That Damn Mormon wrote:
I was trying to show an instance of where I had a moral dilema, chose poorly, and instead of getting completely shafted out of the deal, it ended up better than I had originally planned. And yes, I believe that God had a hand in this. I specifically asked for help, and got it.
A shame so many others don't get that same help. I find it ironic, then, that God would deign to help you pay your tithe rather than, say, one of the hundreds that undoubtably starved to death in Africa in that night, probably quite a few of them Christian.
Seems that God is oddly compulsive if he's doing that...
Yeah, him again wrote:
Do I feel that my ingrown toe-nail is more important than other people who die horrible deaths each day? No. But I don't know about people dying everyday. I was, again, taking an instance out of my life where I had tried everything I could to solve a problem myself, and then finally given up and asked God for assistance, and recieved it.
...look, buddy, you seem smart enough. Let me point out the inconsistancies here.
Apparently, God thinks your ingrown toe-nail is SO DAMN IMPORTANT that he has to drop everything and damn well heal it for you. It was so damn important that it made its way to the top of his list when, as to this there is no doubt, some poor damn Christian somewhere was dying a horrible, painful, slow death and crying out for deliverance.
I'd just like you to think about that for a while. Your idea of God appears to be a rather fickle bastard to me, if he miracle-aways an ingrown toe-nail before healing the sick and starving. I know its a "personal" story but the God you are talking about is supposed to be a bit larger than "personal", I'm afraid, so no dice on that account. If you cannot form a coherent picture of God on a larger scale then "OH MY MY TOE-NAIL HEALED RIGHT AFTER I PRAYED, GOD!!!!" then I'm afraid you have shown yourself as intellectually dishonest.
Mormons...feh! wrote:
Maybe proof was the wrong word. Maybe evidence in support would have been more correct. But then, I really didn't need much evidence to be convinced of God in my life. Considering that I have felt His presence, I'd say that everything else was just icing on the cake.
As a Christian and a preacher, I'd like to say this: the God you describe, when taken to its logical conclusions, is one I'd spit in the face of and attempt to wipe out all worshippers. Such a God isn't worthy of worship; only spite, if, as you mentioned, he puts your fucking toe nail up on the que higher than starving babies.
I mean, can we get out of the realms of the silly and into the realm of intellectual honesty; please analyse what you say before you say it, and the implications.
And now for a quick lecture on the nature of the holy spirit and Jesus.
Kei wrote:
God: the father, Jesus: the son, and The Holy Spirit are all one god and at the same time three separate entities. They are combined in one godhead, what one thinks all think, and at the same time they are completely separate beings. If you read the New Testament, there are parts where you will be absolutely certain that it is Jesus talking. And then sudenly he wil say something to the effect of "when I gave my only son for the good of the world. (this is a paraphrase)" It seems to be self-contradictory, but in actuality, it is Christ speaking as the father, himself.
Besides paradoxical, there are some problems with this.
Back in the first century, when the concept of the Holy Spirit was first written, the word for spirit also meant
breath or
wind (which was thought to be the breath of God), and had very strong connections to life; to be full in spirit meant to be full of life, of vitality.
Now the nature of said spirit becomes a lot more clear than before, during which it was some vaguely referenced quasi-entity. Jesus' disciples, when it said they were filled with the holy spirit, were then to be said to be ready to live a life of holiness, as Jesus did. Barriers between peoples were brought down as the disciples could speak in all the languages of man, and they went forth to spread the word. You can take that at face value or as heavy symbolism trying to get a point across; the point remains the same.
It should be noted, btw, the idea of evangelism was quite new. Jews stayed to jews, Greek cults to themselves, etc etc. You usually believed in whatever Gods who's temple you were born closest to. So this was quite a big jump from the old, established ways.
Anyway, the point being, the holy spirit is more symbolic of an epiphany as to the proper way to live (ie how Jesus lived; thinking of others always above himself to bring himself happiness.) Erm, a bit clumsily made, but I think the point will get through.
Now, on to the nature of Jesus. You'd be surprised how big an evolution the idea has gone through.
The first biblical new testament writer was Paul. When he wrote about Jesus, it wasn't as the proverbial son of God from birth that we know about today. In his reckoning, Jesus was a man like any other; however, he had been so exceptionally holy, that God had taken him up to heaven upon his death in the crusifixtion and sort of made him his adopted son.
The ressurrection didn't exist in this first account of Jesus, nor his divinity before his death. But later biblical writers changed it a bit, through misunderstandings and disagreements with their predecessors. As far as we can tell, it moved something like this: Jesus was the adopted son of God, Jesus became the son of God during his baptism, Jesus became the son of God at the moment of birth, and then (much later) he became the son of God at the moment of conception.
I dunno about you, but I'd trust the first accounts we have on Jesus more than later accounts. But thats just me.
Anyway, thats all I can drudge up at 12:30am with class in another glorious 6 hours. Take it easy folks.
-MiB