User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 72

  1. #31
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Countermand that order! I command you to be yourself!

    Your Commandant has spoken - Be Yourself.

    I don' want you to be like anybody, I jus' wan' you to be yourself.

    In that way, I can be myself too.

    You know, the nicest person is the world is someone I can be myself with.

    Why not you?

    Victor.
    "Yes, sir!"

    You know I think one of the questions God will ask us in the end is, "Why weren't you more like the person I created you to be?" Being like Jesus frees us to be the true us. What does it free us from? The tyranny of "me."
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  2. #32
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I actually have similar ideas to yours, Journey, but my automatic response to your posts are very broad general questions like:

    1. What Jesus ARE you talking about? One that can be articulated in an "objective" way or one that can only be known subjectively? (The whole description didn't put any flesh on how we would recognize the "true jesus.")

    2. Who ARE "we"? Who is the "me" God created me to be? Yes, the ideal is to become the person God intended... but I don't think that is generally argued against. People instead argue because (for example) the "me" I think God made me to be is different than the "me" that OTHERS think God made me to be.

    Is any of that definable in a clear way? Can we come to any agreement on what these things look like, or is there no answer that different people can arrive at from different directions?

    The ideas might be good ones in an abstracted sense but they offer no help in reaching concrete answers that would end the friction.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #33
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTooPopular View Post
    I don't think Jesus talked about "hell" that much. Gehenna, a word Jesus used to reflect what you might call hell, is only used about 12 times in the New Testament (I think 7 in mathew, 3 in Mark, 1 in Luke, and 1 in James). John uses "lake of fire" about 3 times in Revelation. If you add that up, that's only about 15 direct references to "hell" in the whole New Testament, less times than there are books/writings that make up the New Testament.

    I guess at other times Jesus could've mentioned condemnation or punishment without directly referring to "hell", but I'm not aware of him ever focusing on that to convert people. I'm not aware of any place where it describes Jesus going around telling people nothing but that they're so bad and sinful and that they're going to "hell" in order to save them. He got like that with the Pharisees (Jewish religious nutcases) who rejected Him, but that was after they already saw Him perform miracles and had already heard many things He had to say.

    It would be interesting to evaluate the Gospels and Acts and take note of the circumstances of all conversions that took place. I'm not enough of a J type to stay dedicated and focused on something like that to actually get it done, though.
    The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell. What about Hell? -- John MacArthur speaks to your topic much better than I can. Also you can just google "Jesus spoke on hell more than other topics" and pull up a world of information. I'm trying not to sermonize here as Kiddo asked us in the beginning.
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell. What about Hell? -- John MacArthur speaks to your topic much better than I can. Also you can just google "Jesus spoke on hell more than other topics" and pull up a world of information. I'm trying not to sermonize here as Kiddo asked us in the beginning.
    Have you stretched outside the conservative Christian element to examine other approaches to the Bible and these topics?

    I started where you did, but it's only one facet of the dialog.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I actually have similar ideas to yours, Journey, but my automatic response to your posts are very broad general questions like:

    1. What Jesus ARE you talking about? One that can be articulated in an "objective" way or one that can only be known subjectively? (The whole description didn't put any flesh on how we would recognize the "true jesus.")

    2. Who ARE "we"? Who is the "me" God created me to be? Yes, the ideal is to become the person God intended... but I don't think that is generally argued against. People instead argue because (for example) the "me" I think God made me to be is different than the "me" that OTHERS think God made me to be.

    Is any of that definable in a clear way? Can we come to any agreement on what these things look like, or is there no answer that different people can arrive at from different directions?

    The ideas might be good ones in an abstracted sense but they offer no help in reaching concrete answers that would end the friction.
    Jennifer, I don't believe one is in a position to know a person unless one is in a relationship with that person. In the same way, unless you are in a personal relationship with Jesus you can't really KNOW Jesus. You can know about Jesus, which gets you to all the culturally diverse Jesuses out there. All the people who are in a personal relationship with Jesus and know Him can relate to each other without friction (or as much as possible with human beings).

    As for being yourself, you can to your own self only be true and let friction be where it may be. The truth will out.

    I don't think this argument was ever about ending the friction anyway. That will never happen as long as there are believers and non-believers. The gospel is an offense to those who are perishing.
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  6. #36
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I suppose the only issue I have is when there is more than one interpretation of what a certain sin in the Bible actually is.

