interactive processing wrote:
i just watched an interesting documentary on archaeology and the exodus on Netflix, it is called "patterns of evidence exodus". It should have appeal to anyone following this thread, regardless of any religious or non-religious views..
it covers the archaeologists inability to find any evidence of exodus taking place in the time.era it is reported to have happened and the surprisingly large amount of evidence that matches biblical accounts that can be found in a much earlier time...
I will look for that, thank you!
I have read some short works in those "Best Science Writing of 2005" type compendiums in which the lack of archeological evidence is discussed. You'd think the Egyptians would have something to say about Exodus but in their records, the Jews are just a tiny footnote.
interactive processing wrote:
i just watched an interesting documentary on archaeology and the exodus on Netflix, it is called "patterns of evidence exodus". It should have appeal to anyone following this thread, regardless of any religious or non-religious views..
it covers the archaeologists inability to find any evidence of exodus taking place in the time.era it is reported to have happened and the surprisingly large amount of evidence that matches biblical accounts that can be found in a much earlier time...
I watched it last night. Really good.
I liked the idea that maybe the ancient Egyptian timeline has been misunderstood as well.
It seems clear that there was some event in the history of the Jewish people that involved going to Egypt, prospering for a time, later falling on hard times, experiencing a religious revival, and then making their way back to Israel where they once again found prosperity. Every culture in the history of the world probably has a similar story that goes like this:
We went to this new place because we thought it would be better than the old place. Once we got to the new place it was pretty good, but then it turned bad, and it was soon worse than even the old place was, so we decided to just go back to the old place. When we tried to get back to the old place, it proved harder than we thought it would be, but when we finally arrived it made us appreciate it more. Upon our successful return to the old place, we began to believe that our journey had been part of a larger plan that was beyond our comprehension.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
interactive processing wrote:
i just watched an interesting documentary on archaeology and the exodus on Netflix, it is called "patterns of evidence exodus".
I will look for that, thank you!
I have read some short works in those "Best Science Writing of 2005" type compendiums in which the lack of archeological evidence is discussed. You'd think the Egyptians would have something to say about Exodus but in their records, the Jews are just a tiny footnote.
Hey, it has Israel Finkelstein in it (Psst, what a name. Think he might be Jewish?). He's the author of one of the essays I read in the book mentioned above!
An excerpt: Lutherans have a very particular way of understanding the Jesus story. It’s not a movement from unbridled freedom to submission. Rather, it’s the story of God redeeming us from sin, death and the devil, setting us free from our bondage to sin so that, liberated and alive, we may serve God by serving the neighbor. And it’s not about our effort or goodness or hard work. It’s about God’s gracious will to be merciful.
... M
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
I started watching Desert's link but then realized there were no moving pictures and that it would be better suited for a car-ride.
I however then started looking for Tim Keller's stuff and found this which I thought provided a good discussion on the existence of God. There are some excellent questions at the end that I believe can provide for good discussion amongst ourselves. Also noting that the video was about the existence of God, and only a minor portion about Christianity. He does note that to address some of their questions, he'd want to come back again to talk specifically about why Christianity is correct versus why there is a higher probability to believe there is a God versus not.
In my interpretation, the point of Christianity is not to get us into heaven or out of hell. To ask what is necessary to get into heaven and make that a minimum for what Christians must do or believe misses the point. Similarly, to ask what will definitely condemn you the hell and must be avoided at all costs misses the point. The point of Christianity, the Gospel, Jesus' ministry and all the rest is to get us back to God. If you are with God, you will be in heaven and not in hell. If one cuts oneself off from God, no matter how good you are otherwise you have cut yourself off from the source of all life, love and hope. To add hell to the mix is redundant.
Jesus uses the metaphor of the great judgment, but that does not mean that the definitive image of God is that of judge, rendering verdict and sentencing sinners. Another even more profound image of God is as a Father, planning how to be reconciled with His children, avoiding having their great disobedience and destructive behavior barring, but also raising His children to be good people and to live good lives. The commandments are not arbitrary hoops that we must jump through to appease and demanding God, but rather guideposts to show us what good living looks like. God's law is there not just to accuse us and show us our need for a savior but is part of the Father's coaching us in what living a good life is like. No, we do not earn the Father's love by doing good, although He delights when we do something well, or at least better than we used to. To even imagine that the Father's love could be earned by anything we could possibly do would be to insult the depth and breadth of God's love for us.
