Our Purpose...what is it?

[Locke_]

I would call Hell the absence of God, and only the absence of God.

Yes.

[jotabe]

I would call Hell the absence of God, and only the absence of God.

Yes.

Sadly, that sounds a lot like Earth. Except for some human beings in who you can see the presence of God, sometimes it looks really devoid of him.

This has just suggested me a funny heresy: could we be the fallen angels casted away on hell?

[Mich]

Sadly, that sounds a lot like Earth. Except for some human beings in who you can see the presence of God, sometimes it looks really devoid of him.

This has just suggested me a funny heresy: could we be the fallen angels casted away on hell?

I smell a fiction bestseller in that suggestion.

[jotabe]

I will totally claim the copyrights!

[Rei]

Quick! Somebody get Mr. Brown on the line!

[Locke_]

Good and evil aside, a believer accepts God knowing the challenge of dealing with the bad aspects of human nature and earthly catastrophes, but also accepting the blessings with the curses (and how those two can often interweave). At a funeral for instance one of the worst things to hear is, "It was his time" or "She has gone to a better place." It's not our job to consider what happens after this life: 1) because you lose sense of the present's meaning and 2) your motivations in life are stimulated by where you want to go after life. The point is that there's the possibility that this presence of God could be absent, that as far distant as he may sometimes seem, there's the idea that he could be completely absent. That's as unfathomable and rather frightening as a thought could be when life after death is pondered.

[Locke_]

The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a hell of Heaven.
-John Milton

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Nice Paradise Lost quote. very fitting. This also brings to Mind Marlowe's Dr. Faustus: "Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it." ~ Mephastopholes (spelling?) to Faustus concerning how Mephastopholes got out of Hell to help Faustus.

I wonder what the "Holy and good" God was thinking when he sent his angels to strike down the innocent first born children of anyone who didn't put lambs blood on their door...

Here is where we come to the issue of Original Sin. Because of the Fall of Adam, all mankind is naturally evil, and so those babies were not at all innocent because they suffered from Original Sin.

[Taalcon]

I believe in a statement by God in a work I hold as scripture. The Lord says, " This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39) As Christ taught, the greatest of all is the servant of all, and works to our good. Connected with this, I believe God unselfishly placed us here to give us opportunities to grow and to progress to become like Him. The purpose of this life on earth is threefold:
1. To have Joy
2. To gain experience
3. Prepare to return to the presence of God, and fulfill our inherent divine nature/potential.

Because of the Fall of Adam, all mankind is naturally evil, and so those babies were not at all innocent because they suffered from Original Sin.

This is what I believe:
"... that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Or, as Ezekiel wrote, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:21)

I'm about to have a baby in two weeks. I promise you that no one would ever be able to convince me that this child is not innocent, and is in any way naturally offensive to God, or is going to be blamed for, or 'stained with' the act of some ancestor thousands or millions of years in the past.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Or, as Ezekiel wrote, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:21)

I'm about to have a baby in two weeks. I promise you that no one would ever be able to convince me that this child is not innocent, and is in any way naturally offensive to God, or is going to be blamed for, or 'stained with' the act of some ancestor thousands or millions of years in the past.

Well, uh... no offense to your baby (congratulations!!), but that verse simply means I will not be punished for my Dad's sin. But because of the Fall, all mankind is naturally evil, and so the one sin that really matters is the carnal sin; the sin of nature.

... and nobody can become anywhere close to being as Holy as God. not even close.

[Taalcon]

Well, uh... no offense to your baby (congratulations!!), but that verse simply means I will not be punished for my Dad's sin.

But Great Great Great Great , etc Grandpa Adam's sin sticks?

But because of the Fall, all mankind is naturally evil, and so the one sin that really matters is the carnal sin; the sin of nature.

When my daughter knowingly chooses to do something she knows is wrong, then, and only then, will she be guilty of sin. Is it inevitable? Sure it is, because of the conditions of mortality. The day she's born, however, without knowledge and understanding, she will be pure, and completely innocent.

... and nobody can become anywhere close to being as Holy as God. not even close.

On our own? Of course not. Through the cleansing and perfecting power of the Atonement of Christ? That's the point!

