DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on March 07, 2012, 07:46:31 PM
-
An only semi-serious question of course. But, I also can't deny that seeing people who, were that God of the OT in any way around would have incinerated those two on the spot, to be alive and happily thrive, begs an explanation about that supposed god.
My interpretation is of course known, but what is the apologetic explanation that God seems to have stopped caring?
rumborak
-
The same god who didn't punish Hitler, Mao, Martin Luther or Paul?
A god who doesn't feel the need to police the world (proof that god isn't american).
But seriously, aside from being hate filled, Robertson and and Phelps aren't that bad. They're not killing people or anything, they're just being horrible human beings.
-
I would understand God not caring about human-to-human dealings. But, Robertson and Phelps do their stuff in His name. That's a different thing in my book, and OT god wouldn't have that slip by in my opinion.
This of course is somewhat embedded in the general problem of "why has God's overt interaction stopped 3,000 years ago?".
rumborak
-
Well...the Bible actually teaches that the Devil...not God...is in charge of the worlds affairs at the moment...so take that into account.
-
for one thing, God intervening in the OT to kill individuals is actually pretty rare (considering how much time the OT covers).
but the answer to your question is the different relationship God had to Israel. It was in essence a theocracy (unlike any other nation/time) and because his role in using Israel was to provide the messiah, it was critical to preserve them as a nation (thus destroying the enemies, etc). since the arrival of the messiah, there is no longer that intervention
-
Well...the Bible actually teaches that the Devil...not God...is in charge of the worlds affairs at the moment...so take that into account.
What? Where does it teach that? Certainly not in my people's books.
-
"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." - 1 John 5:19
"...among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." (1 Cor 4:4)
Jesus hinted at it as well in a couple more scriptures...I'd have to find them.
EDIT John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11...
-
"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." - 1 John 5:19
"...among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." (1 Cor 4:4)
Jesus hinted at it as well in a couple more scriptures...I'd have to find them.
as far as "your people's books," adami, I think the first few chapters of Job allude to it. while all of scripture alludes to the ultimate sovereignty of God, Job seems to build a picture that God allows Satan to wreak havoc to some extent
-
I disagree about Job, especially if you come to the conclusion that the satan runs the world. I still don't believe in the devil, even if I were religious I wouldn't believe in the devil, because outside of Paul and I guess John, there's no evidence. And clearly I don't take John seriously, and you should know my thoughts on Paul by now.
-
but the answer to your question is the different relationship God had to Israel. It was in essence a theocracy (unlike any other nation/time) and because his role in using Israel was to provide the messiah, it was critical to preserve them as a nation (thus destroying the enemies, etc). since the arrival of the messiah, there is no longer that intervention
Interesting response, but isn't this somewhat bothersome? I mean, you make it sound as if Israel was God's true interest, and the Christian people are not too much to care about. Keep in mind that God initiated the covenant with Israel. Why didn't he extend the covenant to the Christians too?
rumborak
-
but the answer to your question is the different relationship God had to Israel. It was in essence a theocracy (unlike any other nation/time) and because his role in using Israel was to provide the messiah, it was critical to preserve them as a nation (thus destroying the enemies, etc). since the arrival of the messiah, there is no longer that intervention
Interesting response, but isn't this somewhat bothersome? I mean, you make it sound as if Israel was God's true interest, and the Christian people are not too much to care about. Keep in mind that God initiated the covenant with Israel. Why didn't he extend the covenant to the Christians too?
rumborak
The ultimate goal was Christianity. The covenant with Abraham promised that "the seed" (which was Jesus) would come through his genealogy and that through that "seed" the whole world would be saved. So the covenant with Israel was to bring about "the seed" by which EVERYONE who followed and listened to him (both Jews, and everyone else) could be saved.
-
I disagree about Job, especially if you come to the conclusion that the satan runs the world.
It's fine to disagree, but if we're looking at the text in this argument, God sort of just...says it. Not that "Satan runs the world" but that God gives Satan the permission to wreak some havoc.
-
Actually I should rephrase that....because ultimately, even Christianity will become an outdated term.
"For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." (1 Cor 15:28)
So when Jesus turns over everything and subjects himself to his father...so that *all* creation is under the father (fact), I imagine that there will no longer be any need for the term "Christian" (speculation).
-
I disagree about Job, especially if you come to the conclusion that the satan runs the world.
It's fine to disagree, but if we're looking at the text in this argument, God sort of just...says it. Not that "Satan runs the world" but that God gives Satan the permission to wreak some havoc.
