Ask Miranda a theological question!

[miranda2]

Since the other thread is getting long, I thought I'd start another in case anyone was still interested. (Am I mad??....) Won't be offended if no-one posts!!

I have a few questions (honestly not wind-ups, but things I've been thinking over the past few days) that I'd like answered by someone who defines themselves as Christian and, truthfully, the real Christian follow-the-Bible type, not the wishy washy liberal. (I've got absolutely no idea who Miranda is...)
anyway:
-- what defines a sin? Is it whatever anyone says is wrong or not right in the NT? Or is it as Mog stated:
"Jesus said that the laws were summed up into just two - love God with all your heart,mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself."

-- are there sins that in God's eyes are worse than others?
(ok.. here's my explanation for my idea that all sins are the same in God's eyes: some sins are harder to repent for. Repent meaning that you are really and truly sorry for them. So, for example, if you do something deliberately horrid, you're going to have a damn hard time repenting for it as you're never truly going to be sorry. This is a God that doesn't give into well said but insincere apologies.)

Anyway, I went to church as a child and once with my son (I just had one son at the time) and do think I should take them again someday but am not particularly religious. I am really interested in the answers to the above questions though...

And I'm all for a complete separation of the OT from the NT -- the Old Testament is the old covenant with the people of Israel detailing how to get into heaven. The New Testament is the new covenant due to the fact that God's son gave his life to make it easier for everyone, not just the Israelites, to get into heaven.

And sheesh, Scummy, that was harsh. Yes, religion has been the justification for many a war or domestic oppression or stupid US presidential pronouncement. But also many a charitable act and many a thought for others where there would be none otherwise. It should be a liberal moral thing... I think Bloss gets that. It can be a great thing, this responsibility to other people. My parents were like that and the reason I voted Republican (I'm from the US) until I realized that not all people are like that.

Just got to aloha's question right near the beginning of this thread - why doesn't god use our questioning brains/tell us he exists - close to my heart as I'm preaching tomorrow about questioning God. Um - but Christianity believes he HAS told us he exists, in Jesus....of course, if you choose not to accept whatever God does to prove it and keep saying 'yes, but prove it again!', then what can he do?? The reading for tomorrow has the crowd who've just had the feeding of the 5000 saying to Jesus the next day 'what miracle are you going to do to make it easier for us to believe you are who you say you are?' - its laughable in the story, but its a serious point - what proof would you accept, aloha, if someone doing miracles and rising from the dead doesn't do it? Would it be OK if that happened now, I mean is the problem that you don't trust 2000 year old evidence? Or is it really that pretty much anything God could do wouldn't prove it to you?

oooh! things are just warming up!

Cain and Abel seems to be a biggy!!
Very few Christians are creationists - I mean, we believe God created the world but we don't tend to think that Genesis is a literal, scientific, descriptive account of how it happened! So Adam and Eve is a myth - a story that conveys truth (about people's downfall being their desire to know good and evil and be as powerful as God), not history or biology - so all the questions about incest etc are irrelevant.
Interestingly, though, from what I read in New Scientist it seems that people working on genetics have come to the conclusion that all humans alive today are probably descended from one of three women - they think there was a big extinction early on in human history and only maybe as few as 8 humans are the ancestors of everyone alive today. Puts racism in its place!

Hello, my name is Miranda and I'm a wishy washy liberal
But I'm not 'a wishy washy liberal with a bit of God thrown in'!!!! Contrary to what bloss might think, I do consider the bible to be important. Someone said in one of the more recent posts (can't be bothered to scroll down and find who, sorry) that these debates always come down to people taking the bible literally and people saying they are mad - I THINK I'm offering a middle way - I mean (sorry this isn't very coherent) I do get fed up with people contrasting 'bible believing christians' and 'liberals' like someone else did (I don't mean I was offended in this context, just its a very common opposition for people to draw); I am a liberal partly, at least, because of what the bible says. As Mog says, Jesus said that all the commandments and laws could be summed up as 'love God and love your neighbour' - as I see it, the 'wishy washy liberals' take that and try to apply it, and judge the rest of scripture against that yardstick. So actually I'm not a wishy washy liberal, I'm a convinced and passionate liberal! And like everyone, I have a sinful tendency to think that in fact that's the only real way to be a Christian

Where's everybody gone?
Oh well, I'll go to bed then. I shouldn't have come back!!

No, no, I'm still here. So you're of the there are two laws belief?

Mog:
"Jesus said that the laws were summed up into just two - love God with all your heart,mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself."

What was the other thread?

And what's the reference for the two laws quote? It'd be helpful in an argument I'm currently conducting....

But to be boringly and annoyingly simplistic, isn't that liberal vs bible delving divide at the heart of all this Jeffrey John stuff, Miranda, no matter how annoying it may be? So that the liberals, wishy washy, passionate or otherwise have to ignore or dismiss quite a few specific biblical rules that say "no males loving and shagging each other without God being peeved" in favour of interpreting the "Love your neighbour" rule rather, er, liberally?

