Why isn't God held to the same standards as man?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by AndrewTheAndroid, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Are you speaking of Sunday? You can't be speaking of Sunday. It became the day of worship in the Book of Acts. Saint John Chrysostom addresses this very issue in one of his homilies, actually. For several hundred years there were two days of worship within the Christian church, Saturday (as a Jewish sabbath) and Sunday. People lived dual lives, having one foot in both worlds. It was the situation of the Epistle to the Galatians. Chrysostom and his fellow bishops concluded (like the Apostle Paul) that it was an untenable situation, and argued for Judaism to be dropped. That's how it happened.

    You assume that people today are worshipping other gods through their holidays. Hannibal maybe is, but in honest truth, he is the only person I know who might possibly be worshipping other gods through any holiday associated with Christianity.

    I remember a blog on the subject of Christmas that gets to your argument.
  2. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    The Old Testament is in essence a history lesson setting the stage for the New Testament. Leviticus explains why Jesus shedding his blood was necessary. Don't have much time to respond but that's basically it in a nutshell.
  3. Dave76

    Dave76 Valued Member

    It all goes back to authority. There is what the Bible says. There is what ruling councils and early popes said. Its funny to me that they pick the scripture to include but then ignore much of it. It is hard to justify changing rules that the Creator of everything made and gave to them saying, here is the rules, do not add or take away from them.
  4. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    It sure sounds like you're saying that you disavow the seven ecumenical councils and the people who assembled the Bible.

    Is that what you're saying? If not, could you clarify how you can accept the authority of the councils and the authority of the canon, but still say what you've been saying about authority to define doctrine? I'm certainly baffled by the apparent contradiction.
  5. Dave76

    Dave76 Valued Member

    I do not accept the authority of the councils, or the popes that followed them. They directly contradict the writings that they claim was given to them by the Almighy himself. I think these men, for the most part, just wanted their own "thing". Prior to this
    they were a sect of Jews. They added in things from other religions, and ignored their own laws.
    Here is a few Laws that the modern church teaches christians don't need to keep. The first is a dietary law, the other examples are from the directions for the Holy days.
  6. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Good point with Leviticus. I bet that the people who handcopied the Bible year after year after year for some 1400 years (1st century to the Reformation), so that you and I and Kuma and the Grasshopper would today have a Bible to dissect, never noticed those verses. Ever.

    Speaking of particular books, who decided what books make up the Bible as it is accepted by you? Are you using a canon that was chosen around the year 400, or a later revision? That's a rather important question, I think.

    You obviously have some strong views about religion. Can you walk backwards in time and find in every century bishops and priests (or the functional equivalent, by whatever name) teaching your specific religion? That is, in the 1700's, who taught your specific religion, your specific interpretation of the Bible? Can we wikipedia them, or google search them? I'm sincerely interested in names. No joke, no iota of teasing -- I am honestly interested in their names. And in the 1600's? And in the 1300's? And in the 1200's? For every century? Perhaps I'm too simple in my thinking, but it seems to me that if your particular spin on things does not trace back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, then it ain't from the Apostles. I dunno, it just makes sense to me. Full stop. That's why I want the names down through the centuries.

    That raises an important question: What is the measuring rod by which you can say that the Church Fathers just wanted their own thing, but you don't just want your own thing? You made a really really bold claim there.

    Are the statements about Jesus in the first six ecumenical councils correct or not? How do you measure that truth?
  7. Dave76

    Dave76 Valued Member

    There is no unbroken lineage. The church for many years had a habit of killing people who dissagreed with their views. People with such views either killed (like Galileo) or just kept their mouth shut (like Newton). I did not think it was a big secret the early councils did not want to be viewed as Jewish. They wanted their own church, seperate from the Jews.
    How can these changes I've mentioned and referenced be justified? The church holds that the Bible is the inspired word of God. They teach the commandments in the old testament were given to early men by God. Yes I am sure the translaters read those texts also. But that does not explain how commandments that were to be kept perpetualy can be changed. If the Messaiah was to change those things(the answer most often given), why would the word perpetual (‛ôlâmbe strongs #5769) be used? That is a question I'd like to hear a logical answer for. As for the staments about Jesus, no, I would not agree with all of them. As I have stated before, I am not a Christian.
  8. Spirit Warrior

    Spirit Warrior Valued Member

    In every religion there are two loves recognized: unconditional and conditional. Conditional love is based on the fact that love is earnt and unconditional is a love given regardless of what someone has done why is that a terrible thing; to have love for your creator and who you believe is the source of everything all that means is that you respect the value of life and the world around you (which i would say is the perfect thing to found a way of life on). Secondly if you belief you have to act in a sort of way to make your own flesh and blood love you I believe that is quite sad, for those that I love I choose to love because I want to see good things for them; not because of what they have done for me. It is this unconditional love that makes people give up there wealth and livelihood to help poor people in third world countries those people have never met these people but they care; to care because you don't want to see people suffering even though they have never done anything for you, I have to say the only falsehood I see is the notion that the only reason you should care is out of your own self interest (that opposes the reasons why some of histories strongest proponents of peace have decided to help people).

    As for faith, faith is to beleive in something that you cant prove; it is a form of hope and it is hope that has driven mankind to its great accomplishments. If people didn't have hope that a man could land on the moon do you think it could ever happen? When the first automobiles were formed many people said that you should not have faith that it could ever happen but through the hope of inventors it became a reality. It is this hope; the ability to conceive that it is possible to change things around you that makes us different from other animals.

