Religious Topics and Questions

[MaddSkillz]

I would add that we need to read verse 9 in the same chapter as well to determine if it is all people without exception, or all of those whom he purposed to save?

It's all people without exception.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

No, it's a parable. There is nothing in the parable about personal faith. Rather, Lazarus is "saved" while the rich man is "damned" 1) Because Lazarus was poor while the rich man was rich, 2) Lazarus wore ratty clothes while the rich man wore purple, 3) Lazarus was full of sores while the rich man lived comfortably, 4) Lazarus went hungry while the rich man had food, and 5) Lazarus got evil things in his life while the rich man got good.

To add to that Jesus clearly states, "this is a parable."

Luke 15:3
So he told them this parable:

It was a five fold parable and nowhere near the beginning of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man did He say, "Oh but this one is true." That is something that people have read into it. How people have turned that into a real incident, I really haven't a clue.

not sure if you are just trolling, or if that is a serious response, you post a verse in luke 15:3 where Jesus talks about 3 parables and then say it applys to luke 16:19?? i mean this is not a "deep topic that is debated" you will not find any well respected scholars that say you can apply that verse to this story, along with the fact for that to make sense you would have to say Jesus teachings on marriage in verses 16-17 are also a parabale which NO ONE will agree to, so how can you just pick and chose chapters later on what and what isn't a parable.... you said people have "turned" it into a real incident... no one has turned it into anything..... You cannot just take a verse two chapters before and apply it to one passage, that is how things get twisted.....

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

i think if anyone, regardless of age, race, sex, religious affiliation, & the era in which he/she existed, believes in a single religion to a point where they accept that its doctrine has a real possibility of actually being true, then one must also accept that all other religions, including ones that have come and gone in the thousands of years man has walked the earth, also have the possibility of being true.

if a person claims they are christian, and believes in christian beliefs as such (god, heaven, various denominational variances) and hold to those so firmly that their "faith" literally allows them to accept that those things exist, if they do not also accept that by doing so they MUST acknowledge that all other religious beliefs could also exist & by that act accept that they themselves & their beliefs could be wrong, they are hypocritical, close minded, and are doomed to a life of little consequence.

the same can be said of believers of other mainstream religious sects.

if by reading this you see a hint of truth in it, good for you. if all it did was inspire a bit a rage, re-examine your life imo.

over the countless revisions translations and editions the bible has gone through, what we have today on book shelves many people take as the literal word of god. over many generations the common man has lost sight of the true origins of these stories. what am i getting to? well here's a brain tickler for some of you.

lets take John the Baptist for example, well known and commonly recognized. did you know that his real name was יוֹחָנָן, pronounced Yôḥanan and is derived from the Latin Ioannes, Iohannes, which is in turn a form of the Greek Ἰωάννης, Iōánnēs? Mathew? Mark? Luke? etc etc. You think his real name was Jesus, or was even pronounced remotely like it?

Your basic logic is a little off here, let me address it one by one...
1. If you have faith in Christianity then you must believe all religions must have some sort of truth..... i will agree that "blind faith" is horrible and it is actually condemned by the bible, but where else in life does this idea of if you believe one thing you must engage with others apply??? So if you believe in animals you must also believe that unicorns, werewolves exist?? If you believe in air, must you also believe in an "energy" that all things possess that you cannot see either?? i could go on and on, but everyone understands, that logic will allow you to believe in animals, air, etc... because there is evidence for it, but there is not (at least not compelling) evidence for "energy" and unicorns, etc.... One of the main reasons i am such a "strong" believer in Christianity, is because i have read the book of mormon, i am studying islam right now, i have read numerous science books on DNA, etc.. (about to read darwins book), talked to numerous elders, atheists, etc... that i disagree with to see if i am wrong... When i met with mormans and they had no answers for no archeological proof, DNA issues with their beliefs, changing beliefs even though it was "accurate", no outside proof they have direct revelation from God, and all they could do is shrug their shoulders and say "you bring up great points, but we don't believe in evidence" how can i say their religion is "just as valid"..... it makes no sense to apply something to religion you do not apply to anything else in life...
2. you are right about the is Jesus name really pronounced Jesus, more importantly you need to do some research on textual criticism and you will understand that it is the message that is important and that 99% of the message is intact. If the bible says He went into the temple and it got interpreted He walked into the temple, the message remains the same… also with the overwhelming about of manuscripts it is very easy to figure out what the truth was, even if people make errors on purpose.. this is an example that they do at a college (except they do it with a full “fake” chapter that is made up that people make errors to on purpose)… none of these are accurate
Benjamin went to Crest to buy soup
Benjamin went to Target to buy Steak
Joe went to Crest to buy steak
Benjamin went to Crest to buy fish
Mary went to Crest to buy Steak

