The Song Fight Bulletin Board

pegor wrote:So, I was really REALLY hopiing someone else would point that out these are symbolic gestures and not anyway related to the cause and effect realities people deal with every day.

I see what you are getting at, but I'm not sure how big a deal it is.

If you consider that God is omnipotent, any physical action he takes to accomplish some goal could be considered as symbolic, since he could have achieved the same results any number of ways.

The power of the crucifixion and resurrection is that he shattered death. This ultimate, final event (from a human perspective) suddenly lost its finality.

That is life-changing symbolism.

Jesus did the same thing when he healed people. One guy has to dip in the river a bunch to get rid of leprosy. The blind guy gets mud in his eyes to be healed. I don't believe these were just parlor tricks. There was symbolism behind the details of his actions that pushed people to a more spiritual perspective.

-craig

Me$$iah wrote:Anyone who claims to have read the whole bible (as indeed I have) and claim that there are no internal contradictions, hasn't read the bible.

I read the Bible over the course of last year,in chronological order, and for the first couple of months I was convinced that it was a mixed bag. The creation accounts in particular seem very allegorical. By the end, I was mostly convinced that it was all true.

Starting over this year, it's as if the blinders were lifted. I have no doubt that the whole thing is literal truth.

As for your proposed contradictions, Gen 2 is just a zoomed in version of the creation of man from Gen. 1.

The argument against the "in the beginning" is wordplay. Even if we assume that all of our cosmic dating methods are very accurate, the Bible is just saying "for the purposes of this creation account, the heavens and earth (formless and void as it may be) are already in existence."

As far as Isaiah's word choice for describing the earth, circle and sphere are not so easily distinguished. I certainly wouldn't base my faith or lack thereof on *that* kind of issue.

I guess that's the core issue. I admit that I am biased in favor of the scriptures. And you're clearly trying to tear it apart. If you want to argue more details, then I'm willing to engage you, but I'm not sure what that would buy anybody.

Which Joseph were you referring to? Mary's husband or Jacob(Israel)'s son?

As far as the sin of the father thing: the results of a father's sin can certainly impact the son. Adam's children did not get to live in the garden of eden either.

-craig

What's the take on the newly released Gospel of Judas?

So I saw an awesome production of Saint Mathew's Passion on Friday. It was at the Harvey theater, an awesome theater that's part of BAM in Brooklyn. It was in the round, with orchestra and chorus mingling amongst chairs and a table in the middle for the last supper and the narrator. But the characters (it's a very slighly dramatized oratario) interacted with the orchestra a bit and wore jeans or whatever they had on that day. Very effective, over all.

But then here's Judas playing his traditional role. Now, do all these parts need to be rewritten due to the revelation that Judas was the good guy apostle? How long will it take for this to sink in, if indeed it's true?

starfinger wrote:Which Joseph were you referring to?

I was sitting here watching Batman Begins, and I realized that you were asking about the apparent discrepancies in Jesus's genealogy between Matthew and Luke.

The simplest explanation is that Luke presents the genealogy of Mary,whereas Matt. shows Joseph's -- thus showing that both Jesus' mother and foster father descend from David (kingly blood down either path). There is precedent for using the father's name when presenting the mother's genealogy.

I can find a more thorough scholarly explanation if you want.

-craig

So Starfinger, what are your views on Hell?
(Apologies if this has been covered somewhere in this massive thread).

I read in the newspaper that fully 17% of Canadians believe the religious hypotheses of the De Vinci Code are historically accurate. I thought that was weird.

jute gyte wrote:So Starfinger, what are your views on Hell?
(Apologies if this has been covered somewhere in this massive thread).

I believe that sin separates man from God, and this is the state we are all in by nature. Those who die without being reconciled to God continue to be separated from God after their bodies die.

I believe that our consciousness continues, however. Those who die without knowing Jesus "weep" and "gnash their teeth" when they realize that they stubbornly refused the truth of Jesus's saving grace. Hell is this post-mortal state of being separated from God.

So what is hell like? It's described as a place where the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched. Hades and Sheol (Greek and Hebrew, respectively) are commonly used as names for hell, and these translate to "place of the dead" or possibly "the grave."

Another name passed around is Gehenna (aka the valley of hinnom), which refers to a cursed place in Israel that had a history of child-sacrifice. It was used as a garbage dump where a fire was constantly burning to destroy the trash. THey also disposed of the bodies of condemned criminals here.

This "fields of fire" imagery seems to be the source of a lot of our artistic ideas about hell, such as in the great Biblical film "Little Nicky".

This is a place of pain and torment, made all the worse by the realization that salvation was *so close*.

But Hades is not the permanent fate of the lost. Revelations describes a lake of fire, that was created for the devil and his angels. At the end of this era of the earth (at least 1000 years after the rapture of those who accepted Jesus's atonement for their sins), there is a final judgment of those in Hades. Hades itself is cast into this lake of fire, along with those whose names are not written in the book of life.

-craig

starfinger wrote:This "fields of fire" imagery seems to be the source of a lot of our artistic ideas about hell, such as in the great Biblical film "Little Nicky".

haha. yeah, but hell doesn't look like such a bad place in that movie. it looks kind of laid back and fun, as long your name isn't hitler.

starfinger wrote: I believe that our consciousness continues, however. Those who die without knowing Jesus "weep" and "gnash their teeth" when they realize that they stubbornly refused the truth of Jesus's saving grace. Hell is this post-mortal state of being separated from God.

all jews go to hell.

this has always been one of my major sticking points with christianity.

blue wrote: all jews go to hell.

this has always been one of my major sticking points with christianity.

I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but that's totally not Biblical.

The Jews are still very much God's chosen people.


