Quote :

"53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

So since the Catholics justify this literally. May I offer this up to be taken literally as well.

Quote :

"47Truly, truly, I say to you, He that believes on me has everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

My question for this is, Is Christ actually bread, which came down from heaven?

Quote :

"1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. "

So by the Catholic definition is Christ a vine or is he bread?

9/25/2011 3:34:46 PM

Quote :

"So by the Catholic definition is Christ a vine or is he bread?"

His flesh is bread. His blood vessels are vines.

He's a grape vine. That's why Catholics drink his delicious blood. Makes perfect sense to me.

Seriously, how can you ask questions like this when you believe that god is the holy spirit, himself, and his own son all at once?

9/25/2011 4:14:35 PM

Quote :

"Somehow I can already see how this will pan out however, someone will use the figurative phrase "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" and I will call it a figurative device for signifying a relationship with Christ. A skeptic will then say to me that I am not being a literalist because being a literalist means you must take everything literally. I will then claim that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally at all times, such as parables spoken by Christ. Then they will claim, well how can you know when something is being taken literally or not. And this argument will play back and forth until one side gets tired. "

9/25/2011 4:33:33 PM

I read that. As far as I know, this part is still an open issue:

Quote :

"Then they will claim, well how can you know when something is being taken literally or not."

The E Man's beliefs are no crazier than yours. If the bible was 100% clear on such matters, you wouldn't have 30,000+ denominations.

9/25/2011 4:49:23 PM

If people considered the entire book instead of nitpicking things and justifying rituals upon them, they're would be no denominations. That is why the true church is made up of a collection of all the saints, and thus cannot be represented by anything upon this Earth. Just as they're were deniers and the faithless in the old world churches so there are now.

9/25/2011 5:00:44 PM

Either way, I'm not claiming it's crazy I'm waiting on the answer from the Catholics as to how it's justifiable.

9/25/2011 5:02:14 PM

If only everyone thought just like me, the world wouldn't have different opinions!

9/25/2011 7:35:46 PM

You're obsession with the Catholic church is borderline perverse, by the way.

You literally go out of your way to turn every theological discussion into an attack on Catholics. And when people bring up good points about the holes of your own religion, you resort to "well, you just don't understand it the way I understand it, which is the way you're supposed to understand it." Your religious hubris is just as arrogant as it is vain.

Seriously, answer this question for me, because you totally dodged it like a faggot in your last thread. Do you, LeonIsPro, think Judas deserves to be in Hell for all of eternity for the sin he committed? Would you, if given the choice, cast the same punishment on him for his "sin?"

And let me ask you this. Does someone who murders one man (perhaps in self defense) deserve the same damnation as say, Adolf Hitler? Cuz that would fucking suck, and I'd have to give props to 'ole uncle Adolf for getting the maximum amount of worldly sins in if he's going to get the same punishment as people who just take the lords name in vain all the time. He really got his monies worth, if you think about it.

Eternity is a long fucking time, man. Honestly, if the majority of the people don't follow your religious dogma the same way you do, then fuck, Hell is probably a billion times the size of Heaven. They're probably expanding. They're probably hiring too, for that matter. In fact, it's probably the one business that is recession-proof. I can only imagine how many staff members the devil needs to ensure that everyone is receiving a proper damnation and not slipping through the cracks. They probably need to hire architects and engineers just so they can maximize the space they have just to make sure everyone is adequately roasted with fire and brimstone. You can't have those adulterers sitting any plays out, that just wouldn't seem right. Better make sure they suffer for ALL OF ETERNITY. Yep, makes sense to me.

9/25/2011 7:49:38 PM

Quote :

"an attack on Catholics. "

I question their dogma, and it's an "attack on the Catholics."

If I say Judas deserved to be in hell you'll shout "determinism' and if I say Judas does not deserve to be in hell, you'll say I go against God. When the simple fact of the matter is that I am not the judge on these matters so I do not apply my moral relativism to determining how just they are. Judas sinned against God, the consequence of sin is death and the condemnation of sin is Hell, as God cannot have sin in his kingdom.


I'd ask you to please calm down, I'm not sure why you are upset with me. Perhaps you can tell me what I am saying that upsets you?

9/25/2011 9:36:36 PM

I'm perfectly calm. I'm sipping an appletini as I type this while listening to Jack Johnson.

I just find it odd that you're so eager and so willing to question the dogma of Catholicism, but then you turn into a total pussy when it comes to questioning your own dogma.

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2011 9:52:28 PM

You're not questioning my doctrine.

How does asking about eternity question my doctrine?

You're not bringing scripture or anything to the table other than general things you find offensive.

You want me to weigh in on judgement issues that I am not qualified to answer. Your asking whether I feel God's judgement is just. Yes, God's judgement is just. Your asking if the punishment of Hitler is different than the punishment of someone who kills in self-defense, I cannot possibly expound into the popular notion of different levels of Hell. Which does not have much support in scripture.

Anyone whose sins are still with them at the white throne judgement, will be condemned. All who are without God, will continue to be without God after death. He who is with God can only come to God through the Christ, and the only way to Christ is to repent of your iniquity and pride, and then to accept the free gift of God.

One does not earn the gift of God.

9/25/2011 10:07:05 PM

I didn't ask you the Judas question to put you into a corner about determinism vs. God's will. I wanted to see if you were even willing to question it. If you were even willing to ask yourself if it makes sense.

You didn't. You won't. You are sticking to your dogma.

You won't put yourself in the position to be a skeptic, but yet you have no problem telling Catholics that they should question their religion. That they should play by a different set of rules. They should come to the conclusion that their religion is flawed, but yet you are forbidden to speculate on your own because "it's not your place to question God's will." Pretty bogus, if you ask me.


I have no problem with you being religious. You wanna worship God, fine. Go right on ahead. But don't tell Catholics that they're wrong for interpreting some old fucking book differently than you do. I have zero interest in your interpretation of the Bible. None. And honestly, it's irritating listening to you tell Catholics that their interpretation is wrong. Fuck, go write a report on the Great Gatsby, then compare it to other scholars. I promise you it will be different. Just don't ask me to right a report, because I only read the cliffnotes.

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2011 10:13:48 PM

Then leave the thread. No one is asking you to look if you find it offensive. I'm not questioning the doctrine of Judas because I agree with it. But I'm not sure if you're asking me to judge Judas's punishment, when I don't know what it is or how it compares to others punishment. Unless you'd like to define according to doctrine how Judas has been punished in respect to how someone else will be punished.


You're not asking me to question doctrine, because if you were, you would accurately define which doctrine I should e questioning. From what you offer so far, I cannot even understand what I am refusing to question.

9/25/2011 10:42:48 PM

If you want to ask me a question about doctrine, how about you do some research and actually understand what I believe. I have the courtesy to read the Catechism and many of the papal encyclicals, and I ask questions along the lines of those resources.

What you ask me are generalizations that you personally find morally egregious, but you do not clearly define what it is you find egregious nor offer Biblical support for what you find offensive.

If you don't believe scripture that's fine. But you can't ask me to answer some doubts you have about Christianity if they don't correspond with scripture.

9/25/2011 10:48:41 PM

Quote :

"Somehow I can already see how this will pan out however, someone will use the figurative phrase "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" and I will call it a figurative device for signifying a relationship with Christ. A skeptic will then say to me that I am not being a literalist because being a literalist means you must take everything literally. I will then claim that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally at all times, such as parables spoken by Christ. Then they will claim, well how can you know when something is being taken literally or not. And this argument will play back and forth until one side gets tired. "

Except "this argument will play back and forth until one side gets tired" is a fucking cop out because the bolded part is an incredibly valid observation and is never addressed by the Christian in a meaningful way.

And I still would like to know free will and prophecy (or God knowing the future) can coexist.

JesusHChrist's point is valid. You have no way of demonstrating that your interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than a given Catholic. Until that time, asserting that you do is pointless. I can assert that I do, just as anyone can, but in order for anyone else to be justified in believing me, the assertion must be supported by evidence and reason.

This really is pointless however, because LeonIsPro has demonstrated that he doesn't care about justifying his beliefs. He's going to believe what he has presupposed is true totally independent of the evidence. He probably thinks we're just agents of Satan trying to get him to waver in his faith.

So any other Christian, feel free to respond to the free will + prophecy question at any time.

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2011 10:53:20 PM

Dune gives some interesting insight into precognition and shit. if you wanna be a giant sandworm-god for thousands of years

9/25/2011 10:59:03 PM

Yeah, prophecy does work really well in works of fiction.

9/25/2011 11:03:29 PM

Quote :

"Then leave the thread. No one is asking you to look if you find it offensive."

That's pretty funny, actually. You find Catholicism offensive, so you're allowed to be in here spewing venom about the Catholic church. But if I find anything you have to say offensive, I should just leave. Sounds about right.

Quote :

"But you can't ask me to answer some doubts you have about Christianity if they don't correspond with scripture."

This is bogus. I'm asking you to question whether or not people deserve equal damnation even for grossly disproportionate sins. You won't do it, you just say, "God's punishment is just." I'm asking you to formulate your own opinion, but you won't allow yourself to do it, because "God's punishment is just." I'm not asking you for a book report on the Bible. I'm sure you can deliver on that, I'm just asking you if you really think people should suffer for eternity for such a wide spectrum of sins. You refuse to give an opinion on that, yet you freely formulate your own opinion when it comes to condemning the Catholic church. Lamejuice.

I'd cut to the heart of it and ask you what punishment you would dish out to sinners if you were God based on your understanding of scripture, but we all know you're not gonna do it. It would be a fun little exercise, though.

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2011 11:45:05 PM

Summary of thread:

0. Leon trolls the shit out of catholicism, constantly saying they don't follow scripture.
1. arghhacks makes this thread saying YO WE CATHOLICS READ SCRIPTURE ALL THE FUCKING TIME
2. Leon satisfies Godwin's law asap OH SHIT NAZIS (not a scriptural argument by the way).
3. Eman provides scripture for transubstantiation.
4. Leon says transubstantiation doesn't make sense: Is Christ bread? How can Christ be vine and bread at the same time? How can Christ teleport/clone himself? (not a scriptural argument by the way).
5. Leon reiterates that he only accepts scriptural arguments.

Did I miss anything?

9/26/2011 8:01:10 AM

I see a whole lot of insults and not a whole lot of questions. Since, I'm alone here and cannot find any support from other saints, I'll just let you discuss/ insult me amongst yourselves.

I say that Catholics use scripture in a ritualistic manner, meaning they do not read it, Euro says:

Quote :

"arghhacks makes this thread saying YO WE CATHOLICS READ SCRIPTURE ALL THE FUCKING TIME"

Even though that's not what arghx said.

H gets angry with me because I won't put myself in place of God and cast judgement upon different sins, because I'm called not to judge the sons of men, but of course that is somehow a giant cop-out.

Every time I make a claim against Catholicism, I'm spitting venom apparently.

Though unlike most in this thread I am not littering my arguments with cursing or aggression.

I should be able to answer the free will vs prophecy question, it's just difficult to do when I get sidetracked by people hitting me with flak.

9/26/2011 10:40:02 AM

Quote :

"Even though that's not what arghx said."

Actually, he did.

Quote :

"So that's four readings straight out of the bible."

Quote :

"So as you can see a large portion of the Catholic worship service is either reading directly from the bible or saying prayers that slightly paraphrase scripture."

You claim that Catholics don't read or follow scripture. The former is obviously false and the latter seems like an unsupported hunch.

Quote :

"I see a whole lot of insults and not a whole lot of questions... H gets angry with me because I won't put myself in place of God and cast judgement upon different sins, because I'm called not to judge the sons of men, but of course that is somehow a giant cop-out."

Here's the point: we'd like to know what you think. We can read the bible for ourselves. If you don't have a single independent thought outside of that... if you won't stop to critically examine your own belief system in a framework other than your own belief system, there's not much to discuss, is there?

Pretty much all we would have left is enumerating which passages you have decided to take literally and which you have decided to take figuratively.

And sorry if you find curse words offensive. They aren't meant to be aggressive. I'm just seasoning with salt, bro.

9/26/2011 11:09:46 AM

Quote :

"Then they will claim, well how can you know when something is being taken literally or not."

2000+ years of accumulated knowledge in the Church's magisterium--including the works of the great Church Fathers during the first ~500 years of the Church, who did not have "The Bible" because it hadn't really been narrowed down yet. This is as opposed to Billy Bob picking up his Protestant bible, (conveniently missing some very important books that Luther would rather ignore than refute), and trying to figure everything out all by himself.

9/26/2011 12:45:58 PM

also, here is a Catholic liturgical Calendar website which explains what the readings would be for each day.

http://www.easterbrooks.com/cgi-bin/Cathcal.cgi?20110925

There are three liturgical years and two liturgical cycles that alternate every year. Here is further explanation http://www.easterbrooks.com/personal/calendar/rules.html#years

Keep in mind that Catholics say Mass every single day, sometimes multiple times per day. And they are reading scripture every time. Daily masses are shorter as they only have three readings instead of four and typically have less singing. With three liturgical years and two cycles, Catholics have very diverse selection of readings from the bible. The readings standardized throughout the whole world.