You can tell the original was “Benjamin went to Crest to buy Steak”, even though every single one has an error on purpose (which was rare considering how serious they copied stuff down), so you can imagine if you had over 100 manuscripts with just one or two “variances”, how easy it would be to figure out what is accurate……

 

[MaddSkillz]

not sure if you are just trolling, or if that is a serious response, you post a verse in luke 15:3 where Jesus talks about 3 parables and then say it applys to luke 16:19?? i mean this is not a "deep topic that is debated" you will not find any well respected scholars that say you can apply that verse to this story, along with the fact for that to make sense you would have to say Jesus teachings on marriage in verses 16-17 are also a parabale which NO ONE will agree to, so how can you just pick and chose chapters later on what and what isn't a parable.... you said people have "turned" it into a real incident... no one has turned it into anything..... You cannot just take a verse two chapters before and apply it to one passage, that is how things get twisted.....

Not trolling at all... The story is a parable. Luke 16:19-31. Jesus is in the midst of teaching 5 parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally, you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom on Abraham? Why not? If this is literal? In the parable the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham's chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you're going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in a flame or sitting on Ambraham's chest for eternity, then you're going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. What is the criteria for salvation in this context? There is nothing about faith there. So let's wear grubby clothes and have dogs lick our sores! We'll be well on our way!

If this is so literal, why don't you take the Prodigal Son literal, beginning in chapter 15:11-32? At the end of that parable the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don't you take that literal?

The system of defining these parables as literal vs figurative within the Christian community has no structure, thus these parables and their true intent sometimes fall flat on their face.

It's a parable, bro.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

Not trolling at all... The story is a parable. Luke 16:19-31. Jesus is in the midst of teaching 5 parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally, you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom on Abraham? Why not? If this is literal? In the parable the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham's chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you're going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in a flame or sitting on Ambraham's chest for eternity, then you're going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. What is the criteria for salvation in this context? There is nothing about faith there. So let's wear grubby clothes and have dogs lick our sores! We'll be well on our way!

If this is so literal, why don't you take the Prodigal Son literal, beginning in chapter 15:11-32? At the end of that parable the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don't you take that literal?

The system of defining these parables as literal vs figurative within the Christian community has no structure, thus these parables and their true intent sometimes fall flat on their face.

It's a parable, bro.

well instead of going back and forth it is obvious that you want believe certain things instead of looking at things from an open mind..when you make comments like "There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith.", i understand that you have your mind made up at this point, i believe there is a ton to be learned whether you look at it as a parable or not... there are numerous things within my personal life and decisions i am making right now that are partly based on the ideas that taught in this passage/parable (or whatever you want to call it...).. it just seems like you feel like alot of the bible has no point because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs (hell, upset the rich man is in hell or whatever you want to call it, because in your words he wore nice things, which is not what it was saying, etc..), which is fine just be careful about talking down to me because i do believe the whole bible...

 

[Koshinn]

In my mind it is for 2 reasons, one to continually recognize our dependence on God, and secondly, because he wants us to.

