Is Jesus Lord?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Sarxis


.. but there is only one Truth.

Jesus is Lord, for all things were created through Him, and for Him. All that is power and authority and wisdom His Father, the One true God, has given over to Jesus. The Son is the only one who knows God truly, because He comes from the Father, and has always existed with the Father. But when Jesus appears to us, He is a Son, in a bodily form, yet with the fullness of God's nature invested in Him.

The last few chapters of the book of John explains a lot of what God and Jesus' relationship is (and the nature of their Spirit too). Confusing? Not in the basics, but yes, it is probably the deepest of all mysteries.

I highly recommend reading those last couple chapters of John (the part just before Jesus is betrayed and crucified). Also, back in Genesis, compare with what Pharoah says to Joseph when he makes him the virtual ruler of all Egypt.

and is it possible that this the truth without using a circular reference

[Elok]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I've not said anything about deliberate breaking of will, simple exposure to a one-sided idea from an early age is sufficient. Kids should be taught the basics, and religion should be left to an age where they can logically rationalise it compared to all the other arguments. I wonder how well religion would do in that climate? You are simply interpreting things into my post that simple are not there...

Yes, but "exposure to a one-sided idea" is not brainwashing. That term is heavily loaded and has some strong implications. At the absolute worst, you could call it "indoctrination." As to not learning anything until you're old enough to analyze it and understand the opposing point of view--do you support the same policy for all forms of knowledge, or just the ideas you don't agree with? And how old is old enough, especially when you've grown up with no experience thinking about this sort of thing?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Spec


Knowing god is like knowing a story. You cant touch, see or feel god because he is FICTIONNAL. An invention!!!




Spec.

You can't see Him because you are not looking. Spiritual things are absurd to those who can't (or won't) discern them spiritually. You wouldn't use your naked eyes to see into the infrared spectrum, would you?

So you can't use only your worldly understanding to see God.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Sarxis
You can't see Him because you are not looking. Spiritual things are absurd to those who can't (or won't) discern them spiritually. You wouldn't use your naked eyes to see into the infrared spectrum, would you?

So you can't use only your worldly understanding to see God.

The analogy of senses can only take you so far. Senses can be deceived. We verify what we cannot accurately sense with testable knowledge.

This is not the case with faith. Any claim of a "spiritual sense" cannot be called such if it cannot be backed up by verification. We can have faith... we can believe in something with all of our heart and soul, but is this proof of rightness?

There are so many people that have faith in so many different things. In what way can this sense... this ability to perceive the divine and spiritual that is beyond sight... be true? How do we tell who is deceived and who is not? What consensus can we draw upon to verify what we feel?

[Wycoff]

If it's any help to anyone here, I think that my church attendence as a child and teenager was one of the most important factors in helping me realize that I didn't and couldn't believe in religion or spirituality.

Take your kids to church if you want to. My wife and I haven't decided what we're going to do yet; we might take them a few times just to help improve their cultural literacy.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Heresson



Most Christians are catholics
Cry me a river, You heretic.

out of the 2,1 billion christians half of them is Roman catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

[Robert]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Hey mate, I am a scientist, and I am trying desperately to be anything other!

I must admit that you're the most positivistic scientist I've ever met. Unfortunately positivism has almost completely died out since the 80's. You're really ancient.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Pekka
Japher, holy trinity.

me, myself and I

[Heresson]

Originally posted by CyberShy


out of the 2,1 billion christians half of them is Roman catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

Yup, and there are also other catholic churches:
-Maronites
-greek-catholics
-syriac catholics
-chaldeans
-"melkites"
-armenian catholics
and others.
plus, additional 250 millions are greek orthodox, who are, at least theorethically, the same church as roman catholicism.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Heresson
plus, additional 250 millions are greek orthodox, who are, at least theorethically, the same church as roman catholicism.

Uh, no. How'd you come to that conclusion?

[Meticulous Man]

I don't think exposing a person to "religious" thought can in itself be bad. After all, the person will in any case encounter beliefs like the belief in invisible forces that turn greed and envy into well-being for people, that a numerical value can be assigned to a person that tells how good decisions he/she can make in any situation involving thought processes, and that the person shares his/her destiny with people who were born or have their biological roots in the same (legally defined?) geographical area and who for this reason are to be preferred over others, etc... And none of these beliefs are considered "religious".

Where does the fear of exposure to religion come from? One thinks of "religious nuts" that have crazy beliefs and that in fact have made themselves into servants for an agenda that isn't their own. But they actually have in common with the people who are afraid of "religion" the fact that the last thing they would think of bringing themselves to do is considering worldviews that are different from their own.

As cronos_qc said, one could think of there being two kinds of religiosity, one of them is to weigh different alternatives and come to independent conclusions which leads to that the person doing so is labeled a heretic and sanctioned by the orthodox, and the other is to believe certain things and discard others because one was coerced into doing so by an authority. Which one of them is the true religiosity?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Most people saw that I was replying to Quantum_Mechanics

That was on the previous page, and therefore ceased to exist. Use quotes.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Originally posted by Heresson

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Beleiving Mary was without Sin goes against very basic beliefs for most Christians..

Most Christians are catholics
Cry me a river, You heretic.

out of the 2,1 billion christians half of them is Roman catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

Such statistics mean nothing. As one missionary said, "The people of Haiti are 90% [Roman] Catholic and 100% voodoo."

In most places around the world they don't actually practice and believe in RC, but rather tribal religions and witchcraft. They go to mass to appease spirits they see mirrored in RC saints, Mary, and Jesus.

One of my friends was raised a Maronite from Lebanon. In the NME religion and political party are the same thing. Except the politics drowns out any real practice of religion.

Or, if you look at Europe, most believe and practice nothing. Church is just where they go for weddings and funerals. If you ask them to check a box on a survey they will claim one or the other but it has no substance.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Heresson


Yup, and there are also other catholic churches:
-Maronites
-greek-catholics
-syriac catholics
-chaldeans
-"melkites"
-armenian catholics
and others.
plus, additional 250 millions are greek orthodox, who are, at least theorethically, the same church as roman catholicism.

Yeah, sure.

[Odin]

Positivism:
Materialism:

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Empress
Actually, I"ve seen a lot of documentaries lately scientifically proving things from the Bible, even the plagues on the Egyptians by Moses.

Hold on; don't immediately believe that. The plague story in the bible might have 'some' historical truth, but most likely it's a mixed lot of events or imaginary events in the common memory that was exaggerated a lot by the writers, not forgetting the fact that it was written with an intention.

Most of the so-called evidence relating to the plague story is disputed by a lot of scholars (including some at my university which is why I just had to reply to this )