9/26/2011 12:58:26 PM

Quote :

"2000+ years of accumulated knowledge in the Church's magisterium--including the works of the great Church Fathers during the first ~500 years of the Church, who did not have "The Bible" because it hadn't really been narrowed down yet. This is as opposed to Billy Bob picking up his Protestant bible, (conveniently missing some very important books that Luther would rather ignore than refute), and trying to figure everything out all by himself."

Neither the Church Fathers nor Billy Bob can prove they have the more accurate understanding of the Bible.

9/26/2011 1:16:48 PM

SHOTS FIRED

9/26/2011 1:52:22 PM

Are you saying that the Church Fathers and our hypothetical Billy Bob have equal authority? I guess my interpretation of CERN's recent neutrino experiments are just as valid as someone who has been studying it their entire careers and knows all the previous work in the field.

9/26/2011 2:11:55 PM

Quote :

"This is as opposed to Billy Bob picking up his Protestant bible"

So I'm missing Macabees and what else some OT histories. I'm open to reading them, if you'd like. I haven't read most of the Catholic canon of the OT, but I can read it for you. Other than that, I don't see a difference in a Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible. Especially, when you use a Bible with a concordance.

Because Macabees is a history, like Chronicles, I myself find nothing wrong with Macabees.


And since, you say that Catholics read from the Bible, and I believe these websites you put forth, I'd like to hear your testimony of how you were saved. Which is a perfectly reasonable question for one saint to another. Mine's laying in the old Christianity thread. It's not a test either, it's just a nice thing to know each others testimony.

Because I don't really have a problem with transubstantiation or minor doctrinal issues. I don't think transubstantiation is supported but it is arbitrary in the collection of saints.

9/26/2011 2:16:08 PM

^^The Jews said the same thing (most Orthodox Jews still say this). How can this Christ come along and tell us that our many years of religious history and ritual are incorrect?

9/26/2011 2:18:12 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that the Church Fathers and our hypothetical Billy Bob have equal authority?"

Yes.

Quote :

"I guess my interpretation of CERN's recent neutrino experiments are just as valid as someone who has been studying it their entire careers and knows all the previous work in the field."

Except what CERN measures is objectively quantifiable, in a well-documented field of study with disprovable, reproducible and falsifiable topics. Anyone in the world can become a particle physicist (in principle) and can demonstrate their knowledge and reproduce the CERN experiments.

Even someone who has spent 100 years "studying" the Bible or whatever other Holy books catholics use based on the teachings of other people "studying" these books for thousands of years, they are unable to demonstrate that their knowledge is accurate because the topic is not demonstrable.

Therefore, I have as much claim to accurate Biblical knowledge as any Cardinal in the history of Catholicism. Zero.

Further, this is just a massive appeal to authority. The claims of the Bible should stand and fall on their own merit, right?

[Edited on September 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2011 2:26:33 PM

Quote :

"The claims of the Bible should stand and fall on their own merit, right?"

What do you mean by "on their own merit" ?

9/26/2011 2:37:13 PM

Stand up to scrutiny; critical thinking. Not require logical fallacies like appeals to authority or popularity or special pleading.

[Edited on September 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2011 3:04:38 PM

You realize that Catholic theologians extensively use of reason when analyzing scripture and theological matters? But reason and empiricism alone are ultimately dead ends. Pope John Paul II wrote about this in his enyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and Reason."

Quote :

"5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason's drive to attain goals which render people's lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it... ...Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all... Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned. This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. "

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

9/26/2011 4:27:54 PM

Quote :

"The Jews said the same thing (most Orthodox Jews still say this). How can this Christ come along and tell us that our many years of religious history and ritual are incorrect?"

Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism. He is a further progression of a divine revelation, and the fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecies. For example, Christ's (and the Catholic Church's) emphasis on Faith is a continuation and fulfillment of the faith of the ancients. Hebrews chapter 11 explains this. Christ didn't completely overturn everything in Judaism. Christianity doesn't really work without its origins in Judaism and the Old Testament.

