Searching for GOD...

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it doesn't automatically follow in every case; but if a 2,000 year-old medical treatise is out of date and its use in 2015 bizarre, the same applies to a 2,000 year-old book of moral edicts and the attempt to crowbar them into 2015 situations.

I think some moral edicts are immutable:  love, forgiveness, do to others as you would have them do to you; and they are 2,000 years old, or more.

[Shaker]

No, it doesn't automatically follow in every case; but if a 2,000 year-old medical treatise is out of date and its use in 2015 bizarre, the same applies to a 2,000 year-old book of moral edicts and the attempt to crowbar them into 2015 situations.

I think some moral edicts are immutable:  love, forgiveness, do to others as you would have them do to you; and they are 2,000 years old, or more.

More - far, far more; the Golden Rule predates Christianity by a long, long way.

These are human values, which is why the endeavour to superglue them to this or that religion is so daft.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it doesn't automatically follow in every case; but if a 2,000 year-old medical treatise is out of date and its use in 2015 bizarre, the same applies to a 2,000 year-old book of moral edicts and the attempt to crowbar them into 2015 situations.

I think some moral edicts are immutable:  love, forgiveness, do to others as you would have them do to you; and they are 2,000 years old, or more.

More - far, far more; the Golden Rule predates Christianity by a long, long way.

These are human values, which is why the endeavour to superglue them to this or that religion is so daft.

My point is, they were written many centuries ago, and are still recognised as crucial aspects for a decent life.  So, some very old writings are still very much viable.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

Tis a very interesting question our Shaker raises, 2000 year old greed is different from present day greed, I think someone should explain to Shaker that the Bible, The Gospels are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago.

Gonnagle.

[2Corrie]

No, it doesn't automatically follow in every case; but if a 2,000 year-old medical treatise is out of date and its use in 2015 bizarre, the same applies to a 2,000 year-old book of moral edicts and the attempt to crowbar them into 2015 situations.

I think some moral edicts are immutable:  love, forgiveness, do to others as you would have them do to you; and they are 2,000 years old, or more.

More - far, far more; the Golden Rule predates Christianity by a long, long way.

Indeed, Leviticus 19:18 C1300 BC

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Bashers,

Tis a very interesting question our Shaker raises, 2000 year old greed is different from present day greed, I think someone should explain to Shaker that the Bible, The Gospels are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago.

Gonnagle.

Good luck trying to persuade him of that. Just mention the word "Gospel," and old Shaky loses all sense of reality and perspective. 

[Shaker]

No, it doesn't automatically follow in every case; but if a 2,000 year-old medical treatise is out of date and its use in 2015 bizarre, the same applies to a 2,000 year-old book of moral edicts and the attempt to crowbar them into 2015 situations.

I think some moral edicts are immutable:  love, forgiveness, do to others as you would have them do to you; and they are 2,000 years old, or more.

More - far, far more; the Golden Rule predates Christianity by a long, long way.

Indeed, Leviticus 19:18 C1300 BC

Er, no. Actually I was thinking of the Code of Hammurabi, 1780 BCE.

[Shaker]

Dear Bashers,

Tis a very interesting question our Shaker raises, 2000 year old greed is different from present day greed, I think someone should explain to Shaker that the Bible, The Gospels are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago.

Gonnagle.

Good luck trying to persuade him of that. Just mention the word "Gospel," and old Shaky loses all sense of reality and perspective.

The definition of irony: Bashers lecturing somebody on the loss of the sense of reality 

[Shaker]

Dear Bashers,

Tis a very interesting question our Shaker raises, 2000 year old greed is different from present day greed, I think someone should explain to Shaker that the Bible, The Gospels are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago.

Gonnagle.

No, I'm already in full agreement with you Gonners: the Gospels are every bit as relevant now as they were 2,000 years ago.

[Leonard James]

That's fine. I'll line myself up behind Einstein's take on religion.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Can you say why?  Or, what do you think Einstein meant?

Like everybody else, I have no idea what Einstein's thoughts were when he wrote it.

