You assume that because I use the Watchtower publications as a source, that I must stick to some "official" line. I prefer to have my posts judged on reasonableness or lack thereof. I would be loath to interject my own opinions into their well documented research.
My own opinion, therefore, is that Jesus is divine, but subject to God and the holy spirit is God's active force and has no personality.
Derevon wrote:Don't worry agrote, I certainly wasn't referring to you. I have no problem with your posts.
Excellent! So you don't mind me going on about how much I HATE your STUPID religion. Woooooooo!
agrote wrote:Derevon wrote:Don't worry agrote, I certainly wasn't referring to you. I have no problem with your posts.
Excellent! So you don't mind me going on about how much I HATE your STUPID religion. Woooooooo!
That was a pretty childish post to be honest. How old are you? Whether you hate religion is not really the point. The thing I have a problem with is all the mindless posts by people who spew their venom here without even motivating their opinions, and posts which are not in the least bit serious, but just pure mockery.
agrote wrote:Derevon wrote:Don't worry agrote, I certainly wasn't referring to you. I have no problem with your posts.
Excellent! So you don't mind me going on about how much I HATE your STUPID religion. Woooooooo!
That was a pretty childish post to be honest. How old are you? Whether you hate religion is not really the point. The thing I have a problem with is all the mindless posts by people who spew their venom here without even motivating their opinions, and posts which are not in the least bit serious, but just pure mockery.
SCoates wrote:Are you saying that Christ taught polytheism? If this is your contention, where did He teach it and what did He say to lead you to that conclusion?real life wrote:Christianity is and always will be monotheistic. This is because Christianity IS the teachings of Christ, who taught there is one God.
Christ's teachings are well known to the world. Any teaching that in polytheistic is not Christian ( because it is not according to the teachings Christ gave), even if it attempts to masquerade as Christianity.
You make the mistake of assuming you are informed.
If you were qualified to be the sole interpreter fo Christ's teachings then the facts would be different.
However, at present it is not yours to tell who does and does not believe in Christ or his teachings.
A pity you weren't apprised sooner.
If you are not saying that Christ taught polytheism, then what is the point you are attempting to make?
But I liek to think that I don't just "spew my venom" - that I make rational arguments. Like this one I'm making right now. Woo, look at me go. I'm 18, incidentally.
agrote wrote:But I liek to think that I don't just "spew my venom" - that I make rational arguments. Like this one I'm making right now. Woo, look at me go. I'm 18, incidentally.
Part of the usefulness of this forum is the training it provides in developing our logical arguments. Derevon and I may have our hands around each other's intellectual throats but we teach each other as we go along. That's why we have appreciated many of your posts when they have been on point. So, what's your point? Why do you hate religion? Is it their meddling in politics or is it your desire for a moral license? Or some other reason? Please articulate. We will listen.
Firstly, religion gives people false hope. Billions of people have beliefs that give them a feeling of purpose, that make them feel like they matter and that life does have meaning - but that just aren't true. Whether or not there is/was a God who created the universe, I can't see any reason whatsoever to believe that it loves us. But many many people believe that 'he' does love them, and this gets them high - so religious people stagger around doped up on Godlove their whole lives and don't really achieve much.
Secondly, it is vain to believe that God loves you. It is simply vain to believe that we are somehow 'special,' when there are millions of different species of life on earth, and when the universe is so increadibly huge. Religious people forget that they are just earthlings, and they are just animals. Obviously we are more intelligent than other animals - we have consciousness, and that does make us unique, as far as we know. But consciousness is not a gift from God, it's just a property of brains that are higher up the evolutionary ladder. You are not special, you are just a brain. God is your imaginary friend, and claiming that he loves you is like kissing your own reflection - it's vanity.
Thirdly, belief in God is supersticious. I'm not a fan of superstition - it tends to involve believing in magical forces that do not involve the interaction of particles of matter (which is all that constitutes the universe), but involve spirits and such. There are no spirits. (I am of course just asserting what I believe - I expect people to disagree strongly with this, but I'll deal with that when it coems. I'm just explaining why I hate religion - and it's partly because of these beliefs that I have). We don't need spirituality to explain any phenomena. For example, we do not need souls when we have brains - brains can think, dream, imagine, love, etc., so if we have souls, what the hell do they do? What would we need them for? Superstitious thinking is useful when we want to fill in the gaps in our knowledge as quickly as possible - but it is just guesswork. Thousands of years ago people would have guessed that schizophrenics were peopel possessed by demons. But now that we know that schizophrenia is a biological illness, we should reject that demon hypothesis in favour of what science has discovered. Now that we know about evolution, we should reject creationism, and now that we know more about the brain we can begin to reject the idea of a 'soul.' But religion isn't always that flexible, and it does slow our progress in the search for knowledge.
