Question about the Christian God

[Inactive Account]

I was referring to what the nuns/catechists taught when I was younger, and what I'd read on the actual Catholic doctrine.

Since then I've done some more reading, specifically from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and some official documents on the matter from the Vatican. It turns out that as you said, Limbo (for good people who never were exposed to Christianity) was never doctrine, but an theory that the Church supported strongly for a while, then changed their mind a bunch of times. The latest official statements on the matter is that the people who would have been in Limbo are in Heaven.

The Limbo of the Fathers (where everyone who died before Jesus went until Jesus died), however, was and is still doctrine.

[Kintenbo]

I was referring to what the nuns/catechists taught when I was younger, and what I'd read on the actual Catholic doctrine.

Since then I've done some more reading, specifically from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and some official documents on the matter from the Vatican. It turns out that as you said, Limbo (for good people who never were exposed to Christianity) was never doctrine, but an theory that the Church supported strongly for a while, then changed their mind a bunch of times. The latest official statements on the matter is that the people who would have been in Limbo are in Heaven.

The Limbo of the Fathers (where everyone who died before Jesus went until Jesus died), however, was and is still doctrine.

Just my opinion, but a lot of Catholic doctrine doesn't make much sense, no offense. Transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and grape juice literally turn into Jesus' body and blood), purgatory, and such.....what exactly do they back such things up with? I heard some people try to point to John Chapter 6 for transubstantiation, but that seems so very clear figurative speaking. That when he says that he's the "bread of life" and we must "eat" him, it's saying he's the only way to Heaven, and we must accept him to go there. There's other things, but I don't want to bombard everyone with a bigger wall of text than what's going to come next section of this post.

Which goes to a modest point, I will admit it here and now, the religion of Christianity is not perfect. The word of God is, what is in the Bible is, but when it comes to us who try to practice it, mistakes happen left to right. Don't go thinking for a second that an honest Christian thinks he/she is perfect and infallible. If you wonder why we have so many denominations, it's from a lack of taking the Bible in context. We disagree on things like how Baptism is done (believer's baptism vs. infant baptism, even as far as to what baptism is about), what the Lord's Table is about (remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice and coming again vs. having Jesus coming into us, or something to that effect), and how we are even saved (through Christ alone vs. Works vs. God chooses certain people vs. all sorts different of things). I can understand why non-Christians have trouble understanding what we're about, since we ourselves can barely agree on what we're about. Sin causes even us Christians to lean to our own ideas and understanding.

[Shuuda]

but a lot of Catholic doctrine doesn't make much sense, no offense.

I hope the irony is not lost on you here. Sorry, but that's a hilariously short sighted thing of you to say.

[Kintenbo]

I hope the irony is not lost on you here. Sorry, but that's a hilariously short sighted thing of you to say.

Meh, I suppose so. Just being honest.

[Crystal Shards]

Which goes to a modest point, I will admit it here and now, the religion of Christianity is not perfect. The word of God is, what is in the Bible is, but when it comes to us who try to practice it, mistakes happen left to right.

Actually, the word of God is not perfect. Take a philosophy class that isn't taught by a nun trying to convince you to believe in God and you'll figure that out really quickly. And the Bible... The Bible is far from perfect. King James's version can attest to that. The Bible has been edited several times throughout history, for reasons as benevolent as translation (where "typos" can arise from) and as evil as political reasons (though many vehemently deny this). So really, I wouldn't make that claim if I were you.

[Kintenbo]

Actually, the word of God is not perfect. Take a philosophy class that isn't taught by a nun trying to convince you to believe in God and you'll figure that out really quickly. And the Bible... The Bible is far from perfect. King James's version can attest to that. The Bible has been edited several times throughout history, for reasons as benevolent as translation (where "typos" can arise from) and as evil as political reasons (though many vehemently deny this). So really, I wouldn't make that claim if I were you.

(I'm a Baptist, we don't have nuns)

Granted, translating the Old Testament from ancient Hebrew can be tricky. That's the main reason why there are different versions. (and I'll admit, some of the newer translations can get pretty crazy) But, do elaborate on the other "flaws" you speak of. Flaws that don't come from what I'm going to mention in this next section.

As for the apocryphal books exclusive to Catholic and several Orthodox denominations, those weren't in the original Jewish Old Testament. That's why most protestants reject those books. Another reason is that those books weren't written by confirmed prophets and there are a lot of obvious historical mistakes. (like saying Nebuchadnezzar ruled Nineveh, I think, any Catholic/Orthodox correct me if I'm wrong) That, and quite a few obvious doctrinal errors, like praying for the dead, forgiveness of sins through money, and acts of magic. Who knows, maybe a lot of the "contradictions" you found had something to do with that. If you want to know what the apocryphal books are, look here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm

[Phoenix Wright]

(I'm a Baptist, we don't have nuns)

Granted, translating the Old Testament from ancient Hebrew can be tricky. That's the main reason why there are different versions. (and I'll admit, some of the newer translations can get pretty crazy) But, do elaborate on the other "flaws" you speak of. Flaws that don't come from what I'm going to mention in this next section.

As for the apocryphal books exclusive to Catholic and several Orthodox denominations, those weren't in the original Jewish Old Testament. That's why most protestants reject those books. Another reason is that those books weren't written by confirmed prophets and there are a lot of obvious historical mistakes. (like saying Nebuchadnezzar ruled Nineveh, I think, any Catholic/Orthodox correct me if I'm wrong) That, and quite a few obvious doctrinal errors, like praying for the dead, forgiveness of sins through money, and acts of magic. Who knows, maybe a lot of the "contradictions" you found had something to do with that. If you want to know what the apocryphal books are, look here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm

You seriously can't find any flaws in the Bible?

I'll give you a contradiction: Jesus says we got to hell for whatever reason you believe people go to hell for. God says our souls will be completely destroyed. It's never specified whether He speaks of eternal damnation or complete destruction of the soul itself. If the soul is indeed completely destroyed, there is no need for hell. See the contradiction?

[Kintenbo]

You seriously can't find any flaws in the Bible?

I'll give you a contradiction: Jesus says we got to hell for whatever reason you believe people go to hell for. God says our souls will be completely destroyed. It's never specified whether He speaks of eternal damnation or complete destruction of the soul itself. If the soul is indeed completely destroyed, there is no need for hell. See the contradiction?

Verses, please. I haven't seen mention that our souls are destroyed, yet.

[Esau of Isaac]

Verses, please. I haven't seen mention that our souls are destroyed, yet.

Google Gehenna.

Of course, while this doesn't apply to us all, it should be noted that this serves to represent a transition from older interpretation of the soul (one which represents life itself) and a newer one, that which most of us are familiar with.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Candlejack]

Yeah I think I posted in this thread before.

But to reiterate I must say that religion is pretty much one of the biggest reasons that scientific breakthroughs was put on a standstill for +200 years.

[Mousefire]

they're cults on a larger level

Edited March 1, 2010 by mousefire

[BK-201]

You seriously can't find any flaws in the Bible?

I'll give you a contradiction: Jesus says we got to hell for whatever reason you believe people go to hell for. God says our souls will be completely destroyed. It's never specified whether He speaks of eternal damnation or complete destruction of the soul itself. If the soul is indeed completely destroyed, there is no need for hell. See the contradiction?

Of course you can't find flaws when you take everything as the truth and brush away contradictions.

[Candlejack]

Of course you can't find flaws when you take everything as the truth and brush away contradictions.

You mean like how the creationists do?

[BK-201]

You mean like how the creationists do?

Yes. Denial of fact based truth. Check. Acceptance of random thoughts that have no basis. Check.

[Inactive Account]

I think I'm seeing some stereotyping coming into play. A lot of posts seem to be expressing the idea that all Christians are Biblical literalists, creationists, denouncers of science, and generally unwilling to listen to other opinions or provable facts. On the flipside I'm also seeing some expression of the idea that all atheists are bitter, angry, militant sorts who won't listen to other ideas or give any respect to the beliefs of others. Both of these sentiments are entirely untrue, so can we leave out the ugliness and stay on the topic-- which, if I'm reading right, is simply the inquiry and attempted explanation of things we don't understand?

But to reiterate I must say that religion is pretty much one of the biggest reasons that scientific breakthroughs was put on a standstill for +200 years.

There is no denying that the Church had some major issues with science at various points during history (cough Galileo cough), but it wasn't quite as simple as most people assume. As for current issues between Christianity and science... yes, many Christians argue against various scientific facts and fields of research. But there are also plenty of scientists who are Christian.

they're cults on a larger level

I'm interested in why you say that. Explain the argument perhaps?

[Mousefire]

I'm interested in why you say that. Explain the argument perhaps?

Don't cults generally believe in something to get into a better place or something similar? Saaaaay. That reminds me of something

[Crystal Shards]

Religions are just socially acceptable cults. They're an organized set of beliefs and practices, just like religions, and they usually have at least one charismatic leader... just like religions. The only difference, in all honesty, is that cults are deemed by society to be "dangerous" or "evil"... Despite overwhelming evidence of what people have done in the name of religion.

I'm not saying religion doesn't do good, because it does... but I've never really understood the distinction. Having unorthodox beliefs isn't inherently evil or dangerous.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Zynac]

Just my opinion, but a lot of Catholic doctrine doesn't make much sense, no offense. Transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and grape juice literally turn into Jesus' body and blood), purgatory, and such.....what exactly do they back such things up with? I heard some people try to point to John Chapter 6 for transubstantiation, but that seems so very clear figurative speaking. That when he says that he's the "bread of life" and we must "eat" him, it's saying he's the only way to Heaven, and we must accept him to go there. There's other things, but I don't want to bombard everyone with a bigger wall of text than what's going to come next section of this post.

muhahahahaha! ive heard this so many times and i love to see people who truely believe in their point of view and i like to discuss with them. Heres the thing, if it was so obviously figurative, why would Jesus just let all the crowds leave? they all left saying he was crazy and that its cannabelism( at least the text leads us to believe this, i think they say somthing like, this teach is hard, who can accept this? which sounds like a poor japanese translation lol) if he really only meant " you have to follow me" why would every one of his disciples( only the 12 apostles stayed) leave him for it. youll also notice this is ( im pretty dang sure) the only time people leave Jesus simply over his teaching alone( like i say could be a few times im forgeting but its one of few). also the greek words used in that text are for gnaw and devour not consume, so he used a specific verb for bite not just aquire. ( now im getting lazy so ill just let you refute those points before i move onto the tons of others i have cuz im lazy enough to not put a full arguement in one post, like i said i think my laziness shows and some of th logic probably doesnt hold through like its supposed to so just refute and ill continue with all the other arguments i have found, by the way i love apologetical arguments)

[Charpig]

Let me ask you this. Was there ever a time in Scripture where the disciples literally ate Jesus's flesh and drank his blood? I think that will settle the question of whether it is literal or figurative.

Jesus's body was nailed onto the cross, and his blood was spilled as remission for the sin of the world. Because of that we can be forgiven of our sins and go to Heaven.

Why does God allow evil in the world?

God didn't allow evil into the world, it came into the world. According to Romans 5:12-21, sin entered the world through one man (Adam), but we have righteousness through one man (Jesus Christ). Jesus taught that the greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor (Mark 12:29-31). But, can you really say that you love someone if that love is artificial or forced? No, true love must be genuine and from the heart. Romeo didn't fall in love with Juliet because theological doctrine convinced him to. God loves all of us. But, man did not love God in return, and they chose to pursue their own ways rather than God. Since God wanted us to truly love him (loving him is the greatest commandment), he couldn't accomplish that by forcing man to obey him. Evil results out of the choice of man, not out of the choice of God. Why should God be blamed for what someone else did? Someday, God will put an end to all evil when Jesus Christ returns. Those who accepted Jesus's blood as payment for their sins will be saved; those who didn't will not be saved. Romans is a very good biblical book for explaining how sin came into the world but we can overcome it through Christ. You have a free choice.

Let's say you were locked in your room. Yes, you wouldn't be able to go out and do evil. You would be kept from evil in this manner. But you would probably resent being imprisoned. It would have been the same way if God had done this to everyone. Sure, they would be prevented from sinning, but they wouldn't love God. God allowed man his free choice, and man chose to commit evil. But man doesn't have to remain in sin, because of what Jesus did.

I realize that it is disheartening to know that God doesn't always act the way we would expect him to. But, only God knows the end from the beginning. The apostles had to endure a lot of evil and suffering, just as we do today. But they found something of value in Jesus Christ; I believe we can as well.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why does God allow evil in the world?

God didn't allow evil into the world, it came into the world.

If something is beyond God's power now, please say so. Otherwise, if God truly is all-powerful, then that means "evil" was allowed entrance. As for your block of text: why, exactly, does God NEED our love? Hm, on that note, why does God even WANT it? To many, we are abominations; I don't want or need any abominations to love me. Why then, does someone who is supposedly more powerful than I, need it?

Let's say you were locked in your room. Yes, you wouldn't be able to go out and do evil. You would be kept from evil in this manner. But you would probably resent being imprisoned. It would have been the same way if God had done this to everyone. Sure, they would be prevented from sinning, but they wouldn't love God. God allowed man his free choice, and man chose to commit evil. But man doesn't have to remain in sin, because of what Jesus did.

It probably would have been easier if evil were never created in the first place, right? I mean, why give us a choice of evil at all? How about: "good decision," and "not as good a decision"? That way, we all go to heaven yet we all had the freedom of choosing!

I realize that it is disheartening to know that God doesn't always act the way we would expect him to. But, only God knows the end from the beginning. The apostles had to endure a lot of evil and suffering, just as we do today. But they found something of value in Jesus Christ; I believe we can as well.

My question is, again, why make someone endure such suffering? A world can exist where there is only "good." The proof is in God's definition of itself.

[Charpig]

If something is beyond God's power now, please say so. Otherwise, if God truly is all-powerful, then that means "evil" was allowed entrance. As for your block of text: why, exactly, does God NEED our love? Hm, on that note, why does God even WANT it? To many, we are abominations; I don't want or need any abominations to love me. Why then, does someone who is supposedly more powerful than I, need it?

It probably would have been easier if evil were never created in the first place, right? I mean, why give us a choice of evil at all? How about: "good decision," and "not as good a decision"? That way, we all go to heaven yet we all had the freedom of choosing!

My question is, again, why make someone endure such suffering? A world can exist where there is only "good." The proof is in God's definition of itself.

God could have stopped Adam from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (that is how sin entered the world). Sin came into the world through Adam, but God didn't want it brought in. It was not God who let sin in but Adam. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "God isn't responsible for evil in the world, it entered through Adam." As far as God being all powerful, he may simply choose not to use his powers in a certain situation. I can't tell you why God put that tree in Eden or why he didn't stop Adam. I only know that God allowed Adam free will, and we all know what Adam did with that free will. Man with his free will has often chosen evil, so that's why evil persists in this world. It's not fair to blame God for what man has done.

You wish to know why God wants us to love him? Well, if you loved someone, wouldn't you want your love to be returned? If you created something, wouldn't you feel some attachment towards it? Though the Bible does not say why, it does say that God so loved the world that he would give his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). If God loves us enough that he would not withhold his only Son from us, how could he not want love in return? God would not go to such great lengths if he were not seeking something. Would you pour your heart and soul into something if you were seeking nothing from it? I would not say that God NEEDS our love, but he definitely desires it.

The apostles faced suffering because their peers would not accept the teachings of Jesus Christ, not because God forced that suffering upon them. Jesus had warned the apostles that they would suffer, but the suffering was not caused by God! If I tell someone about Jesus Christ and men persecute me afterwards, is that from God, or from man? I don't expect God to magically intervene every time I am in trouble, but he doesn't have to. Jesus secures salvation in the next life, not just this life. The apostles suffered to the point of death, but they were secure in Christ. They understood that there was a kingdom beyond this world. "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed." (1 Peter 1:13). Jesus also advised his followers to store up treasures in heaven, because there, no thief can break in and steal. Nothing impure will ever enter (Revelation 21:27). You are right in saying that there can be a world that is only good, and it is coming.