    For example: homosexuality

    All three stories of the Bible that have to deal with "homosexuality" deal with rapists and/or molesters. Also the word used for homosexual in the Old Testament is vaguely translated, and could just as easily refer to pedestry (which is much more relevant to the times as well) or in some cases, even male prostitutes. (Not to mention to my recollection, Jesus never even spoke of homosexuality)

    So when I hear people condemning homosexuality, I can't help but wonder if God meant sins such as rape, child molestation, and prostitution rather than consensual same sex relationships. My reason argues, that where there is love, there God, so I think such relationships are actually doing God's work.
    God's position on homosexuality is very clear not to mention Romans 1 or 1 Corithians 6, He states the matter clearly in:

    Lev 18:22

    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    KJV
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  7. #37
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    God's position on homosexuality is very clear not to mention Romans 1 or 1 Corithians 6, He states the matter clearly in:

    Lev 18:22

    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    KJV
    I think you might being taking the translation way too literally. For example, there is this interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

    This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

    The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:

    The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."

    (An added note here, the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" weren't created or used until the end of the 19th century (by psychologists no less), so the fact that those words are used in some parts and/or version of the Bible illustrates how modern words that could have entirely different meanings to their ancient counterparts have been interjected into the Bible.)

    On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

    The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

    1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
    2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

    The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.
    It definitely doesn't fall under the category of "very clear". Someone took the liberty of assuming what it means.

    And the Holy Spirit tells me that God loves to see loving, committed same sex couples. Oh, and I care more about what Jesus says than what an old Jewish code said.

    But let us not get off topic. If you would like to make a "Religious arguments against homosexuality" thread then I would love to contribute my thoughts and interpretations, but this thread is meant to discuss personal views on what man's role in condemning sin is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Oso Mocoso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell.
    Maybe in the translation that you're reading, but in the original language, hell does not appear.

    Specific example:

    NIV Mark 9:43-48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

    Literal Translation of Greek N.T. Mark 9:43-48 "And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable"

    Gehenna was a specific place that the original audience would have been familiar with. It was a valley outside Jerusalem where people burned garbage.

    Interestingly, less explicit references to Gehenna that appear in the original Bible documents have made it into English without alteration. So, sometimes in English they translate it as "hell", and sometimes it's called the "Valley of Hinnom", "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" or something like that.

    Whether he's making reference to a disgusting valley full of burning trash or Hell doesn't change the ethical nature of what the passage is trying to teach. It's only when people try to derive theological answers from an inexact translation that it causes misunderstandings.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oso Mocoso View Post
    Maybe in the translation that you're reading, but in the original language, hell does not appear.

    Specific example:

    NIV Mark 9:43-48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

    Literal Translation of Greek N.T. Mark 9:43-48 "And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable"

    Gehenna was a specific place that the original audience would have been familiar with. It was a valley outside Jerusalem where people burned garbage.

    Interestingly, less explicit references to Gehenna that appear in the original Bible documents have made it into English without alteration. So, sometimes in English they translate it as "hell", and sometimes it's called the "Valley of Hinnom", "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" or something like that.

    Whether he's making reference to a disgusting valley full of burning trash or Hell doesn't change the ethical nature of what the passage is trying to teach. It's only when people try to derive theological answers from an inexact translation that it causes misunderstandings.
    We will just have to disagree. The fire unquenchable means hell and Jesus is warning us it is better to enter life maimed than to go to hell whole. I see no inexact translation causing misunderstanding. And I am familar with the translation from the Greek.
    Last edited by Journey; 05-16-2008 at 06:25 PM. Reason: further explanation
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  10. #40
    Senior Member Hexis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    I tryed to determin my oponion on this but I just cant seem to. The only oponion I ever come to when dealing with this kind of stuff is that religion is completely useless and a plague among man and that we would all be better off with out it. I despise religion in and of its self, now I dont care if you want to beleive in that stuff and all and im not going to think any less of you if you do. But it seems like such a waste of time, there are better things we could be doing with our lives then argueing of philisophical oponions when we know none of us are evering going to come to a factual conclusion. It logicaly doesnt make sense, religion is useless.
    SDMF

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. The Great Smoky Mountains (extremely image-intensive thread)
    By spirilis in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 10:49 AM
  3. The Great Blog Transplant - Sign up now!
    By cafe in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 10:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO