Is there really a god?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Actually im speaking from experience.I have met several people who are religious and dont seem to want to know non religious people.

 

Yes ive asked many questions but if i dont ask i wont get answers.I cant see god so i dont know if hes real whats wrong with that?

 

That is because there is a rule saying not to be unequally yoked together with nonbelievers. You are not going to agree with a religious person on many issues, or enjoy the same types of activities that a religious person would enjoy because you would be too far apart. Either you would have to compromise and be religious, or the religious person would have to compromise and be nonreligious for that to work out, right?

[converse02]

so the roughly 40 percent of Indian and Sri Lankan priests who are working in my diocese really can't trace their country's Christian history back to St. Thomas, who went to those countries to evangelize the Jesus he used to run around with?

Yes. What evidence do you have? Little is recorded St. Thomas the apostle.

 

Paul was a Jew who converted to Christianity, he didn't create it because it already existed. The story goes that he was riding to a new town to go persecute the Christians, whom he hated, and experienced a conversion of heart during his trip. Both he and Thomas, along with the other apostles did a bang up job of handing down a faith that's lasted 2000 years!

Paul spread Christianity, but the "Christianity" practiced today would barely be recognizable to Paul or Thomas. The New Testament wasn't even invented yet.

 

You're looking at the Bible from an explicitly scientific or empirical viewpoint when it's meant to be a read from a spiritual standpoint. Why does the Bible say seven days? Probably because men of that time couldn't understand figures that had a bunch of zeroes listed among them the way we can today, thanks to our advanced education. "Seventy times seven," the rule for forgiveness doesn't mean "let 'em get away with it until the 491st transgression" but to continually offer forgiveness of transgressions. People understood that to be a huge number, not a specific number.

Men back then surely could understand "figures that had a bunch of zeros listed among them." They clearly can count. It isn't a reason for the Bible to say the universe was created in seven days when the eivdence proves otherwise.

 

Morality is the same thing, it comes from inside, it is expressed in the Bible, which acts as a guide book for better living. How can a group of people agree on something that comes from such varied opinions and backgrounds? There's a spark that's been planted since our collective creation of mankind, and our morality is simply a response to that.

Group agree on things because they recognize it is to the benefit of the group, not because of the religion. Groups that did not cooperate would be outcompeted. It is the way of natural selection.

 

he's not the true God because he's more famous or because he's won a popularity contest; he's better known because people have evangelized in his name, and he's the true God because he is God incarnate.

He's also known better because his followers have actively suppressed rival religions. What evidence do you have that "he's the true God because he is God incarnate"? Regardless, it is predicted in 2050, the number of Muslims will surpass the number of Christians. I'm certain they will be saying the same thing you said when their times comes, as did those who worshipped Zeus long ago.

 

Interesting that you use the term "truth" – there's a verse in Scripture where he says "I am the way, the truth and the life." The can be no other when you're looking past the limited trappings of this world. Does this make me a fundamentalist? Not really, unless we're talking of fundamentalism in a broader sense when it comes to Catholicism – I don't believe in chick priests, I don't care for liturgical dance, I like the traditions we've got. But as far as believing that it can only be exactly as it's printed in the Bible in God's English ... no. And many believers feel this way.

Just because a book claims to be the truth, doesn't make it so. And there ARE MANY, MANY, hundreds and thousand of different ways you can look at the trappings of this world. Also, what do you believe is wrong with fundamentalism? It many ways, they are closer to faith and the fundamental principals of the Bible than the moderates. Finally, there are multiple versions and translations of the Bible. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Bible have different number of books. How do you know which verison is really the "word of God?"

[konfused]

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

 

1) A PUBLIC EXECUTION ASSURED HIS DEATH.

 

During the Jewish Feast of Passover, Jesus was swept away by an angry crowd into a Roman hall of justice. As He stood before Pilate, the governor of Judea, religious leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be the king of the Jews. The crowd demanded His execution death. Jesus was beaten, whipped, and sentenced to a public execution. On a hill outside of Jerusalem, He was crucified between two criminals. Brokenhearted friends and mocking enemies shared in His deathwatch. As the Sabbath neared, Roman soldiers were sent to finish the execution. To quicken death, they broke the legs of the two criminals. But when they came to Jesus they did not break His legs, because from experience they knew He was already dead. As a final precaution, however, they thrust a spear into His side. It would take more than resuscitation for Him to ever trouble them again.

 

No one is refuting his crucifixion at this point. Besides, your above comments have nothing to do with his supposed resurrection.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

2) A HIGH OFFICIAL SECURED THE GRAVESITE.

 

The next day, religious leaders again met with Pilate. They said Jesus had predicted He would rise in 3 days. To assure the disciples could not conspire in a ressurrection hoax, Pilate ordered the official seal of Rome to be attached to the tomb to put graverobbers on notice. To enforce the order, soldiers stood guard. Any disciple who wanted to tamper with the body would have had to get by them, which wouln't have been easy. The Roman guards had good reason for staying alert - the penalty for falling asleep while on watch was death.

 

 

So you are saying that there must have already been some sort of 'talk' of a ressurrection conspiracy if Pilate went to all that trouble. Again, nothing to do with his rising from the dead.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

3) IN SPITE OF GUARDS, THE GRAVE WAS FOUND EMPTY.

 

On the morning after the Sabbath, some of Jesus' followers went to the grave to annoint His body. But when they arrived, they were surprised at what they found. The huge stone thta had been rolled into place over the entrance to the tomb had been moved and Jesus' body was gone. As word got out, two disciples rushed to the burial site. The tomb was empty except for Jesus' burial wrappings, which were lying neatly in place. In the meantime, some of the guards had gone into Jerusalem to tell the Jewish officials that they had fainted in the presence of a supernatural being tht rolled the stone away. And when they woke up, the tomb was empty. The officials paid the guards a large sum of money to lie and say the disciples stole the body while the soldiers slept. They assured the guards that if the report of the missing body got back to the governer they would intercede on their behalf.

 

This sounds like something your preacher told you. Millions choose Jesus based on faith, but these gaurds saw God and still did not convert. Where do you get this stuff, anyway?

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

4) MANY PEOPLE CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN HIM ALIVE.

 

About AD 55, the apostle Paul wrote that the resurrected Christ had been seen by Peter, the 12 apostles, more than 500 people (many of whom were still alive at the time of his writing), James, and himself (1 Cor 15:5-8). By making such a public statement, he gave critics a chance to check out his claims for themselves. In addition, the New Testament begins its history of the followers of Christ by saying that Jesus "presented Himself alive after HIs suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by [the apostles] during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3)

 

You are therefore confirming that Paul's writing is considered heresy? You know, not an eyewitness account.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

5) HIS APOSTLES WERE DRAMATICALLY CHANGED

When one of Jesus' inner circle defected and betrayed Him, the other apostles ran for their lives. Even Peter, who earlier had insisted that he was ready to die for his teacher, lost heart and denied that he even knew Jesus. But the apostles went through a dramatic change. Within a few weks, they were standing face to face with the ones who had crucified their leader. Their spirit was like iron. They became unstopable in their determination to sacrifice everything for the one they called Savior and Lord. Even after they were impreisoned, threatened, and forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus, the apostles said to the Jewish leaders, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). After they were beaten for disobeying the orders of the Jewish council, these once-cowardly apostles "did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ" (Acts 5:42)

 

All the followers of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple were dramatically changed. So much, that they were willing to kill themselves because of their beleifs. Was Jim Jones the Messiah?

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

6) WITNESSES WERE WILLING TO DIE FOR THEIR CLAIMS

History is full of martyrs. Countless men and women have died for their beliefs. For that reason, it is not that signfiicant to point out that his first disciples were willing to suffer and die for their faith. But it is significant that while many will die for they believe to be true, few if any will die for what they know to be a lie. That psychological fact is important because the disciples of Christ did not die for deeply held beliefs about which they could have been honestly mistaken. They did for their claism to have seen Jesus alive and well after His ressurection. They died for their claim that Jesus Christ had not only died for their sins but that He had risen bodily from the dead to show that He was like no other spiritual leader who had ever lived

 

Great point. However, countless numbers of Budhists, Hindus, and multitudes of others died for their beliefs as well. So, if few will die for what they know to be a lie, then these folks obviously knew the truth.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

7) JEWISH BELIVERS CHANGED THEIR DAY OF WORSHIP

The Sabbath day of rest and worship was basic to any Jewish way of life. Any Jew who did not honour the Sabbath was guilty of breaking the law of Moses. Yet Jewish followers of Christ began worshipping with Gentile belivers on a new day. The first day of the week, the day on which they believed Christ had risen from the dead, replaced the Sabbath. For a Jew, it reflected a major change of life. The new day, along with the Christian conversion rite of baptism, declared that those who believed Christ had risen from the dead were ready for more than a renewal of Judiasm. They believed that the death and resurrection of Christ had cleared the way for a new relatoinship with God. The new way was based on on the law, but on the sin-bearing, life-giving help of a resurrected Savior.

 

If a Jew decided to accept Jesus as the Messiah, the least of his concerns would be the day of the sabbath. We are talking about changing Gods.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

8) ALTHOUGH IT WAS UNEXPECTED, IT WAS CLEARLY PREDICTED

The disciples were caught off guard. They expected their Messiah to restore the kingdom to Israel. Their minds were so fixed on the coming of a messianic political kingdom that they didn't anticipate the events essential to the salvation of their souls. They must have thought Christ was speaking in symbolic language when He kept saying over and over that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem to die and be resurrected from the dead. Coming from one who spoke in parables, they missed the obvious until after it was all over. In the process, they also overlooked the prophet Isaiah's prediction of a suffering servent who would bear the sins of Israel, being led like a lamb to the slaughter, before God "prolong[ed] His days' (Is 53:10)

 

These disciples thus mistakenly thought Christ was speaking in symbolic language and they didn't understand his parables. Yet, you still believe their account of the whole situation?

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

9) IT WAS A FITTING CLIMAX TO A MIRACULOUS LIFE

While Jesus hung on a Roman cross, crowds mocked Him. He helped others, but could He help Himself? Was the miracle suddently coming to and end? It seemed like such an unexpected ending for someone who began His public life by turning water into wine. During HIs 3 year ministry, He walked on water; healed the sick; opened blind eyes, deaf ears, and tonge-tied mouths; restored crippled limbs; cast out demons; stilled a violent storm; and raised the dead. He asked questions wise men couldn't answer. He taught profound truths with the simplest of comparisons. And He confrontd hypocrities with words that exposed their coverup. If all this was true, should we be surpised that His enemies didn't have the last word?

 

If all this was true he wouldn't have any enemies.

10 REASONS TO BELIEVE: CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

10) IT FITS THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE WHO TRUST HIM

 

The apostle Paul wrote "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give you life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Romans 8:11) This was the experience of Paul, whose heart was dramaticly changed by the resurrected Christ. It is also the experience of people all over the world who have died to their old ways so that Christ can live His life through them. The spiritual power is not evident in those who try to add belief in Christ to their old life. It is seen only in those who are willing to "die" to their old life to make room for the rule of Christ. It is appearant only in those who respond to the overwhelming evidence of Christ's resurrection by acknowledging His Lordship in their heart.

 

 

 

The only place that Christ will ever be is in your heart. Fortunately, that's the only place that matters.

[quankanne]

Yes. What evidence do you have? Little is recorded St. Thomas the apostle.

 

the evidence is in the Tradition ~ or the manner in which the Church believes that the faith was passed down orally and through the actions of the 12 apostles. The Indians and Sri Lankans I work with tell of how St. Thomas came to their part of the world after Jesus' death and began evanglizing in his name. These priests were not there all those centuries ago, but that spark of faith, the belief in the Christ lives to day in a country that is predominantly non-Christian.

 

Paul spread Christianity, but the "Christianity" practiced today would barely be recognizable to Paul or Thomas.

 

theoretically it might not be, but because they were filled with the Holy Spirit as they followed Christ, they would also understand that the Spirit moves men differently. The practice of faith undergoes an evolutionary process because faith is a living, breathing thing in a community of believers.