It is my conviction that only through accepting the Atonement on Christ's terms can we fulfill the commandment He gave, to " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48 ). It will provide for us to say, along with John, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2).

It is my belief that this is what God wants. It's his purpose for placing us here. That we may gain experience, and then return to Him, cleansed and purified through Christ, as we become like Him - Like our Father. The only thing that can keep us from fulfilling this plan is our rebelling against it.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Well, uh... no offense to your baby (congratulations!!), but that verse simply means I will not be punished for my Dad's sin.

But Great Great Great Great , etc Grandpa Adam's sin sticks?

But because of the Fall, all mankind is naturally evil, and so the one sin that really matters is the carnal sin; the sin of nature.

When my daughter knowingly chooses to do something she knows is wrong, then, and only then, will she be guilty of sin. Is it inevitable? Sure it is, because of the conditions of mortality. The day she's born, however, without knowledge and understanding, she will be pure, and completely innocent.

... and nobody can become anywhere close to being as Holy as God. not even close.

On our own? Of course not. Through the cleansing and perfecting power of the Atonement of Christ? That's the point!

It is my conviction that only through accepting the Atonement on Christ's terms can we fulfill the commandment He gave, to " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48 ). It will provide for us to say, along with John, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2).

It is my belief that this is what God wants. It's his purpose for placing us here. That we may gain experience, and then return to Him, cleansed and purified through Christ, as we become like Him - Like our Father. The only thing that can keep us from fulfilling this plan is our rebelling against it.

Yes, Adam's sin sticks because he represented the entire human race. He was the entire human race.

You agree that sin is inevitable for man, but not that man is naturally sinful? how does THAT work?

Also, that verse you quoted: read the part DIRECTLY AFTER the italics. it properly explains the part in italics.

I still don't understand how you (any of you) think that any rebellion is in any way possible against a God who is soverign over all things. It is perfectly contradictory. (true to the principles of doublethink). IF God is omnipotent and soverign over all things, how can we do anything outside of His will?

[jotabe]

I still don't understand how you (any of you) think that any rebellion is in any way possible against a God who is soverign over all things. It is perfectly contradictory. (true to the principles of doublethink). IF God is omnipotent and soverign over all things, how can we do anything outside of His will?

You mean, sovereign even over the devil when his supposed rebellion happened? Or when the original sin happened?
So, is everything in the creation just a theatre play he wrote, and that is being played by us for His amusement?
Seriously, your conception of God surprises me every day.

[Taalcon]

I still don't understand how you (any of you) think that any rebellion is in any way possible against a God who is soverign over all things. It is perfectly contradictory. (true to the principles of doublethink). IF God is omnipotent and soverign over all things, how can we do anything outside of His will?

Because I believe God loves us, and evidence of this is that He allows us to make our own decisions, and reap the consequences - or benefits - therefrom.

I believe that Citizenship in His Kingdom is completely voluntary. If you don't want to live with Him, according to His Standards which He has set, he's not going to force you to. It saddens him when his children choose to remain disinherited, but he keeps the door open for all who desire to come back through re-adoption (through acceptance of the Atonement of Christ, the Firstborn and Heir) - to become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ". (Romans 8:17).

[Satya]

That's why it makes perfect sense to me, Taalcon.. Those who choose separation from God in life get exactly that in the afterlife.

[Rei]

I still don't understand how you (any of you) think that any rebellion is in any way possible against a God who is soverign over all things. It is perfectly contradictory. (true to the principles of doublethink). IF God is omnipotent and soverign over all things, how can we do anything outside of His will?

To go with what Taal has said, I believe that God wills that we choose freely to love him or to not love him. Love freely given is infinitely more valuable than love forced.

As for the possibility of rebellion against God, surely you must at least acknowledge the rebellion of Lucifer and a third of the angels, no? We may believe that it is a rebellion doomed to ultimate failure, but it still is a rebellion all the same.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

All things which have happened have been decreed beforehand, before the foundation of the Earth.

Does ANYBODY agree that God is soverign over all things? Please? anybody?

[Sonikku13]

"Better to reign in hell then serve in heaven."

[jotabe]

All things which have happened have been decreed beforehand, before the foundation of the Earth.