Similarly to think that we could forfeit God's love by our imperfection again does not reckon with the depth and breadth of God's love. But we can reject that love by rejecting God. Heaven is not an amusement park attraction that needs a ticket to expensive for us to obtain on our own but the owner is willing to give some tickets away. Those who luckily receive the tickets then enter and ride the rides and enjoy the amusements without ever encountering the owner or interacting with him. If we reject God, we have closed the door in His face and cut ourselves off. It was not His doing although in the end, He will respect the choice of those who choose to reject Him and persevere in that choice to the end. Pastor Dan
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
If one cuts oneself off from God, no matter how good you are otherwise you have cut yourself off from the source of all life, love and hope. To add hell to the mix is redundant.
Well, I said I was never going to post to this thread again but I lied so I will have my place in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.
The extent to which Christians go to rationalize their belief in eternal torment at the hands of the loving God they conjure up in their minds never ceases to amaze me.
Fred wrote:
The extent to which Christians go to rationalize their belief in eternal torment at the hands of the loving God they conjure up in their minds never ceases to amaze me.
Fred, It's really not that bad. Just consult this chart on the 9 circles of hell.
Take someone like me. An altaholic gold buyer. I'm somewhere between level 3 and 4. Now how bad can that be? Harry didn't drink much but he was a notorious light weight. A couple of glasses of wine would have him spinning. As for gold, don't get me started...
I think me and Harry are going to be hooked up big time in the afterlife.
Mark Leavy wrote:
So, here's the question that everyone has been afraid to ask. Don't worry, I'm here for you.
Ready...
Is Harry Browne burning in eternal torment right now?
If so, why the hell would you follow his investment advice? Damn it.
I was first impressed with Harry Browne when I read his antiwar writings and this was long before I learned about his investment advice.
But sorry to say, I don't recall him ever expressing a belief in Jesus Christ as his personal savior so he must be suffering the torments of hell as we speak. Too bad. He really did seem like a fairly decent human being to me.
Last edited by Fred on Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Desert wrote:
How do you own gold with all your traveling about? Please don't tell me it's all electronic, because if it is, you're definitely going to hell.
I rent wine vaults in various cities. 24 hour access. High security. Climate controlled. I have digital copies of the keys stored in the cloud.
Desert wrote:
Oh, and on the topic of Harry Browne and hell, I'm thinking that a perfect hell for Harry would be hanging out with Ayn Rand for eternity....
All joking aside, isn't hell what this thread is all about? Maybe it should be renamed "Are you going to hell"?
Is there really a more serious subject for human beings to think about except for those who, like me, who have come to the conclusion through rational thinking that it is not worth spending that much time and energy on?
Oh, and on the topic of Harry Browne and hell, I'm thinking that a perfect hell for Harry would be hanging out with Ayn Rand for eternity....
Thank you!
Also, as a newly converted Mexican Catholic, i find the climate control keeps my wafers from getting too mushy. Nothing like soggy carpaccio to ruin a good 1998 blood of the Christ.
As for Harry and Ayn, I think they were both a little sexually deviant. They might get along well together. Harry spoke quite a bit of looking for someone that was sexually compatible with him, and Ayn was not shy at all about her interests...
Now that I think about it, I may have to avoid them when I go to Hell. I was hoping for a different sort of threesome...
Mark Leavy wrote:
Also, as a newly converted Mexican Catholic, i find the climate control keeps my wafers from getting too mushy. Nothing like soggy carpaccio to ruin a good 1998 blood of the Christ.
From what I know of Catholicism salvation is not as sure as it is with protestants and you need to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (like the Bible says, BTW, so maybe they are right).
But seriously, are you really a "converted Mexican Catholic" ?
Mark Leavy wrote:
Also, as a newly converted Mexican Catholic, i find the climate control keeps my wafers from getting too mushy. Nothing like soggy carpaccio to ruin a good 1998 blood of the Christ.
From what I know of Catholicism salvation is not as sure as it is with protestants and you need to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (like the Bible says, BTW, so maybe they are right).
But seriously, are you really a "converted Mexican Catholic" ?