For me it was identical to the moments in my life when I am carried away by the wonder of the world and feel a complete unity with everything and everybody. It's like a surge of well-being that fills you completely, takes your breath away and fills you with joy.

That's why it expresses my feelings and understanding of everything.

[Leonard James]

Since we've invoked the chap that Gonners refers to as wee Albert, don't forget the childish and primitive bit

Strange!  Wee Shaky and the blessed Leonard appear together again!   Is it coincidence?  Did Lenny have to ask permission to post?  Or... are they one and the same...     

The reason is very simple, dear boy. Shaker's take on most things is akin to mine.

You will note that our exchanges with one another are far less frequent than our exchanges with you. What childish interpretation are you going to put on that?

[Leonard James]

Unfortunately high intelligence does not really help against the efforts of the evil one to hide God from us.

I strongly doubt that many people of high intelligence give credence to the existence of "the evil one".

 

Some very intelligent scientists have used their gifts to think up incredibly complex scenarios to try to explain how we came into existence without God's creative power.

I don't think so. Most intelligent scientists know we came into being through evolution, and give no thought to the "God" myth.

 

One such scenario is the M theory which postulates that there is an almost infinite number of parallel universes and we just happen to be in the one with all the incredibly finely tuned conditions needed to support life.  We have yet to discover any tangible evidence for these parallel universes, whereas the evidence of God's creative power is there for all to see.

There is no evidence of any god, much less its "creative power", since both are nothing more than a romantic idea dreamed up by long-dead humans.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

But you can't quote wee Albert, what does the greatest scientist who has ever lived know about theology.

When I post telling the forum that wee Albert is on record as saying Our Lord was most definitely no myth I am told what does he know about the subject.

But I prefer when he talks about the universe and the fact that we can understand it, that is one of the big questions, why!

Gonnagle.

I, too, am of the opinion that Jesus isn't a myth. The myth lies in all the silly stories that were concocted around him.

As for the why, we have yet to discover if there even is a why.

[Leonard James]

Dear Shaker,

Well yes, perhaps I should say limited understanding, but we can understand, why!! There is a old book which says we are made in some Gods image but what does some old book know, eh!! eh!!

Gonnagle.

The old books know nothing, and what they contain is nothing more than romantic ideas dreamed up by long-dead humans to answer their questions.

Science has since proved some of the answers nonsense, and is working on discovering the truth.

[Leonard James]

Dear Bashers,

Tis a very interesting question our Shaker raises, 2000 year old greed is different from present day greed, I think someone should explain to Shaker that the Bible, The Gospels are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago.

Gonnagle.

Only in some respects. In others it now reads like one of Andersen & Grimm's fairy tales.

[torridon]

Len, God is real.  More real than anything I perceive through my human senses.  God has made Himself known by becoming part of me.  You will most likely write this off as total delusion, but there are many others with the same insight.

Ah, but the God you believe in is a capricious being, bursting into the lives of some, unbidden, whilst stubbornly refusing to materialise for others who spend time earnestly 'looking' for him. This is not a God deserving of worship to my mind, it is a far lesser being than one that was available to all without fear of favour, with none of this silly hide and seek business.

I think faith is the key you need to use to unlock the door and let Him into your life, but sadly there is an evil presence which does everthing in its power to block people's faith.

So as a defence to the charge that your God is capricious, you now claim that God is feeble, apparently powerless to overcome the power of the Evil One. So much for omnipotence.

[torridon]

How do you know that they don't 'experience the same joy' as you? How do you know that in using contraception and limiting their family size they don't use the extra time this frees up for prayer or good works?

I know from personal experience.  I was once a very half hearted Catholic before I discovered the truth of God's love.  I concede that there are many different ways that God calls people to the faith.  My personal journey was through the Roman Catholic church, but there is no 'one size fits all' and there are many different routes to find the true God, but whatever Christian church God calls you to, you need to give full commitment to find true fulfillment.