God chose to take the punishment for sin on himself in the form of Jesus Christ. We don't have to atone for being "abominations" because Jesus already made the atonement for us. If we know what is good and what is evil, shouldn't we be following what is good? It doesn't matter if the choice of evil is given or not, we are still responsible if we choose it. Isn't it better to choose the good decision?

[Phoenix Wright]

God could have stopped Adam from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (that is how sin entered the world). Sin came into the world through Adam, but God didn't want it brought in. It was not God who let sin in but Adam. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "God isn't responsible for evil in the world, it entered through Adam." As far as God being all powerful, he may simply choose not to use his powers in a certain situation. I can't tell you why God put that tree in Eden or why he didn't stop Adam. I only know that God allowed Adam free will, and we all know what Adam did with that free will. Man with his free will has often chosen evil, so that's why evil persists in this world. It's not fair to blame God for what man has done.

You're missing the point. Evil only came from Adam because God "allowed" it to come from him. Free will, in a sense, does not exist because God has the power to change your stance on anything if it felt like it. God just doesn't.

You wish to know why God wants us to love him? Well, if you loved someone, wouldn't you want your love to be returned? If you created something, wouldn't you feel some attachment towards it? Though the Bible does not say why, it does say that God so loved the world that he would give his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). If God loves us enough that he would not withhold his only Son from us, how could he not want love in return? God would not go to such great lengths if he were not seeking something. Would you pour your heart and soul into something if you were seeking nothing from it? I would not say that God NEEDS our love, but he definitely desires it.

As a human, yes, I would like love to be requited back to me. If I were, say, an all-powerful God, no I wouldn't. God doesn't expect love from any other animal, does it?

To desire something is a sin, is it not?

The apostles faced suffering because their peers would not accept the teachings of Jesus Christ, not because God forced that suffering upon them. Jesus had warned the apostles that they would suffer, but the suffering was not caused by God! If I tell someone about Jesus Christ and men persecute me afterwards, is that from God, or from man? I don't expect God to magically intervene every time I am in trouble, but he doesn't have to. Jesus secures salvation in the next life, not just this life. The apostles suffered to the point of death, but they were secure in Christ. They understood that there was a kingdom beyond this world. "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed." (1 Peter 1:13). Jesus also advised his followers to store up treasures in heaven, because there, no thief can break in and steal. Nothing impure will ever enter (Revelation 21:27). You are right in saying that there can be a world that is only good, and it is coming.

God is the cause of everything. Or, does free will have power over God?

God chose to take the punishment for sin on himself in the form of Jesus Christ. We don't have to atone for being "abominations" because Jesus already made the atonement for us. If we know what is good and what is evil, shouldn't we be following what is good? It doesn't matter if the choice of evil is given or not, we are still responsible if we choose it. Isn't it better to choose the good decision?

I'm sure something less dramatic could have been done.

Let's say I'm God. You sinned. I create another me in human form, and kill myself to atone for your sin. Then, I go back to heaven and become part of myself again.

Does that make any fucking sense?

[Charpig]

As a human, yes, I would like love to be requited back to me. If I were, say, an all-powerful God, no I wouldn't. God doesn't expect love from any other animal, does it?

To desire something is a sin, is it not?

I'm sure something less dramatic could have been done.

Let's say I'm God. You sinned. I create another me in human form, and kill myself to atone for your sin. Then, I go back to heaven and become part of myself again.

Just because God is all powerful does not mean that he doesn't have feelings. It's very clear throughout the Bible that God experiences feelings such as anger, joy, love, sadness, and so on. Jesus was the same way. The shortest verse in the Bible and a rather famous one is "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). Compared to the other animals, we have a special position because God created man in his very own image (Genesis 1:26-27). So we can't exactly be compared to other animals.

Desiring something is not necessarily a sin. It is only evil desires that need to be put to death. In the New Testament believers were instructed to desire the greater spiritual gifts, and to look forward to the return of Christ. Looking forward to something involves desiring it. And, common sense would tell us that desire in it of itself is not wrong. If I am hungry, I desire food. Where is the sin in that? If I am thirsty, I desire water. Again, where is the sin in that? If I desire to do good to someone else, how in the heck is that a sin?