JJ- I'm sorry you think I was being harsh. I think I came across as more flippant than I intended. Sorry. I do agree that some religious people do good things but, on the other hand, neither religion or faith are necessary conditions for doing good things, in my opinion, so I disagree that no charitable things or thoughts for others would exist without belief and organised religion. I think some of the Godless can be very good at the love thy neighbour bit even if the love God bit is a beyond their capacity...

(Irrelevantly, I'm really glad you've stopped voting Republican, by the way.)

I hoe the preaching at the new church goes well, Miranda.

Surely if it comes down to faith (which it does) then you will believe in religion if it works for you- if you get something out of it. I used to be very religious, I am now atheist. It didn't work for me. I used to think that homeopathy was a pile of hogwash, now I believe in it- because it works for me. Neither religion or homeopathy can be explained at present. As long as no-one tries to force religion down my throat I'm happy for people to believe what they want to believe. And in return I won't try to convert anyone to homeoptathy, and people are free to choose whether or not to trust it.

Isn't this all any religion boils down to?

"so I disagree that no charitable things or thoughts for others would exist without belief and organised religion"

Oh no, agh, I didn't mean that and that's not what I said. I just meant that a lot of good things get done in the name of religion, also. Me, I do good things without the religion aspect. I think... hopefully?

But Miranda, doesn't your 'Jesus being the son of God as proof of God's existence' argument depend upon a belief in god in the first place? Where does a belief on god come from independent of whether you believe that Jesus was or wasn't the Messiah? It's not to do with evidence, as such, but I have no reason to believe. Jews obviously believe in God without accepting that Jesus was his son. If Jesus hadn't appeared would you still believe in God? And why would that be?

I'm sure you do, JJ. I'd like to too. Didn't mean to misinterpret you.

Jimjams- what happens if you passionately believe that a series of ideas or beliefs like homeopathy or religion would be another person's salvation, saving them from some sort of harm? Isn't it then your moral duty to do everything in your power to try to convert them to your way of thinking?

Um, I've the two questions remaining:

-- what defines a sin

and

-- are there sins that, in God's eyes, are worse than others

and what are they and why?

Message withdrawn

Hi all. Have been reading this thread with interest. I am a very comitted Christian myself and have been for about 15 years. I really don't want weigh into any arguements here instead I would just like to say how much I admire you girls for your forthright and open discussions I've read here. In general I find myself too damn lazy and probably not elequent enough to state my beliefs and argue the point. But good on you all - regardless of your position. I am enjoying learning from all your different points of view. :-)

doh

Well that's the problem isn't it scummy. In fact I often see people who I think would benefit greatly from homeopathy. I either give them what I think might be a suitable remedy- and say "try that if you want". Or I say "have you thought about trying...."

In the same way if a church wants to run a conversion group say alpha- then I'm happy for them to put a leaflet through my door, but not happy for them to knock on my door.

If I knew someone who spent their whole time trying to convert me I'm afraid I would stop seeing them. In the same way if I thought someone would really benefit from homeopathy but wasn't willing to use it then I wouldn't go on and on about it to them.

Free country and all that- as long as someone is behaving within the acceptable moral code of this country then think they have the right to choose their own beliefs.

so if adam and eve didnt exist, how acording to the bible did we get here? the only thing ive learned from this thread is the words wishy washy,i like them

Miranda2, the three women that we probably descend from would be the wives of Ham, Shem and Japheth - Noah's sons. That would make perfect sense, since the rest of mankind was annihilated (sp?) during the flood.

As far as Genesis not being literal truth and Adam & Eve being a myth - this is a popular thing to believe these days, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is an absolute fact. The bible says that all scripture is inspired by God, so why believe some of it and not the rest? That seems to be picking and choosing, doesn't it?

Message withdrawn

Regarding the NT.
IMO this is based on the beliefs of Constantine, through his forming of the Council of Nicea in AD 325. This council "voted" that Jesus was a God and not a mortal prophet amongst alot of other things. Documents and manuscripts were confiscated and destroyed if they did not fall in with the councils beliefs.The NT is a product of 4th century editors and writers.Miranda, Mog and Bloss is this not a fact.

Regarding the genetics of where we originated I watched a programme on Horizon about this about 10 yrs ago.I could well believe we are descendants of only a small handful of people.

IMO the Bible is a bunch of stories and legends grouped together. It is an account of history through hearsay.
It is also a means of keeping people in line through rules and regulations.If they step out of line hellfire and damnation awaits them.

This debate could go on and on, which I think we are all enjoying.

I have a question. Please tell me more about the gospel of st thomas. I heard it was "lost" as it gave a too accurate account (ie wasn't godly enough). I've always meant to find out more, but haven't ever got round to it.

Message withdrawn