Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

In other words, the apostles did not have faith in Jesus. (Faith being belief without proof.) Yet the church makes faith a virtue. Why?

---

If you look a little further down in the Merriam-Webster definitions, you'll see that Faith is also defined as Trust. If you think that someone has no reason to mislead you, you can place Trust in that person. You expect that they'll have your interests in mind. Planting falsehood requires much from the perpetrator. He must remember all the falsehoods as they're dealt out in order not to get caught in the lie. That'd be a very taxing effort. I think it would consume so much of someone's time, that they'd have no room to live.

Think of the Boolean AND truth table in mathematics. The only way for a True conclusion to a series of inter-related elements, is for each element in the series to be True. One False element, anywhere in the series, concludes the series in a False ending. Can a cancer revert to being a set of normal cells? No, the genetic mutation for accelerated, uncontrolled growth (which may threaten the survival of the host) cannot be reversed. One can only arrest further growth (starvation thru statin treatment by heightening the body defenses), or kill it (surgery, radiation, or chemo-therapy). The latter of these is a painful process for the host (and not too good for the cancer, either). The former (the arrestment) will curb the dillatory effects that the cancer has on the host, but it doesn't have to destroy the cancerous cells. The host survives, as does the errant cancer, and the host continues to thrive as it was meant to do.

The disciples' faith, in my opinion, came as a result of hearing and seeing what Jesus did. They weren't convinced until later. According to their recording of these events, Jesus (when Thomas was confronted with a transformed teacher) told them that the people to whom He'd send them (in evangelism) would be doubly blessed because they didn't HAVE to see first-hand, in order to understand and Trust. Relating the lessons of THEIR experience could be sufficient for understanding purpose and action.

The church's notion of faith being a virtue is pointed at the basis for why Jesus purportedly came to be. Please, bear with me if I cover ground with which you're familiar... His claim to be the Son of God, incarnate in human flesh (to be sacrificed according to Hebrew tradition, the "chosen people", as atonement for mankind's disobediance to God) is an act of Love or Grace - to bridge the chasm between a perfect (pure, True) God, and those in His creation who've disobeyed His instruction (the cancer, the imperfect). Disobedience is imperfection, because it doesn't harmonize with the rest of creations' ordered unfolding. An imperfect man cannot become perfect through his own action. Therefore, a remedy was necessary, from outside mankind's scope. Hence, Jesus' sacrifice and death as evidence that God would humble Himself in order to preserve His creations.

As you know, Love is the one characteristic (in its True sense) that is selfless in nature. All human emotion and desires outside of that are selfish in nature ("what's in it for ME" syndrome). In my opinion, It's the only characteristic that will preserve mankind. And all Jesus wants us to do is emulate Him. We make such big fanfares for military personnel who, in the course of combat, place themselves between others and harm. It's a characteristic we seldom see, and yet revere - because the norm is to encourage the selfish, and destructive. We want to believe ourselves capable (and in realization) better than what all the base emotions will make us.

Quote:

---

It is not so much whether he was lying to them, but whether they are lying to us.

---

For what reason would they lie? If they remained Hebrew because of their heritage and beliefs and rejected what He said and did, and we are Gentile (those not Hebrew), then according to them we're lost anyway... What would they gain by doing so? Nothing... And, why would they be willing to die for a cause (belief) to which they didn't ascribe, and risk "excommunication" from their own faith? That wouldn't make sense, it's illogical.

I can see where one MIGHT be skeptical of what discourse and comments the disciples and apostles make (because there is question of voracity, with them being as human as are we, and the possibility of tainting in successive copies produced). And, conclusions that the apostles make are reasoning on their part, which could be faulty. But, do you accept, or reject, the places in the New Testament, which are portions purported to be quotations of what Jesus said, directly? Do you think they got it right? This is crucial.

Do you think that the Old Testament, which is recorded by the Hebrews (and numerous events verified through independent non-secular research, including cultural evidence from civilizations contemporary to theirs), a history of successive events within mankind's progress to this point? This is also crucial.

If you reject either one (Boolean approach), then you must reject the entire written work. The Old Testament is not only a history of the Hebrew progression, but (according to the Hebrews) also a prediction of what is to occur. The New Testament is the report of these Old Testament prophesies being fulfilled, by those believers counted among the Hebrews. The two Testaments must be taken together. They cannot be taken separately, or you lose the reason for Jesus' purpose (existence) and actions as a man, and His claim to be God the Son.

Assuming that you reject neither of the two, we have a basis for discussion (and expansion of understanding). Otherwise, we're just debating for debate sake - which is pointless.

Quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The topic in this thread is the New Testament, not the Koran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you brought up the fact that the disciples were willing to die for their beliefs and that these beliefs were somehow validated in the process. I pointed out that the inconsistency in your attitude.

---

What I said was:

Quote:

---

As for Moslems vs. Hebrews... I don't recall the Ten Commandments mentioning any way to avoid offending God, when the Hebrew's final act in life is not only to murder himself but others as well. Which disciples did this to anyone, before they themselves were executed? Hmm? The topic in this thread is the New Testament, not the Koran.

---

The Moslem belief in martyrdom includes the acceptance for destruction of those whom they consider unbelievers. The teachings that the apostles reiterate reflect a tolerance for an unbeliever, indeed an urgency to provide their message to such folks. But, the apostles' message doesn't say that evangelist must terminate the listener /rejector. They're encouraged to move on, to the next unbeliever and try again.

This latter approach stems from a Love motivator, rather than one which permits hate alongside. The two characteristics are mutually exclusive, you cannot both Hate and Love something or someone at the same time. There's no inconsistency in the "attitude". The focus of the statement was whether or not they offended their God, in the process of their learning, teaching, or living by example. In both the Hebrew and infant Christian faiths, the planned death of someone (either onesself or another human being) is considered Murder - a mortal sin, and an action which opens the gulf between human actor and his God.

[BTW, the translation from the Hebrew to the King James version Bible was inaccurate, when the Church listed the Commandment as "Thou shalt not KILL". The Hebrew original expression connotes fore-thought - the same concept that Jesus was alluding to when He tied the commandments (actions) to the very thought of doing something. The very contemplation of commiting a sin made the person as guilty of infraction, as if he'd actually carried it out.]

Quote:

---

I note that you have neglected to comment on Jesus' lack of fulfilment of messianic prophesies. I presume you are willing to suspend your belief in Jesus as messiah until they are, in fact, fulfilled?

---

I've found no reason to think that what He's about won't occur as He's said, since all His recorded information points toward the remaining tasks' fulfillment. Debate, to this point in time, haven't negated His historic voracity. Arguments remaining in debate concern events that have yet to occur. Since we can't fast-forward for a peek, the Boolean logic string is still True, so far.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
Why doesn't this god, IF HE EXISTS, truly humble himself by coming before all of humanity and apologize for making us weak? Apologize for making us incapable of perfection? Apologize for forcing us into a life that we never asked for just to satisfy his own needs, whatever the hell they are?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since you don't seem to have some of the fundamental information, I'd suggest you read the Book. Now, God didn't have to make what He did. But, He decided to go ahead anyway - knowing the risks of creating beings who could think for themselves. There was a risk that His creations wouldn't respond as He'd hoped. But, He did it anyway, and made provision for it.

Because you state that man wasn't capable of perfection, I think you really need to read some - to know that you're off-base with that remark. Man was in a state of innocence (a state of relation with God of complete trust - that God would look out for him, and that man wasn't in need of something more), and was unsullied before Satan tempted Eve with pride.

Even Satan (then called Lucifer) was unsullied between the creation of the angels and the decision that he (a creation) was as capable as God (the creator). This tenacity in attitude of Satan's makes the same amount of sense as if you'd constructed a robot and equipped him with an AI processor. As the robot learned and became aware that he could do things independently, he then strikes off on his own (either oblivious to the idea that all the necessities for his continued operation reside with you, or he's in a state of self-denial). Satan has no capacity to create; only God has that talent. And, in frustration over this problem (because he wanted to be as God - accolades and all), he decides to hurt God. He retaliates by misguiding other free-will creations.

God went to a lot of effort to make it all work together precisely - just look at the overwhelming degree of complexity and interdependency, as scientists attempt to dissect the universe macroscopically and microscopically. Do you honestly believe that all of this is here by accident?

Christians hold that God loves what He's made. He'd really prefer that what He's made would reciprocate with like degree of feeling. In order to permit this free exchange of affection, He had to do one thing. He had to make the creatures capable of free will - ability to choose. Otherwise, it would be like assembling a bunch of tape recorders and programming them with the same message - "I love you". There just doesn't seem to be much satisfaction to be gleaned from listening to a lot of automaton platitudes for eternity. But, honest devotional return of affection does make sense. It is sustaining.

Yark, are you married? And, if so, what attracts you to this significant other? Is it purely a physical thing? That will pass quickly, as you both age and the body changes. Is it that you both have similar interests? I guess that's OK, intellectual repartee can be stimulating. Is it because you both have a strong desire to be with each other? That's a better idea, but it can be strained during long separations. How about, you feel a hunger - a need - to be able to curl up with someone who no matter what you've said or done still wants the best for you (and you for them)? I think that's ideal. If you haven't found someone like that, yet, I hope you do. But, if you don't, there is someone who does feel that way - even if you choose to ignore Him most of the time.

Ignoring something doesn't mean that it isn't there. In fact, a conscious tenacious effort to deny that something is there (or true) is an admission that you're unsettled that it can be true.