9/26/2011 4:40:08 PM

That blurb from JPII is gibberish. Reason and empiricism are not dead ends. If you do dead end, you don't just get to make stuff up because it feels good. You continue research.

Quote :

"A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. ""

This is the antithesis of skepticism and it was disingenuous of him to use the term in the same paragraph. All claims are not equally valid, all claims are equally not valid until proven otherwise.

Of course he derides skepticism, it's completely destructive to preconception, which is all the Pope was clinging to when he talks about truths which have already been judged certain.

[Edited on September 26, 2011 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2011 4:52:25 PM

What I meant to say was that reason and evidence are only dead ends in regards to baseless assertions.

9/26/2011 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism"

LOL. wut? Clearly he is not. Otherwise, there would be no jews.

Quote :

"Judaism's view of the Messiah differs substantially from the Christian idea of the Messiah. In the Jewish account, the Messiah's task is to bring in the Messianic age, a one-time event, and a presumed messiah who dies before completing the task (i.e., compelling all of Israel to walk in the way of Torah, repairing the breaches in observance, fighting the wars of God, building the Temple in its place, gathering in the dispersed exiles of Israel) is not the Messiah. Maimonides states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Moshiach promised in the Torah... and God only appointed him in order to test the masses."[12] Jews believe that the Messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel.[13][14][15][16] According to Isaiah, the Messiah will be a paternal descendant of King David[17] via King Solomon.[18] He is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace[5] and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth,[6] leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel".[19] Ezekiel states the Messiah will redeem the Jews.[20] Therefore, any Judaic view of Jesus per se is influenced by the fact that Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus died without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks, instead promising a second coming. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel. These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars who were contemporaries of Jesus, as later pointed out by Nahmanides, who in 1263 observed that Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the rabbis of his time.[21] Further, Judaism sees Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible as being based on mistranslations[22][23] and Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish Messiah qualifications.[24]"

9/26/2011 6:11:13 PM

I have a hypothetical for Leon even though he doesn't like answering those. Lets say you 100% believed god talked to you and told you he judged your child was evil and needed to die. Would you kill your own child or go against god?

9/26/2011 7:50:06 PM

Quote :

"Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism. He is a further progression of a divine revelation, and the fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecies."

Hebrews 11 is a great example of how even in the times before Christ, people were still reckoned to God, through faith not works. So my question of course is that if we are brought and kept with Christ through faith, why does the Catholic church impose works and ritual as well?

You said yourself that Christ fulfilled the law. And you are correct in saying so, he fulfilled the sacrifice and rituals for forgiveness put in place by Moses, in the law. He did rebuke the Jews for putting their own judgements in the place of God's. They judged with worldliness instead of righteousness. Solomon recognized this in Proverbs.



I'd also like to respond to theclaim that Christ did not fulfill the law.

1. "repairing the breaches in observance"

Christ did repair the breaches in observance, because he completed a full atonement for the world's sin by his death on the cross.

"And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD has said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."

Joel 2:32

"And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit on it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hastening righteousness."
Isa 16:5

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from now on even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Isa 9:7


"building the Temple in its place, gathering in the dispersed exiles of Israel"

Now Christ did build a temple in it's place. He himself is the chief cornerstone of the temple.

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."

Psalm 118:22

"1Thus said the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build to me? and where is the place of my rest?"

Isa 66:1

'27But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built? 28Yet have you respect to the prayer of your servant, and to his supplication, O LORD my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer, which your servant prays before you to day: 29That your eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which you have said, My name shall be there: that you may listen to the prayer which your servant shall make toward this place. 30And listen you to the supplication of your servant, and of your people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear you in heaven your dwelling place: and when you hear, forgive."

1 Kings 8

Quote :

"Further, Judaism sees Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible as being based on mistranslations[22][23] and Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish Messiah qualifications."

Now the Jews, don't follow the law for most of the years of their existence. And they constantly turned away from God, in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Why would they all suddenly understand and recognize the Messiah? God spoke that he would make it so that the Jews "hearing would not hear" and "seeing would not see," so why would they all possibly recognize the Messiah when he came? That is why a remnant of Israel is to be saved. Along with the Gentiles.

Just as in the times of the Old Testament non-Israelites were reckoned unto God, so salvation has come to the Gentiles. For the Christ first preached to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.

"2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it.

3And many people shall go and say, Come you, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Isa 2

"1Thus said the LORD, Keep you judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

2Blessed is the man that does this, and the son of man that lays hold on it; that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.