I'll leave it there for now. It's difficult to come up with reasons to hate religion without someone provoking that hatred - so if anyone wants to object strongly to what I've said so far, please do.
--------------------------
If the Holy Spirit is, as you indicate, an impersonal force; then do you simply dismiss all the many scriptures as metaphorical throughout Old and New Testament where the Spirit of God is described as teaching, speaking, being grieved, being angry, etc ( and there are many other examples) . All of these are attributes of a person or personality, not an impersonal force, such as electricity, for instance.
Then there are the scriptures clearly identifying the Holy Spirit as God such as the one I cited which details the sin of Ananias.
---------------------------
---And what of the scriptures clearly identifying Christ as the First and Last, (also the Beginning and End, Alpha and Omega ) a designation clearly referring to God alone in the scriptures?
These references from the Book of the Revelation (Unveiling) of Jesus Christ clearly DO pull back the veil to reveal Christ as God Almighty. For to this present day the same veil remains unlifted at the reading of the old covenant.
---Other scriptures such as Titus 2:13 "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave himself for us " also clearly refer to Christ as God and Savior.
For a study of this in the full context of this epistle, compare 1:3-4, 2:10-13, and 3:4-6. If the apostle does not mean to indicate to us that Christ is both God and Savior, then he has done everything imaginable to fail to make a distinction, doesn't it seem?
The plain and unvarnished reading of these scriptures would certainly lead the reader to the obvious conclusion that the apostle is referring to Christ as both God and Savior, wouldn't it? No doubt you will want to consult Joe S.
Now we are getting to an area where translators disagree. If Jesus truly deserved the designation Alpha and Omega, it would correspond with the remainder of the bible.
Tell men like George Washington, most of the Framers of the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr (all strong believers in God) and many others that they accomplished nothing in life. They probably wouldn't agree and neither do most who know of their accomplishments.
Firstly, religion gives people false hope. Billions of people have beliefs that give them a feeling of purpose, that make them feel like they matter and that life does have meaning - but that just aren't true. Whether or not there is/was a God who created the universe, I can't see any reason whatsoever to believe that it loves us. But many many people believe that 'he' does love them, and this gets them high - so religious people stagger around doped up on Godlove their whole lives and don't really achieve much.
real life wrote:Tell men like George Washington, most of the Framers of the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr (all strong believers in God) and many others that they accomplished nothing in life. They probably wouldn't agree and neither do most who know of their accomplishments.
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile
ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians,
did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized
religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776,
only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth
Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]
SN95 wrote:Why don't you try to quote from some of the writings of Washington, Franklin and Jefferson to prove that they did not believe in God, instead of an uninformed source such as you have used?real life wrote:Tell men like George Washington, most of the Framers of the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr (all strong believers in God) and many others that they accomplished nothing in life. They probably wouldn't agree and neither do most who know of their accomplishments.
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile
ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians,
did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized
religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776,
only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth
Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]
Go to the subjects themselves and hear what they have to say, then come back and tell me they did not believe in God.
And while you are at it, read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist papers and then tell me they didn't believe in God.
Read their letters to their wives and children and to their associates and then tell me they were not believers in God.
Did they have differing views on God. Most certainly. Just as most who believe in God today all have a slightly different understanding one from another. Why? Because God is a vast, Infinite Being and those of us with finite understanding do not understand all there is. Far from it.
But any serious historical study will bring you evidence that the Framers of the Constitution almost all were strong believers in God. Were there any exceptions? Possibly a few. But nearly all were believers.
Please understand that it is not my contention that the founding fathers were atheists or void of religion.
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.
Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.
George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....
George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.
George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.
George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
Franklin's request for a clergyman to lead the Congress in prayer and Jefferson's expression of his respect for the Danbury clergymen as well as their plain unvarnished statements about the existence and reality of their belief in God and His active part in the world hardly seem to coincide with the popular sentiment nowadays that these men were hostile toward religion and churches in general or even of Deism, does it?
SN95 wrote:Perhaps my point was not clarified. My post was in response to the previous post, which contended that believers in God wander aimlessly through life accomplishing little.Please understand that it is not my contention that the founding fathers were atheists or void of religion.
Since my sole point was that those men,the Framers of our country who accomplished much, WERE for the most part believers in God (regardless of their attitude toward a particular form of clergy, or denominations, or organized bodies of churches, etc ), are we then in agreement that they were?
