isn't. Theft in England will get you a fine or a short prison sentence, in another country it will get your hands chopped off. The age of consent is 18 in some countries yet 14 in others.

So, who decides which is the absolute definition? Please don't say the Bible.

If I kill a man, I am 'evl' and 'deserving of punishment'. What if that man has a gun pointed at my kids?

 

Just because every other kid in class got the math problem wrong doesn't change the fact that there is only one 'right' answer.

Why'd ya ask if you already knew the answer

Everything we do has consequences. Call it cause-effect, call it karma, call it divine retribution, it really doesn't matter. In order to understand what has the best consequences out of every option, one would require perfect knowledge of all possible outcomes. Unfortunately for me, 'Perfect Knowledge' isn't listed on my resume'. (I suspect it's not on yours, either.) Therefore, neither one of us is qualified to determine what those absolute standards are. The absolute definition can only come from One who has absolute perfect knowledge.

No, if you murder a man you are 'evil' and 'deserving of punishment'. There is a difference.

Kill away! I would. But that's just my personal opinion

 

don't think i don't have a retort of my own capt ann, but its been a long day and i only got on in bursts today. i'll either respond to it tonight or in the morning.

 

I haven't read the whole thread but there is a few things I like to point out.

Religions such as Christian, and and scriptures such as the Bible, could possibly be the work by some evil being such as politician(SP?)... so why would anyone believe so deeply in such a thing and accept it as the fact? We are all human and we have the power to figure out what is more likely to be the truth and what unlikely.

I am not saying that all scriptures are the work of evil, but no one can say if they are 100% correct, and you should do justificatons on it to your own knowledge, just as with Martial Arts, take what you know is correct.

In Mathematics, yes, 1+1 always equals to 2. But in reality, there are no absolute answer, do I need to mention the grey area? Well, everybody is different, some may be more mature than others, and because of that, some countries have age of consent as 18 in some countries yet 14 in others, and they can both be the correct answer.

So no, there are no absolute, each indivual case is different.

Do we need perfect knowledge? It would be nice, but it is not necessary; you don't need total knowledge just to build a car, you only need the necessary knowledge; you don't need to read the bible just to know killing a person is bad neither, through a lot of time it points out the oblivious.

 

You're wrong, they have no absolute values, because we made them up in the first place. They are just words.

 

t..to...many..w..words in this thread... losing ...energy..c..cant ..stay focused....uhhh.....................................im sorry that wasnt very productive. ill go now

 

Really? I wouldn't call them anything more than descriptions...

You mean find one good set of rules for everyone?
Indeed. But we can all get an idea of what's "good" or "bad" around us, just through experience.

I think it's a bit that we aren't perfect judges but also that judging isn't "good" anyway. The higher the "standard" you judge someone by, the more you scour them for their flaws. I think being judgemental is just bad for your mental health in general.

An authority that we give it because we agree on a list of rules that suits everyone and the court will try to resolve it in a way that benefits the community the most.
Because of that, in certain cases, a judge will feel that the rule doesn't apply, because he understands why that rule was placed there and what would be an abuse of it.