 

Men back then surely could understand "figures that had a bunch of zeros listed among them." They clearly can count. It isn't a reason for the Bible to say the universe was created in seven days when the eivdence proves otherwise.

 

the Bible is not a scientific piece of literature for people to read and immediately solve because it deals with spirituality, which allows for figurative translations. Man could count, yes, but was he familiar with the terms "billions" or "trillions"? The Bible is written in the simplest language possible for people to grasp ~ "seventy times seven" was understood to be a great number, translated in this particular parable as "ceaselessly" when it came to forgiveness. Seven days is a period of time when distinct events happen in specific segments of time ~ whether they were days as we know them or hundreds of thousands of years. The thrust of the story of Genesis is that God created the universe and these are what his creation involved. THAT it was created was the important part, now whether his days equal ours.

 

It is the way of natural selection.

 

good point to bring up: if morality is a result of natural selection, what depicts nature? What sets the norms for it? Mankind cannot, because each of us has our bias as to what good and bad, right or wrong. They cannot "create" morality, just recognize it if it is innate in them. Other thought is that "nature" or "natural" is the norm we adopt, then God transcends this because he is "super-natural" or "super-nature."

 

Regardless, it is predicted in 2050, the number of Muslims will surpass the number of Christians. I'm certain they will be saying the same thing you said when their times comes,

 

Christians have something in common with Muslims: both are monotheistic faiths, both only believe in one God. Even if one of these groups surpasses the other in size, both will still retain that that "one-God only" identity. I don't think even a population boom among Muslims will stamp out Christianity, because Christians are pretty staunchly embedded in their faith and evangelize and catechize whole heartedly.

 

Just because a book claims to be the truth, doesn't make it so.

 

and just because people on this board think God doesn't exist doesn't make it so .... Personally, I'll put all my faith into what the book tells me about Jesus being the way to go.

 

Also, what do you believe is wrong with fundamentalism?

 

fundamental Christianity worries me because people are using the word of God to scare them to Him, and I wonder how valid a person's claim is if he's doing something out of fear. I think there's a less threatening way to evangelize.

 

Finally, there are multiple versions and translations of the Bible. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Bible have different number of books. How do you know which verison is really the "word of God?"

 

They're all the word of God; I prefer getting my information and reading from a Catholic Bible because it's presented in a vernacular I understand.

[Admiral Thrawn]

This sounds like something your preacher told you. Millions choose Jesus based on faith, but these gaurds saw God and still did not convert.

 

Actually, the guards were scared for their lives because they could be killed on account that Jesus was no longer in the tomb. Just because Jesus rose from the dead, does not mean people will accept Him. The Pharisees and Jewish authorities at the time were more concerned about silencing this, then going to Jesus's disciples and looking for the ressurected Christ.

 

You are therefore confirming that Paul's writing is considered heresy? You know, not an eyewitness account.

 

Actually, according to the Bible, Paul actually did see the ressurected Christ on a road leading to Demascus. The account is recorded in the book of Acts. A pharisee Saul, who was persecuting Christians and was a very zealous Jew, could not have possibly changed literally overnight to be one of the most powerful evangelists of all times unless he had an experience with the ressurected Jesus Christ.

 

All the followers of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple were dramatically changed. So much, that they were willing to kill themselves because of their beleifs. Was Jim Jones the Messiah?

 

I do not think the followers of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple were dramatically changed, they were deceived into a cult of love. Cults in general are appealing to outcast and lonely people because they offer a sence of acceptance and belonging that is sadly lacking in this cold world.

 

The people did not voluntarily kill themselves, they were murdered by the cult leader into drinking poisoned koolaid, if they did not drink it, they would have been killed anyway. They were probably killed because the Army would probably close in and intervene because a US government official was killed when he inspected the cult ground. So, this point is not valid to show anything. Jim Jones is DEAD.

 

 

Great point. However, countless numbers of Budhists, Hindus, and multitudes of others died for their beliefs as well. So, if few will die for what they know to be a lie, then these folks obviously knew the truth.

 

Expand on what you are saying. How did they die for their beliefs?

 

 

 

These disciples thus mistakenly thought Christ was speaking in symbolic language and they didn't understand his parables. Yet, you still believe their account of the whole situation?

 

The disciples understood everything about Jesus and what He was saying as the Spirit of God revealed it to them.

 

If all this was true he wouldn't have any enemies.

 

Au contrare. He started creating enemies for healing a person on the Sabbath day.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Paul spread Christianity, but the "Christianity" practiced today would barely be recognizable to Paul or Thomas.

 

theoretically it might not be, but because they were filled with the Holy Spirit as they followed Christ, they would also understand that the Spirit moves men differently. The practice of faith undergoes an evolutionary process because faith is a living, breathing thing in a community of believers.

 

The claim of Protestant churches is that they are more like the Early church, and how they practised things and believed in things. The evolutionary process of faith you mentioned could also be Apostasy from the true faith. God is unchanging.

 

 

 

Also, what do you believe is wrong with fundamentalism?

 

fundamental Christianity worries me because people are using the word of God to scare them to Him, and I wonder how valid a person's claim is if he's doing something out of fear. I think there's a less threatening way to evangelize.

 

Or because it is a Protestant sect?

[Moai]

I don't understand people who believe in Jesus but don't think that the Bible is literally true.

 

Think about it. The story of Adam and Eve eating from the magic tree HAS to be true, or there is NO REASON for Jesus to have been crucified. None.

 

Since we can determine that the Bible is nowhere NEAR true regarding anything of merit, we can therefore deduce that Jesus is not God, not the Son of God, or anything of the sort.

 

There may be some decent moral lessons sandwiched in between all the murder, rape, and lame accounts of magic tricks, but so what? Those moral lessons are largely self-evident--that's why every other religion has them, too.

 

The Bible isn't even written very well. You'd think that god would have "divinely inspired" men who had more writing talent.

[converse02]

the evidence is in the Tradition ~ or the manner in which the Church believes that the faith was passed down orally and through the actions of the 12 apostles. The Indians and Sri Lankans I work with tell of how St. Thomas came to their part of the world after Jesus' death and began evanglizing in his name. These priests were not there all those centuries ago, but that spark of faith, the belief in the Christ lives to day in a country that is predominantly non-Christian.

Just stories told and accepted as truth. That isn't proof. Compare this to other great historical figures. Most, if not all, surely left signs of there importance to there time period. Diaries, recipts, works. Jesus and his apostles didn't even have a birthday card or a signature left. It is more likely they did exist, but they contribution to history got turned into a legend and mythologicized as time went on. This was common in the past as oral stories got blown up when told to one person to the next.

 

theoretically it might not be, but because they were filled with the Holy Spirit as they followed Christ, they would also understand that the Spirit moves men differently. The practice of faith undergoes an evolutionary process because faith is a living, breathing thing in a community of believers.

So you say. The point is there weren't alot of Christians immediately after Jesus died, even after all the magic he supposedly threw around. The religion only got a hold only after Jesus was turned into a legend by Paul and Company and they went to peach it in Rome.

 

the Bible is not a scientific piece of literature for people to read and immediately solve because it deals with spirituality, which allows for figurative translations. Man could count, yes, but was he familiar with the terms "billions" or "trillions"? The Bible is written in the simplest language possible for people to grasp ~ "seventy times seven" was understood to be a great number, translated in this particular parable as "ceaselessly" when it came to forgiveness. Seven days is a period of time when distinct events happen in specific segments of time ~ whether they were days as we know them or hundreds of thousands of years. The thrust of the story of Genesis is that God created the universe and these are what his creation involved. THAT it was created was the important part, now whether his days equal ours.

This explanation is absurd. Thousands of years ago, there was commence, people had brains. They built the pyramids, stone hedge and other engineering feats. They surely could understand big numbers and understood numbers to be important. "seventy times seven" was understood to be a great number? WHAT?!?!? 70 x 7 = 490. A day is a day. You are trying to redefine the language to justify absurdities. The Bible was clearly written by ordinary men who did not understand astronomy and made it up as they went along.

 

good point to bring up: if morality is a result of natural selection, what depicts nature? What sets the norms for it? Mankind cannot, because each of us has our bias as to what good and bad, right or wrong. They cannot "create" morality, just recognize it if it is innate in them. Other thought is that "nature" or "natural" is the norm we adopt, then God transcends this because he is "super-natural" or "super-nature."

Many atheists are moral without the need of God. They simply use experience and reason and the golden rule to figure out what is right and wrong. Let me ask you this, is persecuting gays wrong? What about burning "witches?" What about divorce? The Bible was written by primitive men from the bronze age who thought persecuting gays and slavery was okay. Burning witches is wrong because witches don't exist. Clearly, the Bible was written by primitive men who believed in magic and superstition.

 

Christians have something in common with Muslims: both are monotheistic faiths, both only believe in one God. Even if one of these groups surpasses the other in size, both will still retain that that "one-God only" identity. I don't think even a population boom among Muslims will stamp out Christianity, because Christians are pretty staunchly embedded in their faith and evangelize and catechize whole heartedly.

Yes, both they are two different religions who constantly war with each other. Why did you choose Christianity over Islam? It is because you were born and raised a Christian and told what to believe. If you were born in the Middle East, you would be a Muslim.

 

 

and just because people on this board think God doesn't exist doesn't make it so .... Personally, I'll put all my faith into what the book tells me about Jesus being the way to go.

I don't just "think" God doesn't exist, but there is no proof God exist, just like elves and Santa. Likewise, I can't just think evolution doesn't exist because there is tons of evidence it happened. Why not place your faith on a book like the koran or the Buddhist scriptures? You, like me, have rejected hundreds and hundred of religous texts and regarded them as myths and superstition. Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra. The only difference between you and me is that I have one more book on my list than you. The Bible isn't a special glowing book of the spirtual world, it was written by men.

 

They're all the word of God; I prefer getting my information and reading from a Catholic Bible because it's presented in a vernacular I understand.

Such a thing is impossible because they are all different, otherwise there wouldn't be so many versions. Many scholarly bibles point out contradictions in the Bible which others reject. The Protestant Bible rejects several books found in the Catholic Bible. Are you saying the Protestants are all wrong? What works about Jesus that never made it to the Bible, like the Gospel of Thomas. Are they lies or not?

[Admiral Thrawn]

I don't understand people who believe in Jesus but don't think that the Bible is literally true.

 

Think about it. The story of Adam and Eve eating from the magic tree HAS to be true, or there is NO REASON for Jesus to have been crucified. None.

 

You have it on the ball there. The whole premise of the need of a Savior theologically rests on the story of Adam and Eve's first sin and subsequent fall from grace. Denying the truth of that story is like denying at worst, or severely undermining an essential part of the Gospel.

 

Since we can determine that the Bible is nowhere NEAR true regarding anything of merit, we can therefore deduce that Jesus is not God, not the Son of God, or anything of the sort.

 

I dont thing so pal. Your mesage started off right, what happened?

 

There may be some decent moral lessons sandwiched in between all the murder, rape, and lame accounts of magic tricks, but so what? Those moral lessons are largely self-evident--that's why every other religion has them, too.

 

You missed the WHOLE point of the Bible. If you can not see the person of Jesus Christ in the Old and New Testaments, you've missed the boat - because it is ALL about Jesus Christ, you have to be quickened by the Holy Spirit in order to see that. If you miss the boat and are reasoning in the natural mind, then, in that perspective you are correct, to the natural eyes, the Bible would contain moral stuff that is found in every religion.

 

The Spirit of God has to reveal the true interpretation. It's like watching a 3D movie without 3D glasses. The Spirit of God is like the 3D glasses so you can actually see a dimension in the scripture that would be a revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Bible, and a 'spiritual dimension'.

 

The Bible isn't even written very well. You'd think that god would have "divinely inspired" men who had more writing talent.

 

You need 3D glasses to watch a 3D movie. Let the Spirit of God guide you into the truth of the Bible.