So, the RC chuch is not the only route to joy and truth; perhaps Methodism is equally valid, perhaps also the faith of the Anglican, and that of the Seventh Day Adventist. How about Judaism, Mormonism, how about Islam or Eastern religions ? My guess is that at some point you are going to start denying the personal testimony of the faith of others whilst simultaneously expecting people to take your own testimony as true and valid.

[Leonard James]

So, the RC chuch is not the only route to joy and truth; perhaps Methodism is equally valid, perhaps also the faith of the Anglican, and that of the Seventh Day Adventist. How about Judaism, Mormonism, how about Islam or Eastern religions ? My guess is that at some point you are going to start denying the personal testimony of the faith of others whilst simultaneously expecting people to take your own testimony as true and valid.

They will resort to any argument rather than admit that their "God" is nothing more than a human invention.

[Alan Burns]

So as a defence to the charge that your God is capricious, you now claim that God is feeble, apparently powerless to overcome the power of the Evil One. So much for omnipotence.

God is not omnipotent because by creating beings with free will, He has, by definition, no power to control that free will.  Through Jesus Christ, He has shown that He has the power to defeat evil, but in order to tap into that power, we need to accept Him as our saviour.

[Rhiannon]

But we weren't created with free will. That is a result of the Fall. Or are you saying that we were created fallen?

[Alan Burns]

So, the RC chuch is not the only route to joy and truth; perhaps Methodism is equally valid, perhaps also the faith of the Anglican, and that of the Seventh Day Adventist. How about Judaism, Mormonism, how about Islam or Eastern religions ? My guess is that at some point you are going to start denying the personal testimony of the faith of others whilst simultaneously expecting people to take your own testimony as true and valid.

Any faith system which does not accept Jesus Christ as the divine saviour is on the wrong track.  To suggest there are other routes to salvation is to trivialise what Jesus did to open up the door to heaven.

[Alan Burns]

But we weren't created with free will. That is a result of the Fall. Or are you saying that we were created fallen?

The Fall could never have happened if free will did not exist.  There had to be free will in order to choose to give in to temptation.

[Rhiannon]

But we weren't created with free will. That is a result of the Fall. Or are you saying that we were created fallen?

The Fall could never have happened if free will did not exist.  There had to be free will in order to choose to give in to temptation.

That makes no sense. You cannot have free will without knowing what good and evil is. Otherwise you are not making a free choice between something good and something bad. Yet according to the Bible humanity the knowledge of good and evil is our fallen state.

[torridon]

So, the RC chuch is not the only route to joy and truth; perhaps Methodism is equally valid, perhaps also the faith of the Anglican, and that of the Seventh Day Adventist. How about Judaism, Mormonism, how about Islam or Eastern religions ? My guess is that at some point you are going to start denying the personal testimony of the faith of others whilst simultaneously expecting people to take your own testimony as true and valid.

Any faith system which does not accept Jesus Christ as the divine saviour is on the wrong track.  To suggest there are other routes to salvation is to trivialise what Jesus did to open up the door to heaven.

See, my prediction of your response was borne out immediately. You expect people to take your personal testimony as valid but you yourself will not extend that courtesy to people of other faiths. It is a two-faced position to be in, it's not sustainable.

[Alan Burns]

So, the RC chuch is not the only route to joy and truth; perhaps Methodism is equally valid, perhaps also the faith of the Anglican, and that of the Seventh Day Adventist. How about Judaism, Mormonism, how about Islam or Eastern religions ? My guess is that at some point you are going to start denying the personal testimony of the faith of others whilst simultaneously expecting people to take your own testimony as true and valid.

Any faith system which does not accept Jesus Christ as the divine saviour is on the wrong track.  To suggest there are other routes to salvation is to trivialise what Jesus did to open up the door to heaven.

See, my prediction of your response was borne out immediately. You expect people to take your personal testimony as valid but you yourself will not extend that courtesy to people of other faiths. It is a two-faced position to be in, it's not sustainable.

There is only one truth. Salvation is open to anyone who accepts Jesus as their saviour.