Sometimes, God may allow suffering (which is not necessarily evil) as a way to discipline his people. Job 33:19 "Or a man may be chastened (purified) on a bed of pain with constant distress in his bones...." The New Testament apostles considered their suffering nothing compared to the promise of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:18). So while this present world might have evil and suffering, the next world won't (at least not for believers). In the case of Job, the interesting thing is that God never explained to Job why he allowed him to suffer. But Job was restored at the end. The key here for believers is to look forward to God's kingdom, which won't have evil or suffering. There might be evil in the world now, but God isn't going to let it continue forever.

No, it makes no sense that Jesus, who had no sin, would take the punishment for the entire world's sin. It doesn't make any sense for the innocent man to take the guilty man's punishment. But that's exactly what God did. Romans 3:21-31 explains why God sent Jesus to die on the cross, and what the reward will be for those who have faith in Jesus. God, in order to carry out justice, couldn't simply leave sin unpunished. But he didn't want to destroy all of mankind because he loved his creation (remember John 3:16). By dying on the cross, Jesus satisfied God's demand for justice, so now God could forgive sin. Does this make sense? It won't to everyone. But this is what Scripture teaches, and it is what I believe in. Man freely chose to do evil. Whether or not God allowed the choice is irrelevant to the fact that man chose evil rather than good.

[Phoenix Wright]

Just because God is all powerful does not mean that he doesn't have feelings. It's very clear throughout the Bible that God experiences feelings such as anger, joy, love, sadness, and so on. Jesus was the same way. The shortest verse in the Bible and a rather famous one is "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). Compared to the other animals, we have a special position because God created man in his very own image (Genesis 1:26-27). So we can't exactly be compared to other animals.

How can God possibly be depressed, angered, happy, or anything else by something it already KNEW would happen? If anything, God should be mad at itself.

Desiring something is not necessarily a sin. It is only evil desires that need to be put to death. In the New Testament believers were instructed to desire the greater spiritual gifts, and to look forward to the return of Christ. Looking forward to something involves desiring it. And, common sense would tell us that desire in it of itself is not wrong. If I am hungry, I desire food. Where is the sin in that? If I am thirsty, I desire water. Again, where is the sin in that? If I desire to do good to someone else, how in the heck is that a sin?

You sorta missed the point (depends on your beliefs on my next question). Do you believe humans are evil? God wants love from something evil?

Sometimes, God may allow suffering (which is not necessarily evil) as a way to discipline his people. Job 33:19 "Or a man may be chastened (purified) on a bed of pain with constant distress in his bones...." The New Testament apostles considered their suffering nothing compared to the promise of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:18). So while this present world might have evil and suffering, the next world won't (at least not for believers). In the case of Job, the interesting thing is that God never explained to Job why he allowed him to suffer. But Job was restored at the end. The key here for believers is to look forward to God's kingdom, which won't have evil or suffering. There might be evil in the world now, but God isn't going to let it continue forever.

God allows all suffering. Which, depending on opinion (since the word "evil" is subjective), is evil.

No, it makes no sense that Jesus, who had no sin, would take the punishment for the entire world's sin. It doesn't make any sense for the innocent man to take the guilty man's punishment. But that's exactly what God did. Romans 3:21-31 explains why God sent Jesus to die on the cross, and what the reward will be for those who have faith in Jesus. God, in order to carry out justice, couldn't simply leave sin unpunished. But he didn't want to destroy all of mankind because he loved his creation (remember John 3:16). By dying on the cross, Jesus satisfied God's demand for justice, so now God could forgive sin. Does this make sense? It won't to everyone. But this is what Scripture teaches, and it is what I believe in. Man freely chose to do evil. Whether or not God allowed the choice is irrelevant to the fact that man chose evil rather than good.

Again, you missed the point (I blame the internet for this one. I can't make you read it sarcastically).

What I'm saying is the method used by God to atone for humanity's Great Sin is retarded.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

I think this fits: