It all comes down to the fundamental questions of Good and Evil, God and Satan then trying to understand how there can be a fight between God and Satan if God is really all powerful, all knowing and all merciful. If God is all powerful, then there is no question who will win a conflict between the two. If God is all knowing, then God knew Lucifer would rebel when God created Lucifer. If God is all merciful then God wouldn't condemn anyone to Hell for eternity. Is Evil a force like heat or is it like cold, simply the absence of heat? Darkness is the absence of light. Is Evil just the absence of God? Not really a force by itself?
If you knew scripture, and worshipped with those that do ,you would know what I believe. Now go read the Book of Acts then get back with me about Apostle Paul. We could have an interesting, mutual discussion about what is written there. You know well I didn't lie about you. I just questioned what I understood you to convey. You never responded so I take it you weren't really sure about your comment pertaining to Paul.
I can recite orthodox teachings, handed down through the millennia. But explaining it is beyond my pay scale, at this time. The deeper existential questions have an answer, i am sure. I may have an inkling, but it is not my role or desire to dogmatically declare my opinions about eternal mysteries as Absolute Truth. I am likely wrong, anyway. So I'll leave those conclusions to others, and merely ponder the deep mysteries of the cosmos. Dealing with what i DO know is trouble enough. Suffice it to say, there IS evil in this world. Deception is rampant. Sure, you can blame God, but that does not seem like a wise solution in dealing with the intricacies of our mysterious existence. If at some point we get a glimpse into The Divine Plan, great! But nobody else knows, and our vision may be blurred by our mortality. Better to trust the One who absolutely knows what is happening, than to fall for the scams and delusions of men and angels. I would rather not know, than believe a lie.
I don't blame God. You think because I don't blame the Devil or that God created Lucifer (supposedly) that I blame God. I do not. It's a choice. I believe God is all powerful, all knowing and all merciful. I was asking you how you could believe that too yet also believe that God would send billions of children to Hell for not being "saved".
But remember that it is those who benefit from this interpretation that tell me this interpretation. Apostolic succession isn't universally accepted, there are plenty who take a more Lutheran approach saying that the Bible teaches the Bible, and any bishopry may be mistaken. Again, my point is about the fact that different denominations do it differently, and the fact that you have to point to Catholics or your particular church plays into that.
I did not mean 'you', personally. That was rhetorical. I don't really know you well, and what i do know is positive. I see a keen, analytical mind, and respect you as a thinker. That is a small company in these forums. And i leave the 'billions and billions of children'! to a Just God.
The Mormons accept the trinity, however, in a different way, as personages of one godhead, rather than, however you might phrase it in mainstream Christianity. Personally, I'm not convinced those are necessarily conflicting ideas, they seem to me to be two plausible ways to describe the same thing, but that's for another thread. I'm not super well versed in Mormon theology but it seems to me the personage of Jesus being one third/part of the godhead makes him divine. Having skimmed Phillipians 3, I can't find anything that labels Mormons' position as directly heretical. It is often argued that much of the exact nature of Jesus and the Trinity was not set in stone before the council of Nicaea. Mormons rejecting the council of Nicaea does not seem to me to be the same as rejecting the Bible.
Well, that's sort of my point (although not limited to Mormonism). If we know someone's denomination, we're more likely to make proper sense of what is being said (regardless of whether we agree with them).
The problem with "sola scriptura" is that too many people think that scripture alone is sufficient as long as it says what they mean it to say. They point to scripture, misinterpret it, and call it authoritative. So what's better? A 2000 year old Magisterium or one guy in a one church denomination? By the way, I don't "benefit" from anything. I don't get paid for souls - I don't get paid for anything, if anything, it costs me to serve. If I'm lucky I get my expenses back. I'm not in charge, I just work here. You can believe what you want, but the fact that there is somebody in the world who disagrees doesn't make it wrong. There are some things that would be true even if nobody believed it.
I'm not arguing about which interpretation is better, I only use different examples for illustration. My argument is that if we don't know which interpretation comes from the 2000 year old Magisterium and which one comes from that one wacky guy in a weird denomination, then how can we make an informed decision? I apologise, I don't mean benefit in terms of monetary or other worldly or even spiritual way, I'm referring to the fact that one interpretation of a particular argument can benefit a particular interpretation of a religion. I have not made the argument that the fact that someone disbelieves something makes it wrong (and I'm continuously baffled by the fact that people keep replying as if that was my argument, instead of replying to my actual arguments). I have only been arguing that given that there are disagreements, we should be clear about which any allegiances we have, so that an unwitting reader can predict any biases.
It behooves you to find out which is which. Even a non-believer can benefit in case somebody tries to snow him under. The problem I personally have had with practicing apologetics as that too many people think that when it comes to religion, especially Christianity, is that it's all a matter of opinion. It's not. Sacred theology used to be known as a "science" because the conclusions we came to are logical conclusions, logically arrived at, based on what we know based on scripture. See Thomas Aquinas as an example. When people start injecting superstition into the discussion (my current favorite is that Jesus won't love you if you voted for Trump) it dilutes the discussion to the point where it is meaningless. So pardon me for jerking my knee, there is a reason for it.
Sure! Every religion has a "deception" clause that applies to all those who don't accept that particular religion, or reject some tenet or practice of it, whether knowingly or not. Catholics think you're deceived. You think Catholics are deceived. Satan is active!
I went through that in Baptist Sunday School decades ago. What do you say to a Mormon, a Catholic, a 7th Day Adventist, those who dance, those who claim to be Christian, but don't know how to baptize or what it means, a Pentecostal, etc.? I remember the protestant fear that Catholic Kennedy would lead America away from Christianity. I know YOU have a specific idea of what Christianity is. But, it's "Orwellian obfuscation" to suggest that your definition somehow describes the 56% of America (as found by Pew) that believes in the god as described in the Bible - or those who strongly believe they are Christian.
And? While I've never bothered with yoga, it doesn't seem damaging to back off from the numerous pressures and distractions of our society in order to reengage with a better sense of balance.
I really don't see yoga having any chance of being as effective as you fear. It's probably more dangerous to allow children to read Harry Potter - another fear of religion.
I knew you were going to say something like that. Let me tell you something: years ago I found out that certain songs - we used to call them 7/11 songs because they had seven words sung 11 times - (not literally but they all had a certain chantlike quality) were in fact hypnotic enough to make people very suggestible. They called them "worship music" back in the 90's. People thought they could speak in tongues, give a prophecy from God, all kinds of things, and I am sure that at some point you have probably asked how religion could have such a hold on people that they would drink poison Kool Aid. Well, that's one of the ways. I am not saying that Jim Jones had people singing 7/11 songs but that's one of the reasons Pentecostal churches have people doing such weird things - barking like dogs and doing the funky chicken during the service. Some do it purposely. Others don't know what in hell they are doing. You have to keep your wits about you. There is more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophies.
As you know, Jesus sent the Apostles out to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead and cast out devils; and presumably they continued to do so for some time after Pentecost. If any Christians are raising people from the dead lately, I have yet to hear of it. Now surely if anyone is resurrected, it is by the spirit of Christ; but if one believes Christ is God, and He isn't, then surely the spirit of Christ does not indwell him - which would explain why, in particular, none are being resurrected, and why, in general, Christians are so unable or unwilling to effectively defend America's founding principles.
