|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: Reading I
Ez 37:21-28
Thus says the Lord GOD:
I will take the children of Israel from among the nations
to which they have come,
and gather them from all sides to bring them back to their land.
I will make them one nation upon the land,
in the mountains of Israel,
and there shall be one prince for them all.
Never again shall they be two nations,
and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.No longer shall they defile themselves with their idols,
their abominations, and all their transgressions.
I will deliver them from all their sins of apostasy,
and cleanse them so that they may be my people
and I may be their God.
My servant David shall be prince over them,
and there shall be one shepherd for them all;
they shall live by my statutes and carefully observe my decrees.
They shall live on the land that I gave to my servant Jacob,
the land where their fathers lived;
they shall live on it forever,
they, and their children, and their children’s children,
with my servant David their prince forever.
I will make with them a covenant of peace;
it shall be an everlasting covenant with them,
and I will multiply them, and put my sanctuary among them forever.
My dwelling shall be with them;
I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Thus the nations shall know that it is I, the LORD,
who make Israel holy,
when my sanctuary shall be set up among them forever. Responsorial Psalm
Jeremiah 31:10, 11-12abcd
R. (see 10d) The Lord will guard us, as a shepherd guards his flock.
Hear the word of the LORD, O nations,
proclaim it on distant isles, and say:
He who scattered Israel, now gathers them together,
he guards them as a shepherd his flock.
R. The Lord will guard us, as a shepherd guards his flock.
The LORD shall ransom Jacob,
he shall redeem him from the hand of his conqueror.
Shouting, they shall mount the heights of Zion,
they shall come streaming to the LORD’s blessings:
The grain, the wine, and the oil,
the sheep and the oxen.
R. The Lord will guard us, as a shepherd guards his flock.
Then the virgins shall make merry and dance,
and young men and old as well.
I will turn their mourning into joy,
I will console and gladden them after their sorrows.
R. The Lord will guard us, as a shepherd guards his flock. Gospel
Jn 11:45-56
Many of the Jews who had come to Mary
and seen what Jesus had done began to believe in him.
But some of them went to the Pharisees
and told them what Jesus had done.
So the chief priests and the Pharisees
convened the Sanhedrin and said,
“What are we going to do?
This man is performing many signs.
If we leave him alone, all will believe in him,
and the Romans will come
and take away both our land and our nation.”
But one of them, Caiaphas,
who was high priest that year, said to them,
“You know nothing,
nor do you consider that it is better for you
that one man should die instead of the people,
so that the whole nation may not perish.”
He did not say this on his own,
but since he was high priest for that year,
he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
and not only for the nation,
but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
So from that day on they planned to kill him.
So Jesus no longer walked about in public among the Jews,
but he left for the region near the desert,
to a town called Ephraim,
and there he remained with his disciples.
Now the Passover of the Jews was near,
and many went up from the country to Jerusalem
before Passover to purify themselves.
They looked for Jesus and said to one another
as they were in the temple area, “What do you think?
That he will not come to the feast?” |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: <<<Rev. 14: 9-11> Strong and powerful passage; coming up in next post. Perfect study material for an early saturday morning..> this refer to the passion, the price paid by the Lord ... jn, 11: 45-57 and jn, 13: 31 renewed glorification>
.... good day guys.....tks |
|
Mar-27-10
 | | OhioChessFan: I appreciate the way this discussion is being conducted and encourage everyone to maintain the civility. <TCE: Questions are important. Unless one knows everything questions are necessary. Christians ask enough questions to produce 20,000+ denominations. > They asked so many questions they ended up with an obvious problem of people in the wrong. I understand that it's tough to deal with the thought of a God who punishes people eternally. I have a problem with it. Does that make it hard for me to believe in Him? Yes. Does that make it impossible for me to believe in Him? No. To strip away all the trappings, what all these ruminations imply is something like "The God who created the universe isn't capable of using proper judgment in punishing wrong doers. If He didn't punish forever, that would prove He has good judgment. If He only punished 20 years, that would be fine. But eternally? Oh no, that can't possibly be just. I realize it's His laws being broken, not mine, but my judgment is just as important and accurate as His." |
|
Mar-27-10
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: Just suppose for a moment that there is a somebody who created the universe, or at least humanity. Why should it necessarily follow that he's capable of using proper judgment in punishing sinners? |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | achieve: <I realize it's His laws being broken, not mine, but my judgment is just as important and accurate as His."> That'd be outrageous from my point of view, and yours as well. But many have tried... and succeeded. Sin is punished by Death, no more Life Support System, ergo back to dust, bro/sis, just where you came from. Missed your second chance. Two strikes and you're out. The only thing eternal, but essentially important (and crucial for understanding the Bible) about the "final punishment" is the irreversibility of the verdict, (unless of course "you" singlehandedly evolve your way back to a living organism again). If a congregation or denomination would insist on me accepting this pagan belief and pass it on, I'd make sure to get the hell out of there. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | achieve: <SwitchingQuylthulg: Just suppose for a moment that there is a somebody who created the universe, or at least humanity. <<< Why should it necessarily follow >>> that he's capable of using proper judgment in punishing sinners?