So when someone prays for the recovery or safety of another, it's not to actually help that person because that person's fate is already known and according to God's plan. Instead, it's to show God that you know He's in control? Then what's the point of praying for someone else? Just say your normal prayers and thanks and be done with it; asking God for help won't change his mind.

Is it God's will for me to sin? No, it is not and so therefore I must have free will. If I did not then I would not sin. The problem is that I sin everyday.

Maybe it is God's will for you to sin because you do sin. If everything goes according to God's plan, then it IS God's plan that you sin. Regardless if you have "free will" or not, you do everything exactly according to the plan. So while you think there's a choice, there is actually only one path you can take. You only have the illusion of free will.


Unless we're going to delve into a "many worlds theory" of quantum mechanics where God's plan is not a linear plan but instead a decision tree encompasing the entire universe such that no matter what choice you take, God knows all events after that decision and acts accordingly. But then you have a question of souls. If each branch in the decision tree contain an entirely new universe, as the theory states, does each of those universes contain a copy of you, your soul, God, and Heaven? It would make more sense if God was outside the multiverse, as previously mentioned, so then does God preside over an infinite number of Heavens and Universes? Or perhaps once a decision is made, do all other parallel and older branches instantly collapse into one, such that there is only one current universe but an infinite number of future universes?

Is there really a zen thread?

 

[ahlosojoe]

Do you really believe that Peter was preaching to a bunch of dead people???

Was Jesus knocking of the heart door of a bunch of dead people????

Peter and Jesus were inviting living and breathing sinners to accept the gospel and be saved.

 

[Droberts]

benjamin-benjamin
- Christianity has real world value. Following the teachings, the goals, the purpose of his effort will lead us on a life of good. Most religions out there at their root have a true intrinsic value that can enhance one's life for the better, despite their theological differences. Getting lost in the dogma and rhetoric is where the core values begin to have less bearing on what one should really be getting out of one's religion. if one were to completely eliminate all the supernatural and ceremonial portions of religions, what would be left would still be of value. take Christianity, we would still be taught to meet weekly to work as a group toward peaceful mindsets, acts of goodness, and ensuring that those values are taught to our young. that can be accomplished through metaphor, stories & direct discussion without the need to stray into the supernatural aspect.

it sounds like your on a good path and are the better for it.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

benjamin-benjamin
- Christianity has real world value. Following the teachings, the goals, the purpose of his effort will lead us on a life of good. Most religions out there at their root have a true intrinsic value that can enhance one's life for the better, despite their theological differences. Getting lost in the dogma and rhetoric is where the core values begin to have less bearing on what one should really be getting out of one's religion.

it sounds like your on a good path and are the better for it.

agreed, i think what happens is people have trouble with the idea what is good... for example, if someone donates a ton a money to a charity to get their name on a plaque and be viewed as a good person, all religions (minus one) view this as good, whereas Christianity does not. So not saying that someone cannot "better" their life (so to say) through other religions, but there is a different standard that i expect someone who claims to be christians hold themselves to. Also i think the big thing is that if Jesus was not the messiah HE WAS A HORRIBLE PERSON, LIAR AND LET PEOPLE DIE... i don't believe you can call Jesus a good person and his teachings good if anyone can come to God anyway, since thousands of people died (starting with his disciples) for the belief (that Jesus taught) that he is the only way to heaven. How can a "good" person let people die if they didn't have to?? Jesus's teachings force people to take a side... if that makes sense.... thanks for the comment droberts

 

[Koshinn]

agreed, i think what happens is people have trouble with the idea what is good...

Using the Bible for its examples of what God considers good is treacherous ground. Unless you ignore the entire Old Testament.

Then again the Old Testament is equally as canon as the New Testament, and "morally good" is an unchanging universal constant. What is "morally good" is not relative to the times, it is always good. So I don't think you can ignore stories where God commands his people to slaughter the unbelievers and take their women and children.