    I find it interesting that people who despise religion seem to want to separate it from all the good things in human history and simply attribute it to the bad. But the fact is that whilst religion has inspired bad it has inspired some of our greatest morals (that even none religious people cling to). Martial arts can be used to kill innocent people or to save lives and we would never blame the martial art (even though it teaches someone how to kill) for what bad people do. It is the same with religion, mankind has done terrible things with the bad sides of it and developed our society greatly with the good. It is true that you cannot separate some of the greatest problems of the world from religion but you cannot separate religion from some of the greatest success of mankind's history. Western societies didn't just become progressive overnight it has taken hundreds of years; so when someone says well it doesn't really matter what the bible taught because I could have figured that out myself they need to look at historical context and understand that what they believe they have figured out by themselves are really what they have picked up from their society of which the history of religion including its progressive teachers cannot be separate from.
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Name 5 great successes that can be DIRECTLY attributed to religion
  10. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Not true.
    But whether true or not, the question remains why you are authoritative at all. We amplify that point by 1000 by asking how you, a non-Christian, are more authoritative than a Christian bishop/priest/pastor who actually lives with the book day in and day out! :eek:

    But, wait, by your own admission you are an outsider, and you also have expressed a noticeable lack of knowledge on the subject. You are in no position to say the Church Fathers were “wrong.” Height of arrogance, my friend. You sound exactly like young-Earth creationists complaining that modern theories of evolution violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and we know how well that goes over on MAP. :rolleyes: :dunno:
  11. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    You’re religious, right? Pagan something or other, following Crowley? Does it have no positive influence on your own life? It’s got to, or else, why do it at all? :dunno: So, so, I want to put you at the top of the list.

    1. Hannibal’s life
    2. The journeys of Saint Paul
    3. The work of Saint Francis of Assissi
    4. The work of Saint Augustine
    5. lots of other individual people who were turned around through a religious experience
    6. The American colonies :D :D :D
    7. abolition of slavery in England (William Wilberforce is a name I remember)
    8. hospitals (historically they were religious ministries, though today that is more often not the case)
    9. Teen Challenge
    10. The Salvation Army
    11. M. Ueshiba’s development of aikido
  12. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Using Christianity alone (but depending on what you mean by success) -

    1. Modern banking was heavily influenced by the Knights Templar.
    2. Medieval art.
    3. The Bible is still routinely the most popular book in the world.
    4. Vatican City is the only absolute monarchy left in Europe.
    5. 'Mericuh. Cue Team World Police song.

    And that didn't take a lot of though to be honest.
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    That's a good question, how do YOU measure that truth?
  14. Dave76

    Dave76 Valued Member

    I am not an authority. I do not know everything about the Bible or Christianity. I am not making these arguments on my own authority. I have been quoting the Bible. The one the Church holds to be the Word of God. No one has to take my word for it, I included references, anyone can google them. You have yet to actually answer any point I have made with anything more than denial and counter accusations, and we know how well that goes over on MAP.
    So my question remains. How did these men have the authority to change things? They hold their scripture to be the Word of God, but then did things they were specificaly told NOT to do. In the case of the Holy days, they stopped doing things they were told to do forever. If they held the Bible as the Word of God and the foundation of their church, there should be some pretty good reasons why they would do these things.
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    The problem with nearly all these is that they are...how to be delicate....not important really (with the exception of the US colony issue which is a double edged sword...good for the people there now, not so good fr the indigenous folk)

    Slavery being abolished in the Uk as a big examplewas not religious in its primary drive at all - the Somersett case set the precedent and was the fundamental principle for the subsequent change in the law - and it was basically a point of contract

    My life is not that spectacular on a global level beyond a few arrests and a few people now having H2H skills - certainly I have done nothing other non religious types haven't also done

    Comparing a global impact person such as Norm Borlaug - who was not even slightly religiously inspired - and everything on the list looks pretty small and insignificant.

    As you have identified I AM religious (in so far as I follow a path Crowleyan in nature) but as can also be observed I am also something of a pragmatist and humanist.

    Religion moulds and guides people in specific ways so when you go to the "nth" degree you can argue it may be A cause (not THE cause) - but in doing that you also have to accept Charles Manson, Herod, Mary I, Peter Sucliffe as all being religiously inspired in their actions.

    Taking Maslow's hierarchy as a yardstick then it is the latter rung satisfied by religion...globally that has caused as many issues as it has solved.

    I am not anti religion, anti Christian, anti belief or anti God....I am pro humanity.
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    See above in my reply to Aiki ;)
  17. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    That's not fair to the individuals affected! One life does matter to that one person, and whoever he might touch, and deeply so.

    I'll easily concede that there are, and always have been, great people who did great things without a religious motivation. That does not negate great people who did great things because of a religious motivation. We can acknowledge both without minimizing either one!
  18. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Doctor Dinosaur, quoting Charles Darwin's writings?

    The wrote the individual books of the Bible. You didn't.
    They collected the entire collection into a single volume. You didn't.
    There's your authority.

    They did it as a collective. No one individual ruled. It was a group consensus spanning several hundred years. You weren't born yet.

    A great many of their writings were passed down to us, to be studied by every generation so that every successive generation will know its history and the explanation. You've chosen to ignore those writings while passing judgement in ignorance. You should instead go to a library, or go to Amazon, and get their stuff and read what they said.

    Or, you could be Doctor Dino, and pass judgement on a subject you don't actually know about.
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Actually that's fair - polemecism at either end is wrong, and sometimes playing DA just brings focus. I just don't feel "well look at all the good it's done" cuts the mustard as a consistent argument in favor if religion when you can easily argue "look at all the bad"
  20. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
    Architecture of Notre Dame.
    Rachmaninov's Vespers.
    The Chronicles of Narnia.
    Catholic schoolgirl skirts.

Share This Page