3Neither let the son of the stranger, that has joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD has utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4For thus said the LORD to the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5Even to them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant;

7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8The Lord GOD, which gathers the outcasts of Israel said, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered to him."

Isa 56

Quote :

"Lets say you 100% believed god talked to you and told you he judged your child was evil and needed to die. Would you kill your own child or go against god?"

This hypothetical is like asking, "What if Christ was really an evil guy and you found out about it?"

9/27/2011 12:23:44 AM

Except didn't God command someone to do that then right before he killed him say "ohhh my bad J/K". I mean its not like a story very similar to this isn't in the bible. Can you just answer the question not come up with some excuse?

9/27/2011 7:46:02 AM

Lol you expected him not to be evasive. I think it is funny too though since God has a history of testing his worshippers in exactly the same manner.

9/27/2011 7:57:52 AM

I bet his next post will be some fancy way of dodging the question. How god would only command that during that period of time but wouldn't do something like that now.

9/27/2011 8:09:39 AM

Quote :

"Except didn't God command someone to do that then right before he killed him say "ohhh my bad J/K". I mean its not like a story very similar to this isn't in the bible. Can you just answer the question not come up with some excuse?"

Yeah, Abraham. The dude almost did it, too. But, I guess he was able to spare a son or two. I mean, Father Abraham had many sons. And many sons had father Abraham. And, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but I am one of them, and so are you. So let's all praise the Lord.

Quote :

"This hypothetical is like asking, "What if Christ was really an evil guy and you found out about it?""

yeah, go ahead and answer that question too.

9/27/2011 8:16:13 AM

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5176472/louis_c_k_on_the_story_of_abraham_and_isaac/

9/27/2011 8:27:13 AM

Quote :

"This hypothetical is like asking, "What if Christ was really an evil guy and you found out about it?""

Because....? Because you expect your own child to be perfectly good? Or do you mean because God wouldn't ask someone to do that (in fact, you know he would and has)?

9/27/2011 8:34:29 AM

"And he said, Lay not your hand on the lad, neither do you any thing to him: for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son from me."

Gen 22:12

God did not say that Abraham's son was evil, this was also a symbol of how God would offer up his son as propitiation for sins. Also God had promised Abraham that from his son he would raise up his seed, to be more than the stars of heaven.

"17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall your seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from where also he received him in a figure"

Hebrews 11

Once again, everyone is quick to jump to generalized conclusions without actually knowing the details.

[Edited on September 27, 2011 at 9:07 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2011 9:06:28 AM

Ok, since you seem to have a problem with analogies and abstraction, here you go:

What if God told you to kill your own son and God also promised that he would resurrect your son afterwards? Would you obey?

9/27/2011 9:32:00 AM

Quote :

"The words of God in Gen. 22:12 are spoken after Abraham was about to sacrifice his Son Isaac on the altar. Abraham had raised the knife by which he would slay Isaac and that is when God tells Abraham to stop. God says, "...for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Does this mean that God did not know for sure what Abraham would do until He saw the raised knife? Does it also mean that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him as the verse states? But, the Open theist is presented with a problem because in Openness, God knows all the present completely and totally. If God knows all present things exhaustively, then did God not know the state of Abraham's heart regarding Abraham's reverent fear for God? How could He not? 1 Chron. 28:9 says, "...for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts..." Since God knows even the intent of the heart, then He knows what the intent of Abraham's heart was during the three day journey to the place of sacrifice as well as whether or not Abraham feared Him. Again, He would have known that Abraham feared Him and the test was unnecessary to establish this fact."

From random googling. I guess in the end for me it comes down to the fact that I wouldn't want to worship a god that would ask me to sacrifice my only son to prove my loyalty especially if the God is all knowing and can already determine my loyalty. Kind of messed up.

Also I don't want to worship someone out of fear. That's a whole other topic probably best not to go into right now.

9/27/2011 9:33:05 AM

For me, I'd have to be convinced of such a being's existence long before I would need to worry about whether it deserved my worship. We're putting the cart before the horse here. Assuming a priori that the Bible is accurate or that you can derive some reality-based truth from it is just plain wrong.

9/27/2011 9:50:10 AM

I agree but just making the case under the assumption god did exist.

9/27/2011 9:51:39 AM

Leon doesn't have any such hang ups. I'd like to see what he has to say about the hypothetical.

9/27/2011 9:54:55 AM