Does ANYBODY agree that God is soverign over all things? Please? anybody?

To be sovereign doesn't mean you can't delegate. God doesn't need to control and micromanage every single elementary particle, when he can as well create a self-sustaining system. He is sovereign, but he can delegate, if he choses so. Or are you denying God the ability to be sovereign over himself?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

God is soverign over all things. He has decreed what will happen, so it will. to deny this is to deny God's omnipotence

[jotabe]

Well, of course, i have serious concerns about God's omnipotence. It's a hard pill to swallow. But even then, you are outright denying his omnipotence: you are saying he can't keep himself from deciding the course of all the events. Not only that, you are subjecting God to your own will, saying that he has to do it.

[Taalcon]

God is soverign over all things. He has decreed what will happen, so it will. to deny this is to deny God's omnipotence

No, to deny it is just denying a Calvinistic theological understanding of the nature of God. And that I certainly reject. One can have great power and refrain from using it for righteous and beneficial purposes. I believe he has the power to make us all mindless slaves, but chooses not to, because he loves us, and wants us to have the kind of freedom and joy He experiences.

And yet, I still believe the Bible, and know it quite well. You seem to think that believing so isn't possible.

I believe that we are God's beloved children, who are given freedom to choose to love and serve God, or not. I do not believe that we are pawns in a chess game in which God is the player of both sides. That is a position I deny and reject.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I do not claim that we are puppets; far from it. I simply claim that the only will that man has is evil. all good comes from God.

Well, of course, i have serious concerns about God's omnipotence. It's a hard pill to swallow. But even then, you are outright denying his omnipotence: you are saying he can't keep himself from deciding the course of all the events. Not only that, you are subjecting God to your own will, saying that he has to do it.

It's not that he "can't keep Himself," it's that he DOES. I am not subjecting God to my own will; he doesn't HAVE to do it. He simply does. Jotabe, please stop twisting my words to use them against me and come up with some supported evidence. It makes debates so much more... pleasant. civilized.

[Rei]

God is soverign over all things. He has decreed what will happen, so it will. to deny this is to deny God's omnipotence

I spent a lot of time with Calvinists when I was growing up; I have heard many arguments for it. And I reject a large portion of what makes Calvinism or the modern form of it distinct from other Christian groups.

No, I do not deny the sovereignty of God. Not in the least. We even celebrate an important feast in the liturgical year called Christ the King, acknowledging and emphasising the kingship of Christ. God is assuredly our omnipotent High King.

Being omnipotent and exercising that omnipotence in all matters are two different things, however. I do not believe in a God who is a puppeteer. Such a God would be required to cause not only all of the good in the world, but also to cause all of the evil. Such a God would have caused Lucifer to rebel, Adam to fall, and every sin ever committed by anyone. God would have directed and orchestrated sin against himself through his creation. God would be a kingdom divided against himself and would be malicious and evil.

And that is why I cannot believe in a God who exercises his omnipotence at all times. I assure you that I believe God is High King and sovereign, and I believe that God exercises his power with justice and mercy and strength. But I do not believe that he controls all actions like a puppeteer.

[jotabe]

Evidence as in what? The bible? Sorry, but you should reserve the word "evidence" for something more substantial.

A good evidence, for example, would be archaeologically verifiable past prophecies, or even prophecies about the present; that would help me to believe in destiny. Help, but not prove, because the fact that certain historical events had been staged wouldn't prove at all that all historical eventes have been being staged.

All good comes from God... you know, that's something i believe as well, actually. I am surprised you think so too. Because then we can't deny that many non-believers are going to be saved and are in state of Grace, because many "infidels" are actually extremely good people, who bless others with their presence and their help, and generally improve their neighbours' lives. Since good only comes from god, and these people do good, it means that god inhabits in them, despite their beliefs.

[Azarel]

Evidence as in what? The bible? Sorry, but you should reserve the word "evidence" for something more substantial.

A good evidence, for example, would be archaeologically verifiable past prophecies, or even prophecies about the present; that would help me to believe in destiny. Help, but not prove, because the fact that certain historical events had been staged wouldn't prove at all that all historical eventes have been being staged.