[d'Arthez]

You have it on the ball there. The whole premise of the need of a Savior theologically rests on the story of Adam and Eve's first sin and subsequent fall from grace. Denying the truth of that story is like denying at worst, or severely undermining an essential part of the Gospel.

Nonsense. You can also interpret the original sin as the first act of freedom - and it is also telling that man had a hard time dealing with that freedom, much as in real life. And that Jesus was one of the few men in history, just like Socrates, who fully accepted the freedom, and chose to not to lie to himself, in order to please those in power. Not to flee, in order to save his life. And it is not one iota harder to interpret the whole of the Bible in such a way. Such an interpretation has been a part of the history of Christianity and Judaism as well. You can just as easily claim that it is what God wants us to believe, and all that.

Who is right? Noone knows, but noone can claim to be right - as only God knows. So which man dares to say this is what God wants, as that is a clear violation of the principle of Scripture itself?

 

Mary was not always the figure she is nowadays either. Even the Catholic church itself has not been very consistent in choosing what is truth in the Bible.

[konfused]

There is no doubt in my mind that if I were in need of anything that you were able to offer, it would be mine in the blink of an eye. Whether it was food, shelter, or just a friend to listen to me, I know that you would help me even though I am a nonbeliever. I also realize that there are times when you act in selfish ways, and you call those sins. You try to model your life after Jesus to the best of your abilities and you will be rewarded for that. The reward will be heaven.

 

If you were in dire need I would offer you anything I had, whether it be food, shelter, or a friend to listen to you. I would help you even though I am not a Christian. There are times in my life when I, too, act in selfish ways. I call those times sins. I try to model my life after what I believe to be right and I will be rewarded as well. My reward will be HELL.

 

And if the Christian God does exist and judges his sons and daughters in such a way, I'll take my chances with the Devil.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Konfused;

 

The Bible says: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life".

 

The Bible does not give instructions to model your life after Jesus as a path to salvation, but to actually believe in Christ. In other words, both scenerios you presented would lead to the same place, Hell, if the motivation behind those good deeds is to earn a place in heaven.

 

The fundamental Bible doctrine is there is no justification on the basis of good works. But, good works are encouraged in their own right, but not to 'earn' something with God. Everything God has to give is not for sale, so it cant be earned. God gives gifts to people who do not deserve them. Salvation is a gift, it is not earned. You dont deserve it, neither do I, or anyone else, but it is there for the taking to whomever chooses to believe.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Nonsense.

 

The Bible says in Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise her head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

 

The Redemption of the human race is premised on this verse. The seed of the woman - that woman that bore the seed was Mary, and Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. This is the first theological reference of a promise of a Savior. Her seed would ultimately triumph. Jesus defeated the devil.

 

You can also interpret the original sin as the first act of freedom - and it is also telling that man had a hard time dealing with that freedom, much as in real life.

 

They also had the freedom to obey and not eat the apple. If they choose to do that, then Adam and Eve would be physically alive today.

 

And that Jesus was one of the few men in history, just like Socrates, who fully accepted the freedom, and chose to not to lie to himself, in order to please those in power.

 

If you agree that Jesus is not a liar, then you will also agree to Jesus' claims about who He is. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus has claimed to be God incarnate. He was crucified for His claims, not his good deeds.

 

Not to flee, in order to save his life.

 

He knew this was going to happen way before the fact. It was part of His mission to save humanity.

 

[quote=d'Arthez[

And it is not one iota harder to interpret the whole of the Bible in such a way.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Such an interpretation has been a part of the history of Christianity and Judaism as well. You can just as easily claim that it is what God wants us to believe, and all that.

 

But that interpretation you posited denies the diety of Christ, and the purpose of redemption. Clearly the Gospel of John portrays otherwise. He is not just some man that just came as an example, and needlessly died on the cross. There has to be a reason and purpose behind it, and that interpretation is one dimensional.

 

Who is right? Noone knows, but noone can claim to be right - as only God knows. So which man dares to say this is what God wants, as that is a clear violation of the principle of Scripture itself?

 

The Bible is like a big puzzle. Let the Bible interpret itself. That's how I interpret the Bible, let it do the interpretating. The puzzels all fit together into one coherent picture from the first verse and chapter of Genesis, to the last verse and Chapter of Revelation.

 

Mary was not always the figure she is nowadays either. Even the Catholic church itself has not been very consistent in choosing what is truth in the Bible.

 

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but afterwards she had sex with Joseph, and Jesus had other half-brothers.

 

Mary 'worship' is actually pagan in nature, as many religions have mother and son dieties, which is the devil's mockery of the truth. The Catholic church combined itself with pagan cultures, and developed a system where pagan deities were transformed to saints that people prayed to, in order to appease both pagan and Christian populations in Rome. It became Apostate due to those practises and others.

 

I know some people in here are Catholics, such as quickanne, and I actually came from a Catholic elementary school and high school, and would like to say, some of my best life experiences were in the Catholic school. I never lasted a year in the public school as it was too rough. So, I really have nothing against the Catholic church, but I just think they are heretical in most of their doctrinal points. There are many great philosophical and intellectual works by people who were baptised Catholic who are in that system, and many people there who are genuinely seeking after God.

 

However, I would rather let the Bible interpret itself, because a book aught to explain itself.

[d'Arthez]

They also had the freedom to obey and not eat the apple. If they choose to do that, then Adam and Eve would be physically alive today.

How can freedom exist, without the knowledge of good and evil?

 

I beg to differ.

Yes, probably because you are more experienced with your version of interpretation. It is a common mistake to make - and one humans are most prone to make.

 

He is not just some man that just came as an example, and needlessly died on the cross. There has to be a reason and purpose behind it, and that interpretation is one dimensional.

Millions of people die. Does not mean that every death is part of a grand scheme - divine or otherwise planned. As for the interpretation of an event, it only becomes one dimensional when the conclusion is the given, and everything that leads to the conclusion must be fitting to that.

If I were to state that Max Planck were God in human form, it is not hard to make up a theory on how just his life was, and how he was wronged by disbelievers, and of course the "evil attack" of Einstein on his infallible truth. And that what we nowadays perceive as mistakes of Planck, only are reflections of our shortcomings, i.e. or inability to grasp the Divine.