Fred, you must have missed one of the great posts in this forum, it is way better than the nine circles of hell picture (too many words required to explain it, diluted the visual impact). I have believed hearing the word was essential. However, there was an alternate theory being presented that seeing the art might be a separate path ... the question is where that artful, though convoluted, path leads ... for Mark, it was Mexican Catholicism. The fat lady has sung and the temple prostitutes have gone home, sadly weeping at their loss.
Aside to Mark: I appreciated your picture trail more than you probably think. Creative. Colorful.
... M
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Spirit, Soul, Body - from "The Magnificat", Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, page 132
This is perhaps the best explanation I've seen on spirit, body, and soul for those who may have interest. It always is interesting to me how some of life's "big" questions were thought of and addressed thousands of years ago.
... Mountaineer
The Scriptures assign three parts to man, as St. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “The God of peace sanctify you wholly, that your whole spirit, and soul, and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (There is yet another division of each of these three, and the whole of man, into two parts, which are called spirit and flesh. This is a division not of the nature of man, but of his qualities. The nature of man consists of the three parts — spirit, soul and body; and all of these may be good or evil, that is, they may be spirit or flesh. But we are not now dealing with this division.)
The first part, the spirit, is the highest, deepest and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal. It is, in brief, the dwelling-place of faith and the Word of God. Of it David speaks in Psalm 51, “Lord, create in my inward parts a right spirit “ — that is, a straight and upright faith. But of the unbelieving he says, in Psalm 78:37, “Their heart was not right with God, nor was their spirit faithful to him.”
The second part, or the soul, is this same spirit, so far as its nature is concerned, but viewed as performing a different function, namely, giving life to the body and working through the body. In the Scriptures it is frequently put for the life; for the soul may live without the body, but the body has no life apart from the soul. Even in sleep the soul lives and works without ceasing. It is its nature to comprehend not incomprehensible things, but such things as the reason can know and understand. Indeed, reason is the light in this dwelling, and unless the spirit, which is lighted with the brighter light of faith, controls this light of reason, it cannot but be in error. For it is too feeble to deal with things divine. To these two parts of man the Scriptures ascribe many things, such as wisdom and knowledge — wisdom to the spirit, knowledge to the soul; likewise hatred and love, delight and horror, and the like.
The third part is the body with its members. Its work is but to carry out and apply that which the soul knows and the spirit believes.
Let us take an illustration of this from Holy Scripture. In the tabernacle fashioned by Moses there were three separate compartments. The first was called the holy of holies: here was God’s dwelling-place, and in it there was no light The second was called the holy place: here stood a candlestick with seven arms and seven lamps. The third was called the outer court: this lay under the open sky and in the full light of the sun. In this tabernacle we have a figure of the Christian man. His spirit is the holy of holies, where God dwells in the darkness of faith, where no light is; for he believes that which he neither sees nor feels nor comprehends. His soul is the holy place, with its seven lamps, that is, all manner of reason, discrimination, knowledge and understanding of visible and bodily things. His body is the forecourt, open to all, so that men may see his works and manner of life.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Here are some interesting articles that I stumbled upon regarding how God has decided to reveal himself to us, and a philosophical argument between someone who believes in God and someone who seems not to.
Greg wrote:
Also I really wish we had a Muslim, a buddhist, and a Hindu on this thread. Can the moderators find people like this and make them join in the fun?
I also found this that talks about circular arguments and a lot of flaws with Christianity. I'm still digging through it and seeing if there are Christian apologetics that are refuting any of these claims. Ultimately, I keep studying every day with multiple religions to make sure that I didn't just happen to find the correct religion (in my eyes), by chance of being born into it.
How about the correct religion being.... no religion at all?
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MachineGhost wrote:
How about the correct religion being.... no religion at all?
I'm surprised that an intelligent person, such as yourself, would not realize everyone has a religion. Everyone has something/someone they trust and put their faith in, whether it is science, self, experts, logic, or Saint Mattress on Sunday morning. Otherwise, you would not even know the world is a sphere (unless you have had the priviledge of space travel and could see for yourself). There is an enormous amount of material, from 1st grade textbooks to TV documentaries, that I have no proof they are somewhat correct unless I have faith in something. I do not think it is possible for a sane person to have no religion. YMMV but I would be interested in your definition of "no religion".
... M
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