What do people think of this?
http://news.aol.ca/article/first-house- ... th/758922/

[jotabe]

What do people think of this?
http://news.aol.ca/article/first-house- ... th/758922/

So Nazareth was populated in Jesus time. What does that prove?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

It proves that the Bible, contrary to your thought, actually has some historical supportive evidence, while you seem to think that quoting the Bible has "no merit at all". well now it does.

[jotabe]

Accounts of old times can often be fantastic. They are more reliable the more they match with each other and with the archaeological evidence: this is how we can say some tellers of the ancient history are reliable, like Strabo, and some are not, like Homer.

The historicity of the New Testament is the easier to accept: large parts of it fit well with what is said by several other contemporary historians. This still doesn't prove any of the supernatural claims about Jesus, same as historical accounts of the Chinese and Japanese empires do not prove their emperors were living gods.

Also, the fact that the New Testament has a much better historicity does no good for the historicity of the Old Testament. Actually, large parts of the old testament conflict with the actual history.

In any case, you misunderstood why using the bible has no merit: it has no merit when trying to prove something the bible says: circular fallacy.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Please reference where the OT conflicts with actual history (NOT genesis, that's a different thread)

[jotabe]

Well, but Genesis has many other hot spots than creation: super-humans (giants), long-lived humans, flood... all of them being false.
The exodus is also an account of anti-historical events: Egypt doesn't seem to lose half of their population (without even accounting the death of the firstborns) at any point of their history, and that's how much it would add up to be 600,000 adult men + wives and children. There are no accouts of such events in Egyptian chronicles (which were thorough), nor in any of the neighbour nations/empires, and the book of Exodus itself sadly doesn't even bother to give a name to the Pharaoh.

There are no archaeological rests of the camps during the exodus itself. There is no archaeological evidence of large influx of outsiders settling in Palestine.
There was no Jericoh by then, either, as it was abandoned or mostly uninhabitted by then (which is lucky, as God had commanded to kill "anything that breathes" ).

The kingdom has more archaeological support. Nevertheless, the capital city as it was in the (attributed) times of David and Solomon talks about a small kingdom, with little need for large administrations, and certainly not a regional center of power with vassal states. This position is further supported by the chronicles of neighbouring nations, which only give Israel passing references, and with the scriptures, that don't bother to give names of the rulers of the vassal states nor the neighbour empires.

The closer in time the OT is to the Babylonian exile of the jewish higher social strata, the more accurate it becomes.

NT is a lot more accurate, specially when dealing with the times of Jesus ministry. The main issues here are mostly contradictory datings and exageration in numbers, which litter past historiography.

[Taalcon]

There are no archaeological rests of the camps during the exodus itself. There is no archaeological evidence of large influx of outsiders settling in Palestine.
There was no Jericoh by then, either, as it was abandoned or mostly uninhabitted by then (which is lucky, as God had commanded to kill "anything that breathes" ).

The kingdom has more archaeological support. Nevertheless, the capital city as it was in the (attributed) times of David and Solomon talks about a small kingdom, with little need for large administrations, and certainly not a regional center of power with vassal states. This position is further supported by the chronicles of neighbouring nations, which only give Israel passing references, and with the scriptures, that don't bother to give names of the rulers of the vassal states nor the neighbour empires.

The closer in time the OT is to the Babylonian exile of the jewish higher social strata, the more accurate it becomes.

Jotabe's right, actually.

In the Genesis - 2 Kings narrative, it's around 2 Samuel where we start to get material that can be historically verified, and where less conflicting versions of stories and folk legends seem to dominate the text. The later the text goes (and closer to time of actual composition/compilation) the more accurate and more verifiable it gets.

This book does a fantastic job in using the historical (archaeological, contemporary epigraphical, inner-textual) evidences to construct a history of Ancient Israel and Judah, and discusses how and where it contrasts with the Biblical narrative. Textual problems and curiosities are noted in detail, as well as being very open about when there's not enough information to form a conclusion on certain matters. Many contemporary ancient texts are cited and presented when Israel or the kingdom of Judah are referenced, or which contain parallel events as covered in the biblical texts. Exhaustively researched and referenced with footnotes.

If you have a serious desire to understand the historians view of the OT world, this book would be an important place to start.