 

The Bible is like a big puzzle. Let the Bible interpret itself. That's how I interpret the Bible, let it do the interpretating.

A book cannot interpret itself. So we must do it, and make mistakes.

 

The puzzels all fit together into one coherent picture from the first verse and chapter of Genesis, to the last verse and Chapter of Revelation.

Yet, that is an impoossibility - because we are not omniscient - we will make mistakes in interpretation. And it is not hard to point to the many contradictions between Mark, Matthew, John and Luke - which are anything but solvable. And if we add Thomas to the equation, it only becomes more complex. These are teachings that anything but consistently taught to the Catholics, the protestants et cetera.

 

The idea that Christ was God was not born in 34 AD. That happened a few centuries later, when christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire - and it is not hard to see why such a decision to grant divinity to Christ was made then.

 

Mary 'worship' is actually pagan in nature, as many religions have mother and son dieties, which is the devil's mockery of the truth.

Yes, remember lovely Marduk? Or the interpretations that can be made of the play "Antigone" by Sophocles? And how can you be certain that such "mockery" is the correct interpretation? If you hold the Bible to be infallible, is that not a form of idolatry?

 

However, I would rather let the Bible interpret itself, because a book aught to explain itself.

But that is impossible. Even if the translation was perfect (which per definition is not the case, even if you make a translation of an essay from English to German), the act of interpretation is a human, and thus fallible endeavour. Especially with so many statements in the Bible contradicting each other.

[snootylj]

I have had the same thoughts you have had, I believe that when you are born you also have been given your death date thats just me. I lost my twin brother 3 years ago in a car accident, have had alot of issues accepting god since then, I don't beleive every thing happens for a reason. Why is one person taken from this earth, who works, pays taxes and so forth. Why can someone murder others, rape and never play a role in the circle of LIFE so called be given the chance to remain in this world where the have choosen to not give a damn. Several of my family members are if you have faith in god, you will know that he is really there. My question I put out there to any one in the world who can give actual hardcore been there done that facts. If Steven King can make up crazy out of this world fiction stories, whose is to say someone with an imagination didn't start the bible, everyone wants a reason for us being here in the world so who every they or who maybe started writing to give people what they wanted to hear. That is just my opinion, not to start arguments, just what makes one person right over the other.

[Admiral Thrawn]

How can freedom exist' date=' without the knowledge of good and evil? [/quote']

 

Adam and Eve had the freedom not to eat the fruit. They could have done anything they could have wanted to do, rather than eat the fruit of the tree. Eating the fruit was not the result of boredom, but the result of temptation from the devil, and lust on the part of Eve, and compliance on the part of Adam.

 

Millions of people die. Does not mean that every death is part of a grand scheme - divine or otherwise planned.

 

Right, but the fact is, according to the Bible, and my faith, Jesus was not just another man. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is God, He was alive before Abraham was born, and has claimed divinity throughtout the book of John. Jesus never sinned once in his life and walked in perfect obedience.

 

A book cannot interpret itself. So we must do it, and make mistakes.

 

Yet, that is an impoossibility - because we are not omniscient - we will make mistakes in interpretation. And it is not hard to point to the many contradictions between Mark, Matthew, John and Luke - which are anything but solvable.

 

There are no contradictions in the Bible. I challenge you to point any contradiction up in the Bible.

 

And if we add Thomas to the equation, it only becomes more complex. These are teachings that anything but consistently taught to the Catholics, the protestants et cetera.

 

Thomas is not in the Bible as a 'book'.

 

The idea that Christ was God was not born in 34 AD. That happened a few centuries later, when christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire - and it is not hard to see why such a decision to grant divinity to Christ was made then.

 

Jesus was crucified for His claims of divinity. He did not die on the cross for His good works.

 

Yes, remember lovely Marduk? Or the interpretations that can be made of the play "Antigone" by Sophocles? And how can you be certain that such "mockery" is the correct interpretation? If you hold the Bible to be infallible, is that not a form of idolatry?

 

No, it is not a form of idolatry, because that is how God communicates. His word becomes a living word, and He is communicating directly to your soul.

It is called the Rehma word.

 

But that is impossible. Even if the translation was perfect (which per definition is not the case, even if you make a translation of an essay from English to German), the act of interpretation is a human, and thus fallible endeavour. Especially with so many statements in the Bible contradicting each other.

 

There is no statement in the Bible that is contradictory.

[quankanne]

Jesus and his apostles didn't even have a birthday card or a signature left.

 

faith is not about proof, though, it's about trust in something bigger than yourself. And that's what Jesus was trying to do as he went about his way teaching about God.

 

The point is there weren't alot of Christians immediately after Jesus died, even after all the magic he supposedly threw around.

 

actually, the point is, something that has started out so small, with a small group of people evangelizing for Christ, has grown into hundred of millions of believers.

 

You are trying to redefine the language to justify absurdities.

 

and you're trying to define faith on empirical evidence. The Bible uses figurative speech and parables to get the message across to as many people as possible. The people of Old Testament times didn't have the kind of education that is available now, and we don't possess the knowledge they did.

 

They simply use experience and reason and the golden rule to figure out what is right and wrong.

 

what golden rule?

 

Yes, both they are two different religions who constantly war with each other. Why did you choose Christianity over Islam? It is because you were born and raised a Christian and told what to believe. If you were born in the Middle East, you would be a Muslim.

 

why do men chose to hate because of their differences instead of learning to live together based on the very thing that unites them? All boils down to free will. Why do I choose my Catholic faith over something else? Because I believe in it and because it best defines how I practice my relationship with God.

 

Why not place your faith on a book like the koran or the Buddhist scriptures? …The Bible isn't a special glowing book of the spirtual world, it was written by men.

 

if I embrace Christianity, why would I place my faith in writings that don't support my faith?

 

Such a thing is impossible because they are all different, otherwise there wouldn't be so many versions. Many scholarly bibles point out contradictions in the Bible which others reject. The Protestant Bible rejects several books found in the Catholic Bible. Are you saying the Protestants are all wrong? What works about Jesus that never made it to the Bible, like the Gospel of Thomas. Are they lies or not?

 

I don't follow Protestant practices in the way I worship, but even I understand that they believe in the same God and Jesus that I do. It's not out of the question for a non-Catholic to read a Catholic Bible for fuller understanding, just like I depend heavily on a KJV website for my Scripture searches when I'm doing my work as a reporter. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they "lies" as you describe because they both deal with the same subject material in a similar manner.

 

The Spirit of God has to reveal the true interpretation. It's like watching a 3D movie without 3D glasses. The Spirit of God is like the 3D glasses so you can actually see a dimension in the scripture that would be a revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Bible, and a 'spiritual dimension.'

 

nice analogy, Admiral.

 

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but afterwards she had sex with Joseph, and Jesus had other half-brothers.

 

an interesting aside here: In the new Anne Rice book, Christ the Lord, Mary's brother Cleopas explains to the child Jesus, who had wondered why Joseph never got near his mother, that Mary was consecrated to God even though she agreed to be Joseph's wife and mother to his son James (from his first marriage). From the Catholic perspective, it makes sense as we believe that she is virginal in every which sense – she is the physically and spiritually pure vessel in which Jesus was delivered. But again, this is just a Catholic author's take on her readings of Scripture not included in book of the Bible ...

[Bogun]

There are no contradictions in the Bible. I challenge you to point any contradiction up in the Bible.

I'll only point out some of the main contradictions from the gospels....

 

1. The geneologies in matthew and luke differ. They both say jesus is fathered by joseph, but go back one more generation and the 2 gospels differ. Matthew says joseph's father was jacob, whereas luke says it was heli. Keep going back to david, and the path is completely different.

 

2. Luke says jesus was born in the year of the census in 6AD, matthew says he was born while herod was alived, and herod died in 4BC.

 

3. The gospels say that jesus was killed by crucifixion, whereas paul says he was hung on a gibbet and peter says he was hung on a tree.

 

4. Matthew and mark have jesus saying as his final words "my god why have you forsaken me?", luke has him saying something different and john has him saying something different from everyone else "i am thirsty, it is finished".

 

There are many more contradictions in the bible admiral.

[d'Arthez]

Adam and Eve had the freedom not to eat the fruit. They could have done anything they could have wanted to do, rather than eat the fruit of the tree. Eating the fruit was not the result of boredom, but the result of temptation from the devil, and lust on the part of Eve, and compliance on the part of Adam.

Again, how could temptation exsit, if Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil?

 

There are no contradictions in the Bible. I challenge you to point any contradiction up in the Bible.

How many fighting men were found in Judah?

Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)?

Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword (1 Chronichles 21:5)?

 

Has this person the same name in the other Apostles? The man Jesus met in Matthew 9:9?

 

Thomas is not in the Bible as a 'book'.

I know. But you can't deny the the existence of the apostle just because it is not in the Bible. Nor does that by virtue of logic mean that all his words are untrue.

 

No, it is not a form of idolatry, because that is how God communicates.

I beg to differ. Are you sure the devil did not lead you to believe that? Even in medieval literature the devil sometimes made use of the holy numbers and all the signs of God.

And how can we be certain that the worship of for instance the Golden Calf was not the way God communicates? Because it is narrated in the Bible? Or because it is a form of idolatry as mentioned in the Bible.

If it is the first, then we know squat about whether or not worshipping of our country, the Bible, or whatever is wrong or not. If it is the second, there is no reason to exclude the Bible itself from the concept.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Again' date=' how could temptation exsit, if Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil? [/quote']

 

Before they ate it, the only sin or evil they could do is eat the fruit. They could not do any further sin than that. After they ate it, they extent to what different evil things they could do expanded exponentially to include all sins we currently know. Then murder, lust, etc....End of story.

 

 

How many fighting men were found in Judah?

Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)?

Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword (1 Chronichles 21:5)?

 

But, 1 Chronicals 21:6 indicates that the census was incomplete because it did not include the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.

 

The figure in Samuel is the accurate one. Different counting procedures occurred, tribe of Levi and Benjamin included in Samuel, or that number in Samuel is the 'completed' census, since there is no verse in Samuel suggesting that the census there is incomplete, as it is in Chronicals.

 

When you are reading the Bible, you have to look at verses immediately after the passage to contextualise the meaning. The following verse in Chronicals said the census was incomplete, so it is already saying the quoted figure in Chronicals is incomplete and unrealiable. Since that verse is not in Samuel, then obviously, the completed number is in Samuel.

 

Has this person the same name in the other Apostles? The man Jesus met in Matthew 9:9?

 

Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle, was by occuptation a tax collector.

He went by two different aliases. People have two different names. For example, I have an English name and an Italian name, that I use interchangably. So?

 

I know. But you can't deny the the existence of the apostle just because it is not in the Bible. Nor does that by virtue of logic mean that all his words are untrue.

 

If it is not in the Bible, then it is not scriptural cannon. Our discussion is about the Holy Bible, and it's infallability as being the complete word of God and absolute authority on any spiritual matter. If you are going to bring up extra-biblical concepts, then that would defeat the purpose of this discussion.

 

I beg to differ. Are you sure the devil did not lead you to believe that? Even in medieval literature the devil sometimes made use of the holy numbers and all the signs of God.

 

I'm 100% sure about what I believe. The KJV Bible is the true word of God.

 

And how can we be certain that the worship of for instance the Golden Calf was not the way God communicates? Because it is narrated in the Bible? Or because it is a form of idolatry as mentioned in the Bible.

If it is the first, then we know squat about whether or not worshipping of our country, the Bible, or whatever is wrong or not. If it is the second, there is no reason to exclude the Bible itself from the concept.

 

This is absurd. The fact of the matter is that you cant find any contradiction in the Bible, or you can not say anything to demonstrate this book is false rather than wild rhetorical speculation. Come now.

 

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

 

The Bible is a mirror. How do you look like infront of God. Are you wearing a white robe of righteousness, or are you marred by sin?

