Religion: What it means to you

The fact that a loving God cannot be so cruel as to condemn someone to this kind of existence, then expect them to love him unconditionally. When, it is made very clear that his love is quite conditional. I found that my faith was fruitless and often left me at odds with otherwise decent people. My faith seemed to stifle personal growth, left no room for questioning, felt far too authoritarian, rather than an interpersonal relationship with the creator.

The bible likens God's love for us to that of a parent, it specifically uses the example Father. Yet, I know my own father would never send me to a place like hell, no matter what I had done. For being an omniscient, all-loving creature, God sure does have a lot of less-favorable human qualities. What I found veen more amusing is that God sets up a double-standard, that only he has the right to vengance, wrath, et cetera. How can he be as forgiving and omnibenevolent as he's made out to be when, quite clearly, he is not always loving-- hateful at times, in fact.

If you believe in the mythos of Lucifer and the fallen, this inherently makes Christianity a polytheistic religion. While, you may not worship him as a god, his acknowledgment as a higher being sort of redefines the dynamic.

It seemed far too childish, really. The motivation for believing was so that you didn't "suffer eternally"-- what kind of mindset is that creating, really? It's creating a mindset of irrational fear, paranoia. Which leads to an easily controllable populace.

I blame this aspect of Christianity for all the rampant homophobia, and general dislike of any sort of counter-culture.

Christianity needs to get laid, to paraphrase Bill Maher.

Firstly, no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. Seeing as Jehovah is a completely made up name, it would be odd. Secondly, the name Michael makes up the phrase "He who is equal to God." Most concordances render it "Who is like." Now, taking context into consideration, the Bible usually uses either Prince or Archangel in front of the name, though both titles both mean cheif prince in the Hebrew & Greek. From here, we can go to Daniel. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is reffered to as the great prince of Israel. Earlier, in Daniel 10, he was the only one that could keep Satan, called Prince of Persia (i.e. Babylon) at bay.
Some will use Jude 9 as a contradiction to this belief,citing the verse in which Michael says "Lord rebuke you." Jesus did the same thing when praying while he was alive, referring to God as if they were seperate entities, when in reality they were on in the same (OMG, potentially more drama!).
Revelation 7:8 is an allusion to Luke 10:18. Revelation 1:8 also leads us back to Daniel 10. Michael could not only hold Satan at bay, but overcome him completely.
In conlcusion, Prince Michael is a title. Loosely translated it would mean, the "Chief prince of Israel, Who is equal to God."

As for hell, well, it's really not given much attention in the Bible, other than to say you don't belong there, but in Heaven. Hell was made for rebellious "angels." But God loves us so much, that he allowed us to enter it if we choose. He allows us to choose our own lives, & even gave us a place to go if we don't follow His way. That's one way to look at it.

To be quite Frank, all this quasi angel worship, as well as the popular angel beliefs are pagan, not Christian. A little research will lead you to the same conclusion.

Sorry if I made this a Bible study, even if it was just a quickie.

I am not very religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't pray very often, and when I do it's usually for someone else's benefit. I do believe there is a god though, as a higher power. I don't believe he gets involved with daily life though. Looking at it logically, too many bad things happen to good people for me to believe that.

I do believe there is a heaven though. Why? I don't know. Probably something to help lessen the fear of death.

I would admit though, if somehow we found out that there was no god, it wouldn't really surprise me all that much. I don't believe in it all that strongly, but I do believe a god exists, and that there is afterlife.

Quote:

When, it is made very clear that his love is quite conditional.

Where?

Quote:

The bible likens God's love for us to that of a parent, it specifically uses the example Father. Yet, I know my own father would never send me to a place like hell, no matter what I had done.

What would you say Hell is? And why do you believe that?

Quote:

What I found veen more amusing is that God sets up a double-standard, that only he has the right to vengance, wrath, et cetera.

If a parent tells a child that he has to go to bed at a certain time and the parent decides to stay up, is that a double standard? If a parent tells a child not a play outside without an adult present, does that mean the parent has to follow suit in order to avoid a double standard?