> You're right. It shouldn't! heh |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: <<SwitchingQuylthulg>> God do not punish..ex: i hit the iron leg of the table with my foot breaking it , i swear again and again, i do not go the hospital to take care of it properlly and it hurt more and more so i swear and again .. i get sicker and the bone marrow get into my blood systeme poisonning all my organs ... time become's then critical, a mater of life or death .... what is(should be the choice all along) your choice ..... me i prefer to choose life right-away, tks |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <The Chess Express> <The KJV came first, so I tend to think it's closer to the original.> My understanding is that they all start with the same original Hebrew and Greek sources. So why should the earliest translation automatically become the best? Does our ability to translate erode with time? However, the issue of translating is an important point. Even if we assume all translators are experts in Hebrew/Greek and have good intentions to translate accurately, is isn't a simple matter. That's because translation always involves a degree of *interpretation* in order to convey the meaning. The translator is forced to choose one meaning from 2 or more reasonable alternatives (or may not even realize that there are alternatives). Of course, this choice is subject to error, and in some cases it may introduce a contradiction or have other theological consequences. With this in mind, I would tend to think that later translations, having the benefit of further study, would have a better chance of being more accurate. It's sort of like software -- a later version is likely to have fewer bugs than the first (assuming the later software release is only bug fixes, and not adding "enhancements"). <The copy of the Bible that we have to day is much worse than that. We simply have the uninspired opinions of the thousands of scribes.> If that's your view, then I don't understand why you bother to use the Bible to support your view that there is no eternal hell. On the other hand, most of your arguments on the issue are based on your own ideas of justice and your own expectations of God (e.g. "it can't be true because it seems unfair, and God wouldn't be unfair"). |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | playground player: <You Rang> If you mean by "stop harassing scientists" that Christians should completely abandon the arena of science to the secularists, we cannot in good conscience do that. I must have lived a sheltered life. I never expected to see, as I have seen in just the last year or so, so much open hostility to orthodox Christianity as I see everywhere I look today. It's shocking. But then I suppose I should never be shocked that "the whole world lieth in wickedness," even as St. John said. It hasn't gotten much better in 1,900 years. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <achieve> Thank you for the links. The first link made the point that the Rev 14 refers specifically to those who take the mark of the beast, and this is a fair point. I thought the "non-eternal" part of the argument was weak: <...the verses clearly state this will take place "in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." If nothing else, this should be enough to prove that this penalty is not an unending, conscious, torturing one because observing such a punishment is not the way the angels or the Lamb (Jesus Christ) will choose to spend eternity.> But that's only because I think such arguments are (1) biased by our own finite point of view, and (2) such arguments strike me as assuming God's thoughts to be like our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts..."). BTW, if there is no eternal hell, that would be fine with me -- it would my preference even. But I think my preference has nothing to do with it. :-) |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: <<YouRang>> hi have a good day my friend... "hell"; that place is only meant for the deceiver satan and the bad spirits whom are also evil-temtators and are doing the bad works of his; <it is not meant for us, i would say not many ordinary peoples if any will go there, maybe others will only make a waiting line-up to enter heaven and all live in good things eternally ... but eventually they will get there(most of good free will) .... having seen God once as a good Judge one thrust Him evermore .....good luck>, tks |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <playground player><If you mean by "stop harassing scientists" that Christians should completely abandon the arena of science to the secularists, we cannot in good conscience do that.> Then I think your conscience is bothering you unnecessarily. :-) IMO, science is by definition a secular (i.e. areligious) enterprise. It's purpose is to seek natural (i.e. non-miraculous, non-religious) explanations for the things we observe in nature. Why is it wrong to let it be that? <I must have lived a sheltered life. I never expected to see, as I have seen in just the last year or so, so much open hostility to orthodox Christianity as I see everywhere I look today. It's shocking. But then I suppose I should never be shocked that "the whole world lieth in wickedness," even as St. John said. It hasn't gotten much better in 1,900 years.> One problem I see is that orthodox Christians assume this hostility is due only to the wickedness of the world. They are unwilling to look within to see if some of that hostility is actually justifiable. These Christians are *so* confident that their simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis is *so* infallable that they are willing to go to war with scientists. But for all the reasons I discussed above, it's a stupid war. And like any stupid war, it takes a terrible toll. The toll includes loss of prestige, a loss of credibility, a vast waste of resources, internal division, and of course, open hostility in return. And unfortunately, this open hostility given in return *is* justifiable. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <SwitchingQuylthulg: Just suppose for a moment that there is a somebody who created the universe, or at least humanity. Why should it necessarily follow that he's capable of using proper judgment in punishing sinners?> I don't think that it does logically follow.
On the other hand, if he created the universe, who is there to stand in authority of him to say his judgments are not proper? |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | achieve: <I thought the "non-eternal" part of the argument was weak [...]
But that's only because I think such arguments are (1) biased by our own finite point of view, and [...]> Yes, agree <YouRang>, and that is exactly where I did raise my eyebrows too... So "interpretation" and "available and accurate translation" are linked together in a continuous "balancing act", and should be treated with much care, as you stated in an earlier post. Figures of speech like hyperboles, symbolism, analogies etc., should be handled with care. <With this in mind, I would tend to think that later translations, having the benefit of further study, would have a better chance of being more accurate.> Exactly, if there is no bias nor agenda. There are/have been very good "independent translators" out there, ironically those are more difficult to find these days IMO then a good 100 years back, because society and its challenges, requirements have changed so much; translating a bible is A LOT of work, research, skill and takes enormous perseverence. Thanks for your response! |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> I understand that it's tough to deal with the thought of a God who punishes people eternally. I have a problem with it. Does that make it hard for me to believe in Him? Yes. Does that make it impossible for me to believe in Him? No.> I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If there are other doctrines that come from eyewitness testimony and make more sense why wouldn't you prefer them over the Bible? If I could point out a scripture that tells of a God of love and not wrath, that teaches reincarnation instead of hell, and that is based on a figure that actually walked the earth and performed miracles and was resurrected would you convert? |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<YouRang>>>> My understanding is that they all start with the same original Hebrew and Greek sources. So why should the earliest translation automatically become the best? Does our ability to translate erode with time?> There really are no original works. All we have are copies, so there is nothing to compare them to. I would argue that a copy of a copy is more likely to be accurate than a copy of a copy of a copy etc. <<<<<YouRang>>>> With this in mind, I would tend to think that later translations, having the benefit of further study, would have a better chance of being more accurate. It's sort of like software -- a later version is likely to have fewer bugs than the first (assuming the later software release is only bug fixes, and not adding "enhancements").> I disagree. Computer programs can be tested to see what works and what doesn't. If the program crashes then it's a problem. the scripture is different. It can have any number of errors in it and it is still perfectly readable. Humans don't crash when they hit a contradiction. They discard it or interpret it. As with the example you gave with the psalms verses it's a matter of the opinion of the scribe what works and what doesn't. Apparently there were a number of expert scribes who felt that "hell" was a better translation than "depth" or "grave." There are places in the Bible where "depth" is synonymous with hell anyway. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<YouRang>>>> If that's your view, then I don't understand why you bother to use the Bible to support your view that there is no eternal hell.> To demonstrate how conflicted the scripture is. If one is to devote his/her life to a scripture is it too much to ask that it make sense? <<<<<YouRang>>>>On the other hand, most of your arguments on the issue are based on your own ideas of justice and your own expectations of God (e.g. "it can't be true because it seems unfair, and God wouldn't be unfair").> The passages that I gave speak for themselves. Whether we admit it or not the simple truth is that people take from the Bible what they want and discard the rest. Both you and <OCF> have done it and I do it as well, and so do 20,000+ other Christen denominations. This all serves to prove my point that the Bible is conflicted. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: i love myself, all peoples and God(whom i also serve and Adore in my best)...if i forgot him he won't forget me....my soul is saved because i choose love, my spiritual state(thinking) i now have an objective, think love, my actions love, my word(speaking) love, my eyes tell's love, my ears listen to love and i taste and smell love (unity by love) .....tks |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <There really are no original works. All we have are copies, so there is nothing to compare them to. I would argue that a copy of a copy is more likely to be accurate than a copy of a copy of a copy etc.> Yes, I should not have said 'original'. But it doesn't change my point, which is that the KJV translators didn't start with anything better than the NIV translators -- thus they had no advantage by being first. <I disagree. Computer programs can be tested to see what works and what doesn't. ... > Well, again, your taking an analogy that I offered to explain my point, and taking it a bit beyond its intended purpose. Always a danger when using analogies. By "fixing bugs", I mean realizing that a different (but also viable) choice of meanings may be preferable in order to be more consistent with the whole. I'm not saying it's easy. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <To demonstrate how conflicted the scripture is. If one is to devote his/her life to a scripture is it too much to ask that it make sense?> What I am saying is that you seem to be at cross purposes. - On one hand, you are arguing that the Bible is conflicted and uninspired, which would seem to be an argument that one can't reliably extract truth from it. - On the other hand, you claim that you are able extract from the Bible the 'truth' that hell isn't real. Do you see a fallacy in this?
<The passages that I gave speak for themselves. Whether we admit it or not the simple truth is that people take from the Bible what they want and discard the rest. Both you and <OCF> have done it and I do it as well, and so do 20,000+ other Christen denominations. This all serves to prove my point that the Bible is conflicted.> Frankly, what I am hearing is that when YOU extract ideas from the Bible, the verses "speak for themselves". When WE extract ideas from the Bible, we "take what we want and discard the rest". You know, we all tend to think that way, e.g. "I am on an unbiased humble search for truth, and everyone else is narrow-minded and driven by ego." :-) |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<YouRang>>>> What I am saying is that you seem to be at cross purposes. - On one hand, you are arguing that the Bible is conflicted and uninspired, which would seem to be an argument that one can't reliably extract truth from it. - On the other hand, you claim that you are able extract from the Bible the 'truth' that hell isn't real. Do you see a fallacy in this?>
No, like the scribes of the Bible you've misinterpreted what I've said ;) I've never said that the Bible says hell is not real. The contradiction is whether or not hell is eternal. Furthermore, I've never said that it is the truth. In fact, I've mentioned twice that I don't believe in the hell of the Bible. <<<<<TCE>>>> The passages that I gave speak for themselves. Whether we admit it or not the simple truth is that people take from the Bible what they want and discard the rest. Both you and OCF have done it <and I do it as well,> and so do 20,000+ other Christen denominations. This all serves to prove my point that the Bible is conflicted.> <<<<<YouRang>>>> Frankly, what I am hearing is that when YOU extract ideas from the Bible, the verses "speak for themselves". When WE extract ideas from the Bible, we "take what we want and discard the rest".> Again that's not what I said. See the highlight. There are passages in the Bible like the one in Revelations you gave that say hell is eternal. Those passages speak for themselves as well. I choose to discard those while you choose to discard the ones that are contrary to it. Maybe we should both become scribes :D |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <TCE> My apologies. I did overlook the "and I do it as well" part in your post. Okay, basically you think there are good reasons to not put much stock in the Bible, and you think what the Bible says about Hell is unclear. Personally, you have decided that there is no hell. Is that about right? |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | The Chess Express: Apology accepted. I believe that the Bible occasionally stumbles upon the truth, but that's about as far as I'll go with it. I believe that God is perfect love, and in perfect love there can be no wrath. Reincarnation makes the most sense to me as it provides for both fairness and mercy. As far as hell is concerned I subscribe more to the old Jewish adage that hell is separation from God. The physical universe is a place of separation, and it seems as though God is nowhere to be found. Hence, I believe that we are in hell now. I also believe that we will not remain here forever. |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | cormier: <<<Reincarnation makes the most sense to me as it provides for both fairness and mercy.> hasardness, who want to be an ape..> Resurection is perfect and better becomming a celestial light body ...God ain't affected by hell he is there by his Justice....God is everywhere, at all times, in all places and in all circumstances, He is infinite goodness, infinite kindness and infinite perfection....how many qualities doe's He have>.....tks |
|
| Mar-27-10 | | YouRang: <I believe that God is perfect love, and in perfect love there can be no wrath. Reincarnation makes the most sense to me as it provides for both fairness and mercy. > Sounds nice. But is this an example of inventing a religious view to suit your taste? And if so, are you saying that this is the best anyone can really do? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...