EDIT: I should clarify. Faithful [to judaism] Jews and faithful Christians are treated differently in the prophetic books of the Bible. There are multiple "judgments" that apply to different sets of people.

-craig

What about bushmen in Africa who never hear about Jesus? Do they go to hell?

Sven wrote:What about bushmen in Africa who never hear about Jesus? Do they go to hell?

Personally, I believe that God is a fair God that loves the people he has created, and nobody will go to hell without an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus. In this case, it might very well happen entirely in the spiritual realm post-death.

Jesus said he came to save people not destroy them. Furthermore, he will be the ultimate judge. I believe he will be a [perfectly] fair judge.

-craig

Sven wrote:What about bushmen in Africa who never hear about Jesus? Do they go to hell?

I think that's one of those questions that nobody will ever know the answer to until we're all dead. Same with - do babies who die during and before birth go to heaven? I'd like to think the answer is yes to both of these and that bushmen go to heaven too.

starfinger wrote:EDIT: I should clarify. Faithful [to judaism] Jews and faithful Christians are treated differently in the prophetic books of the Bible. There are multiple "judgments" that apply to different sets of people.

too much caveats, my man. clearly, this god is a fallable god.

jolly roger wrote:

Sven wrote:What about bushmen in Africa who never hear about Jesus? Do they go to hell?

I think that's one of those questions that nobody will ever know the answer to until we're all dead. Same with - do babies who die during and before birth go to heaven? I'd like to think the answer is yes to both of these and that bushmen go to heaven too.

Actually, the bible is specific about this. Babies who die before they are consciously aware of God and Jesus and stuff, and also, babies who's parents aren't on god's side, all end up in the same place. As Jesus himself said (paraphrased) "When you are born, you have nothing, know nothing, and your life means nothing. You are unimportant. It is what you do in your later life that matters" Incidentally, this contradicts the whole baby jesus/nativity importance of Christmas.

starfinger wrote:Personally, I believe that God is a fair God that loves the people he has created, and nobody will go to hell without an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus. In this case, it might very well happen entirely in the spiritual realm post-death.

If this is true, then missionaries are worse than mass murderers.

blue wrote:too much caveats, my man. clearly, this god is a fallable god.

Let me try to explain.

God gave the Jews a law that they were to follow, as his chosen people. When Jesus came on the scene, most of the Jews were actually prevented by God from understanding that Jesus was their prophesied Messiah.

According to Paul, this was so that the Gospel would be given to the Gentiles. In fact there is a parable that Jesus told about a man having a feast, but when the time came all the invited guests refused to show. Instead, he had his servants go out and find people off the streets to invite.

Biblical prophecies cover a lot of what these faithful non-Christian Jews are going through now and will go through in the end times. It's not an extra caveat as much as it is the end of an epic tale about how God uses his chosen people to interact with the world.

-craig

Sven wrote: As Jesus himself said (paraphrased) "When you are born, you have nothing, know nothing, and your life means nothing. You are unimportant. It is what you do in your later life that matters" Incidentally, this contradicts the whole baby jesus/nativity importance of Christmas.

I am curious what you are paraphrasing.

The verses that come to my mind related to children are things like "before you were born, I knew you" and "suffer not the little children from coming to me".

There are instances of him healing children and explicitly proclaiming their worth, so I have no idea where you got this.

-craig

obscurity wrote:If this is true, then missionaries are worse than mass murderers.

The Bible calls the gospel "good news", and it's not being sarcastic. These are words that answer innate questions about ourselves. They bring meaning to lives. They heal and transform. People were created with a need to hear this, and we are told to "spread the word".

Your comment is focusing on the condemnation part, which is understandably a big turn off for Christianity, but the gospel message is about abundant life in Christ-- not condemnation.

The choice that everyone has to eventually make involves a deeply personal acceptance or rejection of God. It is a decision based on our most elemental spiritual composition, and I would argue that, ultimately, the presence or absence of a missionary influence is irrelevant.

-craig

Don't mind him, he just has to be the cool anti-social punk elite anarchist %100 of the time. He cannot shed it, not even for the sake of civilized discourse.

starfinger wrote:

obscurity wrote:If this is true, then missionaries are worse than mass murderers.

The Bible calls the gospel "good news", and it's not being sarcastic. These are words that answer innate questions about ourselves. They bring meaning to lives. They heal and transform. People were created with a need to hear this, and we are told to "spread the word".

Your comment is focusing on the condemnation part, which is understandably a big turn off for Christianity, but the gospel message is about abundant life in Christ-- not condemnation.

The choice that everyone has to eventually make involves a deeply personal acceptance or rejection of God. It is a decision based on our most elemental spiritual composition, and I would argue that, ultimately, the presence or absence of a missionary influence is irrelevant.

-craig

I don't understand how the presence or absence of a missionary influence can be irrelevant. It seems to me that one is much more likely to accept the existence of God when confronted with an afterlife than one is when told of the existence of an afterlife by someone else. I mean, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist myself, but even I'd have to ask myself a few searching questions if I woke up dead one morning (so to speak). As I understand it, you're saying that missionaries bring benefits such as peace of mind (for those who accept what is being preached, of course). I'm not sure what healing and transformation you're referring to (care to elaborate?), but I find it difficult to believe that any such benefits could be considered worthwhile when the downside is a greater likelyhood of going to hell. How can that possibly be considered worthwhile?

The Sober Irishman wrote:Don't mind him, he just has to be the cool anti-social punk elite anarchist %100 of the time. He cannot shed it, not even for the sake of civilized discourse.

I'm not sure who you're referring to above, but based on when it was posted I'm guessing you could be referring to me. If so, I've got to tell you that I find your mischaracterisation of me to be very offensive, and I'd like you to explain how you came to such a view.