God has the right to anger, indignation, vengeance, etc. because he actually understands the situation. What makes these emotions evil for us is that when we express them, we are putting ourselves on God's level, unjustly. It's the same thing as pride. God has every right and every reason to be proud of himself, but when we're proud, we're only forgetting how small we really are.

"Quote Wars" ahead.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Firstly, no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. Seeing as Jehovah is a completely made up name, it would be odd.

Jehovah is one of the Hebrew names for God, and THE most often used term in the Old Testament.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
(Yes, I know, NewAdvent is a Catholic source, but they are very reliable and factual)
Nonetheless, it is most certainly NOT a made up name.

Quote:

Secondly, the name Michael makes up the phrase "He who is equal to God." Most concordances render it "Who is like."

No, that is not true. It is in fact a querious name. It means "Who is like God?" Breaking it down, the Hebrew word is "Miyka'el," it is composed of 3 roots, Miy, which is an interrogative term (meaning that it specifically asks a question), Kiy, which is just a relational word, meaning something to the effect of "like," and el, which is a common suffix on words relating to God.

Most certainly Michael is not equal to God. If he were, then he would BE God, but this equating is not seen in the Bible.

Quote:

Now, taking context into consideration, the Bible usually uses either Prince or Archangel in front of the name, though both titles both mean cheif prince in the Hebrew & Greek. From here, we can go to Daniel. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is reffered to as the great prince of Israel. Earlier, in Daniel 10, he was the only one that could keep Satan, called Prince of Persia (i.e. Babylon) at bay.
Some will use Jude 9 as a contradiction to this belief,citing the verse in which Michael says "Lord rebuke you." Jesus did the same thing when praying while he was alive, referring to God as if they were seperate entities, when in reality they were on in the same (OMG, potentially more drama!).
Revelation 7:8 is an allusion to Luke 10:18. Revelation 1:8 also leads us back to Daniel 10. Michael could not only hold Satan at bay, but overcome him completely.
In conclusion, Prince Michael is a title. Loosely translated it would mean, the "Chief prince of Israel, Who is equal to God."

Michael may be a "Prince" of Israel, but that still does not equate him with the King of Israel.
Nor does "Archangel" mean chief of princes. Angel, actually "mal'ak," means messenger, etc. From Strong's concordance:
"from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher)"
Archangel pretty much means chief angel.

Btw, Revelations 7:8 says the following: "from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000."
Also, how the heck do you make the jump from Revelations 1:8 to Daniel 10?
It seems to me that you are very confused about the context.

Quote:

To be quite Frank, all this quasi angel worship, as well as the popular angel beliefs are pagan, not Christian. A little research will lead you to the same conclusion.

A lot of the popular beliefs on angels are indeed pure fiction. However, so it seems also is your conclusion about equating Michael with Jesus.
It seems to fit, because there is nothing that directly contradicts that idea, but that doesn't mean that it is right.
Ultimately, your ideas are full of holes and unfounded assumptions, as well as a misunderstanding of Hebrew. You are making connections that appear to exist, but only in English translations.

What are we? Well, I believe that we existed before we were born, and that we will continue to exist after we die. Perhaps some among us played interesting and/or important roles in what went on before we were born, and perhaps some of us will have interesting and/or important things to do after we're all dead. Michael is someone who did some pretty dang important things before earth, and is likely slated to do some pretty dang important things afterwards as well.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

See, I can lump you togethor & judge you based on certain individuals too. We are never allowed to tell someone they are going to hell. In fact the most we can do, is warn them they are in danger. We can tell someone they are wrong, but we can't condemn them to hell, we aren't God.

Did you not read or understand my post? I don't even know how to respond to this. So I won't.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Malak is the root word. Those words you just typed are what malak is turned into. It is a root word, & you have to take context in order to understand what the word means. In the case of the phrase "The Angel of The Lord", it is talking about the messanger of God.

Yea no shit, that's what I said in my post:

Originally Posted by FallDragon

"Angel" ...translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger."

My point was that you can't make a connection between this and "the Word" in John 1:1. John 1:1 isn't talking about Jesus, and it isn't talking about a messenger of God. You interpret poorly.

Originally Posted by Minion

If telling someone something was bad for them was enough to coerce them, we wouldn't have any cigarette companies anymore.

Are you kidding me? This is Christianity's main draw. Accept Jesus or your soul burns forever in Hell. That message runs all through the New Testament, it's the fundamental message/truth of Christianity. This isn't a case of just "being bad" for you, it's a case of your soul being eternally damned. Makes the coercion factor just a bit stronger, me thinks.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Hell was made for rebellious "angels." But God loves us so much, that he allowed us to enter it if we choose.

WTF

Originally Posted by Minion

If a parent tells a child that he has to go to bed at a certain time and the parent decides to stay up, is that a double standard?

We're talking about major moral issues, not bed times. If a parent tells their child not to kill people, and then goes and murders hundreds of people out of anger, yes that's a double standard.

Originally Posted by Minion

What makes these emotions evil for us is that when we express them, we are putting ourselves on God's level, unjustly.

That's an interesting theory. That evil human emotions become good emotions when God uses them. However, I find this to be an irreconcilable hypocrisy on God's part. If I'm going to believe in a God, it's not going to be one that holds a double standard on morality and life.

Quote:

Are you kidding me? This is Christianity's main draw. Accept Jesus or your soul burns forever in Hell.

No, it's not. Quit getting your theology from paintings and puritanical literature.

Quote:

That's an interesting theory. That evil human emotions become good emotions when God uses them.

No, that's not what I'm saying. They're not inherently evil. Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil. The idea of hypocrisy is completely moot when discussing God. Someone who is not on the same level as you with respect to authority can make rules for you that they are exempt from. Parents do this all the time. It's all part of the Father metaphor, which works well anyway you use it to describe God.

Originally Posted by Minion

No, it's not. Quit getting your theology from paintings and puritanical literature.

OK, it's Christianity's main draw according to Scripture. Many churches do skim over the going-to-hell part in hopes of getting new recruits from the moderate/liberal crowd, but scripture is plainly clear about it and gives plenty of warnings about how you'll be eternally damned if you don't accept Jesus as your resurrected personal savior.

Originally Posted by Minion

Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil.

So what if God murders someone? Is God acting in an evil way? You would say no, but this is where the line blurs. When God commands the Hebrews to murder a tribe, including the women and children it's considered OK because it's written in the Bible, and thus that means it was God's Will. What about cases that aren't included in the Bible? There have been plenty of murderers in the past that claim they were following orders from God, and considering God has used people to murder others in the past, what stops Him from doing it now?

You see the fundamental problem is that God lets people break big moral codes like murder as long as it's within His will. He allows deception and theft for your own gain (the birthright Isaac stole from Esau) and undeserved hatred (God hated Esau from birth without any provication).

So the double standard is God allowing His elite to break the rules and get away with it while everyone else is expected to suck it up or else. Also, because God has historically commanded others to murder, lie, steal, and cheat, how are we to uphold a value system? If the possibility exists that they were commanded by God to do these things, then it's impossible for us to have any kind of law system where we can judge people for their actions. Unless you know God's will.

First off, the Michael thing is a really, really touchy subject. I just wrote it down bare bones. There'a alot more to it. Though, either way you take it, it really doesn't matter. If Michael was just a malak, then there is no reason to ever bring him up unless qouting scripture. If the theory that I subscribe to is right, then we needn't ever bring up Michael, other than qouting scripture, because we now know the name of God as Jesus (Yeshua/Eyesus in the Aramiac & greek). If the latter theory is correct, then it would be fair to equate Michael to God, because Michael would just be a title for Jesus in the OT, & Jesus would be the image of God. Thus, it would make sense in that context. Also, the word for angel is never used in tandem with Michael, it is always great prince, or something to that effect.

As for Jehova, there is no original manuscript containing this name. It's a alternate form of YHWH. Yaweh coincidentally, is also a perversion of YHWH, which we have no idea how to pronounce. The translators added vowels to make it more readable, but the correct pronunciation is unknown.