Well I also don't see Job as historical. Thus I don't see the satan as a real character. But assuming I did, it would still be god allowing it in that instance, just forever at all times.
-
I dunno, I still find it weird, even with the argument that since Jesus, God is "off the hook" so to speak, that your (supposedly loving) deity takes complete backseat and plain allows everything under the sun under his name. Doesn't it beg the question: "If you don't care, why should I?"
rumborak
-
Problem of Evil (or Suffering)?
-
I dunno, I still find it weird, even with the argument that since Jesus, God is "off the hook" so to speak, that your (supposedly loving) deity takes complete backseat and plain allows everything under the sun under his name. Doesn't it beg the question: "If you don't care, why should I?"
rumborak
Do you want what the Bible offers on this or an apologetics argument? And I do ask sincerely.
-
I dunno, I still find it weird, even with the argument that since Jesus, God is "off the hook" so to speak, that your (supposedly loving) deity takes complete backseat and plain allows everything under the sun under his name. Doesn't it beg the question: "If you don't care, why should I?"
rumborak
Our parents chose this. We didn't have any choice. God took steps to save his servants from out of a world that is run by Satan...sacrificing his son in the process. It won't always be this way. In the scripture I pointed out, Jesus will soon take over the affairs of the earth....all creation really....so that God's will can be done on the earth as it is in heaven. It's just not happening right now.
-
I haven't kept up with pat robertson and have no idea who fred phelps is, but I do know that "vengeance is mine" and he will definately repay those who blasphemously use his name. it wouldn't surprise me if he has done so directly since the time of Christ, but I do know the he will have vengeance in the end. wouldn't want to be in line behind westboro baptist, for example
-
yeshaberto, Phelps is the "pastor" of Westboro. ;)
-
regarding Satan in the Tanach, you also have the account where he incited david to number the people. seems like a pretty historical section to me
-
yeshaberto, Phelps is the "pastor" of Westboro. ;)
oops :P
-
I don't see how you can leave him out of Genesis either...in the Garden of Eden... Unless you really think there was NO ONE behind that snake. I personally don't.
-
I don't see how you can leave him out of Genesis either...in the Garden of Eden... Unless you really think there was NO ONE behind that snake. I personally don't.
I don't.
-
I don't see how you can leave him out of Genesis either...in the Garden of Eden... Unless you really think there was NO ONE behind that snake. I personally don't.
I don't.
I'm confused...I thought you just said you didn't believe in him. Do you not take the Genesis account as historical?
-
I don't see how you can leave him out of Genesis either...in the Garden of Eden... Unless you really think there was NO ONE behind that snake. I personally don't.
I don't.
I'm confused...I thought you just said you didn't believe in him. Do you not take the Genesis account as historical?
lol, right after I typed and sent "I don't", I realized that it's a poor wording based on what you said. My bad.
I DO think no one was behind the snake, and of course I see genesis as metaphorical and not literal.
-
In your opinion, what is Genesis metaphorical for?
-
In your opinion, what is Genesis metaphorical for?
Well we're getting too off topic here. Feel free to shoot me a PM.
-
PS, I created a thread to discuss the validity of a spiritual enemy in thread about exorcism of emily rose
-
I dunno, I still find it weird, even with the argument that since Jesus, God is "off the hook" so to speak, that your (supposedly loving) deity takes complete backseat and plain allows everything under the sun under his name. Doesn't it beg the question: "If you don't care, why should I?"
rumborak
Do you want what the Bible offers on this or an apologetics argument? And I do ask sincerely.
Err, dunno. Both, I guess? :lol
rumborak
-
Our parents chose this. We didn't have any choice. God took steps to save his servants from out of a world that is run by Satan...sacrificing his son in the process. It won't always be this way. In the scripture I pointed out, Jesus will soon take over the affairs of the earth....all creation really....so that God's will can be done on the earth as it is in heaven. It's just not happening right now.
Isn't that just a mild version of "the end is nigh" which people have proclaimed for the last 2,000 years but never happened? So far no transgression has been punished for the last 2,000 years, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that will change any time soon.
rumborak
-
No one ever thinks it will happen in their lifetime....and it may or may not happen in mine. (heck, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow)
But I do believe that we are in the foretold "time of the end"...and I think the signs are getting worse... I personally believe that all the things signs that Jesus foretold (as well as the signs of the last days listed in 2 Tim 3:1-5) are coming true all around us. But that would take, another thread....and probably be a moot argument.
And then there's Peter's statement: "For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.” (2 Pet 3:3, 4)
-
I don't see how you can leave him out of Genesis either...in the Garden of Eden... Unless you really think there was NO ONE behind that snake. I personally don't.
I don't.
I'm confused...I thought you just said you didn't believe in him. Do you not take the Genesis account as historical?
I don't take the Genesis account as historical. But even taking it as a piece of literature, I see no reason to interpret the snake as anything other than a snake. After all, that's what the text says.
-
Rumobrak,
Here is how you get to have the last laugh. It clearly states that God loves all of us. He doesn't hate "fags". They are one of the worst representations of Christianity. They choose to look at a few verses whilst ignoring almost the rest of the Bible. :lol
-
Our parents chose this. We didn't have any choice. God took steps to save his servants from out of a world that is run by Satan...sacrificing his son in the process. It won't always be this way. In the scripture I pointed out, Jesus will soon take over the affairs of the earth....all creation really....so that God's will can be done on the earth as it is in heaven. It's just not happening right now.
Isn't that just a mild version of "the end is nigh" which people have proclaimed for the last 2,000 years but never happened? So far no transgression has been punished for the last 2,000 years, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that will change any time soon.
rumborak
The idea that "the end is nigh" means that Christians ought to live as though the end is coming, that Jesus could come back tomorrow. Not in a fearful way, but in a dutiful way.
-
Considering Jesus himself was an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end was nigh, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the End of Days.
-
I actually looked up some stats earlier. About 15% of the Christian population think the end of days will happen in their lifetime.
rumborak
-
Considering Jesus himself was an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end was nigh, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the End of Days.
Interesting. I thought I was the only one who subscribed to that view.
o/
-
I actually looked up some stats earlier. About 15% of the Christian population think the end of days will happen in their lifetime.
rumborak
I legitimately wonder how much that figure is going to drop after Dec 21 2012. :lol I doubt there's any religious reasoning to believe anything will occur in our lifetime as opposed to far off in the distant future.
-
Considering Jesus himself was an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end was nigh, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the End of Days.
Well since he accurately prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem...I'd say he was pretty spot on. He even said how his followers could escape...and those who listened did.
“Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Ju‧de′a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her..." (Luke 21:20, 21)
The Romans surrounded Jerusalem in 66 C.E., but then inexplicably withdrew. The Christians withdrew while the Jews celebrated. The Romans came back in 70 C.E., and we know what the result of that was.
Jesus prophecy was accurate.
-
Not exactly a difficult prophecy to make though.
-
True that it was not hard to prophecy that the Romans would destroy Jerusalem...
But to prophecy that they would be surrounded (read:trapped) and *THEN* still have some opportunity to escape to the mountains? That's something else.
-
True that it was not hard to prophecy that the Romans would destroy Jerusalem...
But to prophecy that they would be surrounded (read:trapped) and *THEN* still have some opportunity to escape to the mountains? That's something else.
Not really.
-
True that it was not hard to prophecy that the Romans would destroy Jerusalem...
But to prophecy that they would be surrounded (read:trapped) and *THEN* still have some opportunity to escape to the mountains? That's something else.
Not really.
...and this is the beauty of agreeing to disagree. ;D
-
Two things: According to most scholars, Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Note how for example neither Mark nor Matthew don't talk at all about armies besieging Jerusalem. I think it's not exactly far-fetched to assume the author of Luke added his own interpretation of the siege into this passage.
Secondly, 70AD is not exactly "spot on" when you're prophesying in the year 30AD. As Adami mentioned, that the shit would hit the fan in Jerusalem wasn't exactly clairvoyance.
rumborak
-
Two things: According to most scholars, Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Note how for example neither Mark nor Matthew don't talk at all about armies besieging Jerusalem. I think it's not exactly far-fetched to assume the author of Luke added his own interpretation of the siege into this passage.
Secondly, 70AD is not exactly "spot on" when you're prophesying in the year 30AD. As Adami mentioned, that the shit would hit the fan in Jerusalem wasn't exactly clairvoyance.
rumborak
Well...I believe the evidence that it was written circa 56-58 C.E....around the time Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem...where Paul was arrested, and then imprisoned in Caesarea for two years.
But again...we will have to agree to disagree.
-
Also...I don't think you guys are looking at this prophecy through the eyes of a Jew living in Jerusalem. You have the benefit of history and the complete Roman account. So anyone who looks at the way things had been going could say "Well *OF COURSE* the Romans were going to sweep in and destroy Jerusalem!"....but the Romans actually suffered quite an embarrassment when they withdrew in 66. The Jews came out to chase them away...and weren't really shy about out. The Jews thought God was finally saving their nation from the dreaded Roman rule!
Run away??? NOW??? We just defeated the Romans!! Are you CRAZY?? Why would you run away to the mountains NOW???
-
I am predicting right now that Iran will have a civil war within the next 100 years.
So when that happens, please remember that I have divine prophetic abilities.
-
I am predicting right now that Iran will have a civil war within the next 100 years.
So when that happens, please remember that I have divine prophetic abilities.
Can you say which side will be destroyed? Can you say exactly when the refugees will have an opportunity to escape?
EDIT: WAIT...can you further predict that at some point, they will be surrounded (with all hope lost) and then that the winning side will suddenly withdrawl with no explanation? And then tell the losing side (when it seems they have just won a victory) that THAT'S when they should run away?
When you can do all that...then maybe....
-
Two things: According to most scholars, Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Note how for example neither Mark nor Matthew don't talk at all about armies besieging Jerusalem. I think it's not exactly far-fetched to assume the author of Luke added his own interpretation of the siege into this passage.
Secondly, 70AD is not exactly "spot on" when you're prophesying in the year 30AD. As Adami mentioned, that the shit would hit the fan in Jerusalem wasn't exactly clairvoyance.
rumborak
Well...I believe the evidence that it was written circa 56-58 C.E....around the time Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem...where Paul was arrested, and then imprisoned in Caesarea for two years.
But again...we will have to agree to disagree.
The dating of Luke is of course a crucial "fault line" for believers. If you date it like most scholars do, there's a few grim conclusions to be made, for example that most likely stuff was plain added by the writer of Luke to add yet another awesomely fulfilled prophecy.
If you subscribe to pre-70AD you gain the fulfilled prophecy, but there's many other things that no longer jibe. So,you kinda trade faith for evidence.
EDIT: I got asked what doesn't jibe if one goes pre-70AD, I'll just quote Wikipedia:
Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[77] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[78]
Add to that, again, that neither Matthew nor Mark mention the details about the siege. Kinda weird they would leave that out. Instead, their accounts are much more apocalyptic.
rumborak
-
I am predicting right now that Iran will have a civil war within the next 100 years.
So when that happens, please remember that I have divine prophetic abilities.
Can you say which side will be destroyed? Can you say exactly when the refugees will have an opportunity to escape?
EDIT: WAIT...can you further predict that at some point, they will be surrounded (with all hope lost) and then that the winning side will suddenly withdrawl with no explanation? And then tell the losing side (when it seems they have just won a victory) that THAT'S when they should run away?
When you can do all that...then maybe....
Yes, the rebels will win. The refugees will have an opportunity to escape within a 2-5 year window from the beginning of the war. No one will be surrounded, and no one will tell the other side that they just won. It's a different war.
-
Two things: According to most scholars, Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Note how for example neither Mark nor Matthew don't talk at all about armies besieging Jerusalem. I think it's not exactly far-fetched to assume the author of Luke added his own interpretation of the siege into this passage.
Secondly, 70AD is not exactly "spot on" when you're prophesying in the year 30AD. As Adami mentioned, that the shit would hit the fan in Jerusalem wasn't exactly clairvoyance.
rumborak
Well...I believe the evidence that it was written circa 56-58 C.E....around the time Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem...where Paul was arrested, and then imprisoned in Caesarea for two years.
But again...we will have to agree to disagree.
The dating of Luke is of course a crucial "fault line" for believers. If you date it like most scholars do, there's a few grim conclusions to be made, for example that most likely stuff was plain added by the writer of Luke to add yet another awesomely fulfilled prophecy.
If you subscribe to pre-70AD you gain the fulfilled prophecy, but there's many other things that no longer jibe. So,you kinda trade faith for evidence.
rumborak
It doesn't really matter when it was written, actually. If it was written late, that merely opens the possibility that Luke added a fake prophecy because it was easy to show the fulfillment of it. But, of course, whether it was written early or late, the possibility also exists that Luke included that in his text because Jesus did in fact say the things Luke recorded.
And let's also not forget the fact that for a good many of the scholars who argue a late date, one of the main reasons they do so is because they are coming from a perspective of, "well, we know prophecy isn't a real thing, so if there are supposed prophecies about stuff that were actually fulfilled in 70AD, then surely the book must have actually been written after that time."
-
And keep in mind that most people who argue for pre-70 do so because they "know" Jesus was divine and thus prophesied everything correctly.
rumborak
-
Sure. I get you. I just don't think there is a whole lot to be gained by arguing about when it was written because, ultimately, such arguments are based more on conjecture than anything else. Each side has a biased stake in wanting it to be either before or after 70AD. But ultimately, it doesn't matter much. Yeah, as a believer, it would be cool and strengthen my position to be able to say definitively that it was written before (and I think it likely was). But, really, that's not the crux of the issue. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient reason to believe Luke got it right and that Jesus made the prediction he did that ultimately came true. Yes, the argument is stronger if Luke has an earlier date. But since we don't know when it was written, we shouldn't stake our entire argument on the fact that it MUST have been written early, because it very well may not have been.
-
Well, there's other issues, as the "this generation will not have passed". Doesn't sound like "yeah, in 40 years from now" to me. Under any meaningful definition a generation is 20 years or less, which would mean the prophecy should have happened in 40AD or so, not 70AD.
And the fact that when you read Matthew and Mark, it's pretty clear Jesus isn't talking of a siege on Jerusalem.
rumborak
-
I feel like we aren't taking the language into account on some of these points.
-
Eh, I liked some of your earlier arguments on this subject better. That one doesn't really hold much water, IMO. The statement is, "this generation will not pass away until..." meaning, some of you people listening to me in this present generation (however long a "generation" is) will still be alive when this happens. The word isn't used to represent any fixed period, other than to say that some of the people he is talking to will live to see it.
-
Well, the argument here is, which explanation is the most likely? Taken by themselves there is always an "interesting" counter-interpretation like the one you just stated (which completely goes against the, to me obvious, intent of the sentence). But, when you accumulate all of those evidences together, IMHO the tilt heavily shifts towards the interpretation that Jesus' prophecy was not about the siege of Jerusalem.
rumborak
-
True that it was not hard to prophecy that the Romans would destroy Jerusalem...
But to prophecy that they would be surrounded (read:trapped) and *THEN* still have some opportunity to escape to the mountains? That's something else.
Considering surrounding, and laying siege, to a city was a very common practice by, well, every army, I"m gonna go ahead and say that this is a pretty damn hard "prophecy" not to fulfill - if it was even written before the events in question, which is a debate.
-
Considering surrounding, and laying siege, to a city was a very common practice by, well, every army, I"m gonna go ahead and say that this is a pretty damn hard "prophecy" not to fulfill - if it was even written before the events in question, which is a debate.
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with that as well for two reason. First, I don't think there was actually a strong belief that Rome would attack Jerusalem during this time. Second, specifically with regard to laying siege to the city, I think that would likely have been a strange thought to the Jews in Jerusalem in Jesus' day given that the Romans had constructed a fortress within the city walls, which was occupied at that time.
-
Considering surrounding, and laying siege, to a city was a very common practice by, well, every army, I"m gonna go ahead and say that this is a pretty damn hard "prophecy" not to fulfill - if it was even written before the events in question, which is a debate.
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with that as well for two reason. First, I don't think there was actually a strong belief that Rome would attack Jerusalem during this time. Second, specifically with regard to laying siege to the city, I think that would likely have been a strange thought to the Jews in Jerusalem in Jesus' day given that the Romans had constructed a fortress within the city walls, which was occupied at that time.
Unless you view Rome as an occupier, and some sort of revolution as eventual.
My point is that it's not very convincing. You're pointing to something that has happened quite often in history, and a common tactic used. Pile on top the possibility that the book is historical, and not prophetical, and I don't see why I should believe that this actually occurred (especially since I'm guessing this is another prophecy, the fulfillment of which also reinforces your belief in the Bible?).
-
And let's also not forget the fact that for a good many of the scholars who argue a late date, one of the main reasons they do so is because they are coming from a perspective of, "well, we know prophecy isn't a real thing, so if there are supposed prophecies about stuff that were actually fulfilled in 70AD, then surely the book must have actually been written after that time."
Some of them aren't Christian, and some of them aren't religious at all, but I've never seen that given as a reason for a late date for Luke. It is done for reasons within the text itself, as well as other texts. It is a textual conclusion, not a religious/nonreligious conclusion.
-
Maybe this will buy Mr. Robertson some good will here:
https://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAT_ROBERTSON_MARIJUANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-08-13-11-19
He says legalize weed.
-
I remember hearing about that a while ago. Was surprised to hear it, wish it had more of an effect though.