[d'Arthez]

Before they ate it, the only sin or evil they could do is eat the fruit.

As they could not KNOW as they did not have any knowledge that it was a sin, that is not true. They could not even perceive it as a sin, for that implies knowledge they could not have had.

 

But, 1 Chronicals 21:6 indicates that the census was incomplete because it did not include the tribe of Levi and Benjamin.

No. Because the term drew sword implies what is asked in my question. There are two different figures. And that is something you cannot deny.

 

When you are reading the Bible, you have to look at verses immediately after the passage to contextualise the meaning. The following verse in Chronicals said the census was incomplete, so it is already saying the quoted figure in Chronicals is incomplete and unrealiable. Since that verse is not in Samuel, then obviously, the completed number is in Samuel.

But if they did not drew the swords, the statement is wrong in one of those.

 

Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle, was by occuptation a tax collector.

He went by two different aliases. People have two different names. For example, I have an English name and an Italian name, that I use interchangably. So?

What is his name? Matthew? Or Levi?

 

I'm 100% sure about what I believe. The KJV Bible is the true word of God.

Yes, but even deceived people can be 100% convinced that they have not been deceived. So your 100% sureness does not prove a thing.

 

This is absurd. The fact of the matter is that you cant find any contradiction in the Bible, or you can not say anything to demonstrate this book is false rather than wild rhetorical speculation. Come now.

You are the one who must make a bazillion assumptions to explain the contradictions in the Bible, thus going against the "facts" as they were presented, in the Bible, and thus making mistakes - which you claim to be infallibly true.

[Toni_no12002]

i was thinking about something which is quite confusing.People say god is neither a he or a she.Hes not human.So why does he have human emotions?People say he loves us all..... that is a human emotion.He punishes people by not letting them go to heaven as they have been bad.Adam and eve he punished them as they betrayed him.He was upset and angry so he punished them.Human emotion again.

 

Well what im trying to say is that if god is a god and he isnt human in any way why does he have feelings and emotions?

[Moai]

You have it on the ball there. The whole premise of the need of a Savior theologically rests on the story of Adam and Eve's first sin and subsequent fall from grace. Denying the truth of that story is like denying at worst, or severely undermining an essential part of the Gospel.

 

Yep.

 

I dont thing so pal. Your mesage started off right, what happened?

 

I don't believe in God. And if I were to believe in god, the last religion I would choose would be Christianity.

 

You missed the WHOLE point of the Bible. If you can not see the person of Jesus Christ in the Old and New Testaments, you've missed the boat - because it is ALL about Jesus Christ, you have to be quickened by the Holy Spirit in order to see that.

 

No, I didn't miss the whole point of the Bible, I REJECT the whole point of the Bible. Big difference. If by "quickened by the Holy Spirit" you mean I have to turn my brain off and accept the goofiest religious premise EVER, then I agree with you.

 

If you miss the boat and are reasoning in the natural mind, then, in that perspective you are correct, to the natural eyes, the Bible would contain moral stuff that is found in every religion.

 

I have no choice but to reason with my rational mind. I have no other tool.

 

The Spirit of God has to reveal the true interpretation. It's like watching a 3D movie without 3D glasses. The Spirit of God is like the 3D glasses so you can actually see a dimension in the scripture that would be a revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Bible, and a 'spiritual dimension'.

 

No offense, but that is crap. There are countless interpretations of the Bible, many of which spawned major denominations in Christianity. To say one has the "correct" interpretation and one does not is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Personally, I don't care what the "real" or "true" interpretation of the Bible is.

 

You need 3D glasses to watch a 3D movie. Let the Spirit of God guide you into the truth of the Bible.

 

Why would a god inspire a book that required decoding? That is just goofy, as is the idea that fruit can impart knowledge or make you immortal, that sacrificing pdgeons cures leprosy, and that people rise from the dead. What century is this?

[Admiral Thrawn]

As they could not KNOW as they did not have any knowledge that it was a sin' date=' that is not true. They could not even perceive it as a sin, for that implies knowledge they could not have had. [/quote']

 

God told them if they ate that fruit they would surely die. The consequence of sin is death. Therefore, they had knowledge, given by God, that eating that fruit was wrong. After they ate the fruit, they would not need any knowledge from God of good and evil, because, well, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was consumed.

 

So, knowledge of sin, before eating the fruit, was revealed by God. God did not list any other sins other than eating the fruit at that time.

 

No. Because the term drew sword implies what is asked in my question. There are two different figures. And that is something you cannot deny.

But if they did not drew the swords, the statement is wrong in one of those.

 

That was already acknowledged and explained. I told you the census in Chronicals was incomplete, because the account in Chronicals said so, so Samual's count is more reliable. There is no contradiction of fact. If the account in Chronicals said nothing about its censor, or that it was completed, then you would have a point, however, it did say, that the censer was incomplete in the book of Chronicals.

 

What is his name? Matthew? Or Levi?

 

Is your name d'Arthez, or is it your offline name?

 

You are the one who must make a bazillion assumptions to explain the contradictions in the Bible, thus going against the "facts" as they were presented, in the Bible, and thus making mistakes - which you claim to be infallibly true.

 

You cant even bring up one contradiction up in the Bible to substantiate your point.

[Admiral Thrawn]

i was thinking about something which is quite confusing.People say god is neither a he or a she.Hes not human.So why does he have human emotions?People say he loves us all..... that is a human emotion.He punishes people by not letting them go to heaven as they have been bad.Adam and eve he punished them as they betrayed him.He was upset and angry so he punished them.Human emotion again.

 

Well what im trying to say is that if god is a god and he isnt human in any way why does he have feelings and emotions?

 

Humans are created in God's image, at least originally. We still have some qualities of God in us. Part of those qualities is emotion. God has all positive or just emotional attributes that we have. The emotions that if everyone had, would make a better and much happier world. There would be no wars, people would distribute what they have to those in need, and people would deal justly with one another. Do we have that type of world?

 

Where we stray from God's image, is that God does not experience 'flesh' emotions, and therefore can not lust, hate, envy, greed, or have any of the 'corrupt' forms of emotion that we have after the fall.