Anyway, the hard thing about root words, especially in Hebrew, is that there are multiple meanings for a single word. So it makes things like root word studying, really, really tough sometimes.

And for that Daniel 10, Revelation connection, my 2 button spazed out. I meant 12:8. I really need a new keyboard :P

Also, to FallDragon. Hell is never said to be fire, or brimstone for that matter. It really isn't delved into that much. So your Burn in Hell argument is based off of pulpit learners, rather than people who actually study.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Also, to FallDragon. Hell is never said to be fire, or brimstone for that matter. It really isn't delved into that much. So your Burn in Hell argument is based off of pulpit learners, rather than people who actually study.

But Hell is cast into the lake of Fire, so your point is null. To list a few of the more prominent verses.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Can't make it much more obvious than that. If you don't believe in Christ you get sent to the lake of Fire to be tormented forever (and considering the language used, it seems pretty painful )

Matthew 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

40"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Also, your interpretation on Michael is based on half cocked assumptions and meshing random verses from random chapters together in hopes of forming a coherent theory. Your theory has no proof in scripture, you just twist scripture to fit your own purposes. Learn to interpret correctly or go away.

Well, lik I said, either way, the Michael thing is really moot. And as far as proof, Michael is never really gone into in any depth whatsoever. Michael is kinda like hell, in that it's referrenced, but never really explained in depth.

As far as the Fire & Brimstone verses, the burn part simply means they no longer exist. That's right, according to scripture, if you go to hell, at the judgement, you either become a saint, or you cease to exist. If it was any different, then all the talk about Jesus being the only way to eternal life would be moot & pointless. The Gospel in & of itself is of getting into heaven, not to escape hell, but to continue living.

Anyway, I'm pretty much finished posting in the thread about hell & angels & stuff.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

As far as the Fire & Brimstone verses, the burn part simply means they no longer exist. That's right, according to scripture, if you go to hell, at the judgement, you either become a saint, or you cease to exist.

First of all, give me some verses to back this up or I call bullshit. Secondly, this verse proves that it's eternal PAIN AND TORMENT, not just poofing out of existance.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

How can one be tormented day and night for ever and ever if they poof out of existance? That's illogical. No matter how you try to twist it, non-existance is NOT the same as eternal torment in a lake of Fire. If you say it is, back it up with scripture or else your argument is pointless.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

If it was any different, then all the talk about Jesus being the only way to eternal life would be moot & pointless. The Gospel in & of itself is of getting into heaven, not to escape hell, but to continue living.

I'd have to disagree. The Lake of Fire is eternal punishment, that much is made clear in scripture. You can't put your own spin on death when this verse clearly says that one can be eternally punished forever without needing to attain eternal life. You think it's moot and pointless because you want to prove your own theory on hell instead of looking at verses that blatently contradict you.

Well, one more go won't hurt anything. To back up the non existance:
Matthew 10:28 - Pretty much says that the "Hell" of the Lake of Fire is complete destruction.
Revelation 21:8 - Basically says that the Lake of Fire is the second death to the human souls that are in hell.

It should be noted that verse 10, it is only the devil & the false prophet & the beast that are condemned to torture forever more. Seeing as those 3 make up the fullness of Satan, it could be argued that he can't just be destoyed, & that God has to bind him. Though for regular old souls, the lake means ceasing to exist. If that isn't the way it is, like I said, the whole point of everlasting life is a contradiction. If it weren't this way, then you'd live forever regardless.

I could go on, but eh, you'll believe whatever you want no matter what I say. Though it's enough to argue against your point, seeing as you can only cite a few verses.

And with that, enough derailing the thread for me.

Quote:

Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil.

When does killing become murder, though?

Does it involve malice? What about pathological killers who do not kill with malice or remorse.

Are the wars we fight as nations considered simply killing or is it murder?

There is entirely too much grey area left by the scripture for me to really take any of it seriously. And, to further drive my point home, what is the purpose of our existence if God can suddenly change the moral dynamic as he should choose? It's obviously not for us to love him, because how would be able to in that condition?

Quote:

It's all part of the Father metaphor, which works well anyway you use it to describe God.

Except for the part about love and forgiveness.