Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[penguinofhonor]

Do you have a source for that? From what I can tell the original Greek of Matthew gives this Herod's title as βασιλέως or vasileos, which translates as "King."

[Orange Wizard]

See this is why I don't really believe in the Trinity in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Thanks for linking that channel, it's great.

...

Do you have a source for that? From what I can tell the original Greek of Matthew gives this Herod's title as βασιλέως or vasileos, which translates as "King."

Ooooookay, that's interesting. Don't really have a proper answer for you. My excuse-tier answer would be something along the lines of "Matthew wasn't concerned about details and wrote down βασιλέως instead of τετράρχης (tetrarch) for whatever reason; perhaps the proper word wasn't used in common parlance or something".

[Teneb]

It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.

Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?

are you saying that god is a wizard

Et tu, OW?

[penguinofhonor]

If Matthew didn't want to say Tetrarch, I assume he'd still use a word that distinguished this Herod from the actual King Herod. Oh well, it's not like I expect you to know what Matthew meant. I still think it's most likely a mistake though.

Also, while I was looking that up I discovered that the original text of the Bible is a lot more accessible than I thought. Seriously, side-by-side translations are free online. It's pretty easy to see how the Greek and English connect even if you don't know the words. The Old Testament is probably harder though.

[Orange Wizard]

I still think it's most likely a mistake though.

Yeah, fair enough. It's not terribly clear. I want to assume that Matthew knew what he was talking about and just wrote it down vaguely, but that's mostly because I'm biased.

[Quartz_Mace]

So, I've recently been questioning my beliefs because I was raised Catholic and sent to Catholic classes due to pressure from my extended family. I've decided that there's no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God(male/female/gender N/A). So then I looked at it from the 3 distinct possibilities from that.
1. There is no God. This is possible. If so, there's no point in thinking about what happens in the afterlife/if there is one because the most likely truth here would be that you cease to exist upon death, and thus would never know the answer is nothing.
2. There are multiple "Gods". If this were true, they'd realistically each try to reach out to their creations and make themselves known, so this can be ruled out.
3. There is one God. He/She never makes himself or herself directly known. I don't know whether we can declare for certain whether He/She knows everything or makes mistakes, but rather we are in no position to question Him/Her, as He/She has existed since, quite literally, God knows how long and would realistically have vastly superior knowledge over the physical universe having created it and would have had plenty of time to think about everything He/She has done.

As such, I believe 3 is the most likely solution.(or at least the best assumption to work with)So the question would be then, why would God not make himself known to anyone for 100% unless it was a necessary exception to the rule? No person in their right mind would knowingly sin if they had had it proved to them that upon death their sins could be eternally punished.

All that said, I'm still not 100% sure about Jesus being the son of God/God(though I certainly believe his teachings are a very good way to live your life and the word would be great if everyone actually followed it.(Referring to judgmental holier-than-thou "Christians" who don't embody the peace, love, or forgiveness Jesus taught, yet love to call themselves "Good Christians."

I also take the Bible with a grain of salt as it was written by people (and for different times and cultures than our own)and we all know people make mistakes. I'm still deciding on how I feel about the Old Testament.


On the "Trinity", and I'd probably be called either a blasphemer or a heretic for saying this, but I believe it is one of the most confusingly worded teachings I've heard in the Catholic Church, and indeed the words don't make a ton of sense. I believe that God isn't three persons, but rather we know of 3 different manifestations of God, the "Father"/Creator, The Son- Jesus, and the "Holy Spirit", the "force" or "touch" of God in the material world. They are all the same being, just different manifestations of this being, not 3 separate people.

[origamiscienceguy]

Don't worry, the trinity is confusing. We don't know exactly what it is, but from biblical evidence (mainly the fact that they talk to each other) the general consensus is something like this:

[Putnam]

the point being to defy basic mathematical axioms (such as a==b and a==c and a==d implying b==c, c==d and b==d) known since the greek times in order to make god seem mysticalllll i guess

[Descan]

The Trinity.

[origamiscienceguy]

God can defy mathmatics if he wants.  Honestly we have no idea exactly how it works, but maybe we will in the afterlife.

[Orange Wizard]

~~~

I'm morally obligated to convert you to Protestantism, so please imagine I'm trying to do that here.

[Quartz_Mace]

My main issue here is with the wording. The word person defines a human. I think the term entity or manifestation would be more accurate as the only member of the Trinity considered human is the Son/Jesus. I believe that God could very easily defy/bend the laws of our universe if he so wished, as he did in fact create them, I'm just saying the wording is flawed.

[Loud Whispers]

UNLEASH DIVINE SEMANTICS

[Orange Wizard]

My main issue here is with the wording. The word person defines a human. I think the term entity or manifestation would be more accurate as the only member of the Trinity considered human is the Son/Jesus. I believe that God could very easily defy/bend the laws of our universe if he so wished, as he did in fact create them, I'm just saying the wording is flawed.

"Person" meaning... human... like? I guess? Sentient, sapient, etc. If humans are made in the image of God then we're not all that different, anyway.

[Quartz_Mace]

Edit:

God can defy mathmatics if he wants.  Honestly we have no idea exactly how it works, but maybe we will in the afterlife.

Honestly, I think the thing I most hope for in an afterlife is answers(not the "Oh God why is there sadness? Kind. I'd just like to understand the world, why it was made, why God decided to make it, that sort of thing.)In fact, I think my hell would likely be sitting alone in a dark room with no explanation of what I did wrong for an eternity(but heaven/hell is another subject).

~~~

I'm morally obligated to convert you to Protestantism, so please imagine I'm trying to do that here.

I suppose I'll take a look at it, but I think I'd rather just believe my own beliefs independent of any religious group and go along with the Catholic ceremonies with my family, as they do not differ from my beliefs drastically for the most part, except maybe some symbols taken literally. I don't believe I'm drinking Jesus' blood in church, but rather it is a symbol that salvation comes by taking to heart the words of Jesus.

Edit: I also don't really believe in baptism the same way as the Church does. I don't think a priest pouring water over your head thrice and blessing you removed "original sin", and I also don't believe a loving or forgiving God would damn a person for not being baptized if say, they weren't Christian. If you believe in it or just do it as a sign of faith, I don't really mind, I just don't take it literally.

I really wonder whether we were made in the image of God. It's an interesting question. Though I still believe we evolved from lesser life, God very easily could have planned and or shaped this evolution and would still be ultimately be responsible for any life that appeared, or the universe that created and housed them.