|
|
|
|
| | 8 | 1/24/2010 11:31 AM | Another question about hell... We were talking about the possibility of angels getting redemption from hell, and being able to go back to heaven. We eventually agreed that unlike humans, they could not do that. I was wondering, does that mean that if a person goes to hell they can accept god, swear their love and be allowed into heaven?
Because God is supposed to forgive right? So can he forgive after you've gone to hell?... as long as you're honest? |
| | 3 | 1/23/2010 3:16 PM | What makes Jesus different/better? I was watching the History Channel, the other day and there was a show about Jesus' actions and miracles compared to other miracle workers in his time.
While Jesus was busy praising his Father's name and spreading the word of God, his fellow miracle workers were flaunting their names and claiming great fame. One of his 'rivals" was a 'rain man'. During a droubt, his poor city was falling deeper and deeper into poverty due to taxation and cruel leaders. The rain man sat outside for days, not moving until it rained. It finally rained and he was praised for creating such a miracle. During this time, Jesus had many followers and was healing blind and deseased people. Another man, much like Jesus, had many followers who had witnessed his "healing powers" as well. He led his commited folowers to a river where he was to part it and walk straight through as Moses did. Before he could succeed, the Romans came and masacured him along wiht his followers for leading them astray from law. So my question is, what makes Jesus better? Or better in a different way? Or different, in a better way? Although I feel that Jesus is better, due to the fact that I am Christian, I still feel as if these other miracle workerd were somewhat similar and important. Comments? |
| | 8 | 1/17/2010 9:41 AM | Lucifer's Party Pad So, discussing today in class I brought up the idea of hell not being such a bad place. Since going to hell is basically an eternal separation from God, maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing for those that don't believe in God.
Essentially, what I wanted to ask was why does hell have to be this nasty, horrible place? Why is Lucifer chaining us and throwing us into lakes fire?
If we end up in hell, that means that we went against God's word. Therefore... aren't we on Lucifer's side if we aren't with God? So why does Lucifer punish us if we're on his team? Shouldn't we be gearing up and training to fight against God instead of becoming eternally damned and beaten?
|
| | 10 | 1/17/2010 9:37 AM | Jesus and Hercules Someone brought up and interesting point today in class. They were comparing how Jesus and characters like Hercules were similar. And i think while on the surface these 'Sons of Gods' may seam the same, but when you take a closer look they are very different. Hercules was the son of Zeus in the literal sense, Zeus came down and impregnated a woman and she gave birth to a half god. While Jesus, if you believe and understand the Christian Trinity, was the son of God but also was God. I know, it gets a little confusing, but according to the Bible Jesus was, is, and always will be God himself. So if that clears things up, Hercules was literally the son of a god, where as Jesus was the Son of God but at the same time actually God. |
| | 10 | 1/10/2010 2:31 AM | Sinning in Heaven? I know that when you're on earth, you have to try and be the best person that you can be. So, my question is, what happens in Heaven? Heaven is supposed to be this fantastic place, this wonderful arena of parties and everything your heart could ever wish for.
So... Am I allowed to sin in heaven? What if my heart's desire is to eat every day, all day. Well, that would be gluttonous! What if when I get to heaven I want to do nothing else but lie around and watch TV all day. My, such Sloth-like tendencies!
Are we still supposed to be well behaved in heaven? Or can we break loose? And if heaven is a place of good behavior, does that mean hell is a place where we are allowed to sin and do as we please? |
| | 5 | 1/10/2010 2:30 AM | Indulgences Leading up to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century in Europe, the Catholic Church sold things called Indulgences. These Indulgences were free slips of redemption for all of your sins. So literally, if you bought one of these paper slips, the Church said that you were forgiven for all of your sins. This eventually led to Martin Luther's mass freak-out party across Europe, and thus Indulgences became morally worng in many peoples' minds. So my question is, for any Catholics, or of course for anyone else also, what is your viewpoint in modern day America about the selling of salvation? Is there any moral purpose to this, or was this purely a move by the Church to gain economical advantages?
Thanks for your views : ) |
| | 0 | 12/13/2009 3:53 PM | Capitalism vs. Socialism, (have some faith)
Going with the argument on whether everyone should go to Heaven, I'm going to make a parallel to our nation's homeless situtation.
We have a high rate of homelessness in our country today. We have people who argue that they need to be helped by our government to give them salvation through food, shelter, and a sense of belonging and opportunity. Then there are people who see this situtation as purely situtational; they are homeless, they made themselves that way, they have the power to get themselves out. But sometimes, they are born into a Hell of a world, and have absolutely nothing. With nothing to their name, they cannot take advantage of any opportunities presented to them. So they have no power to get themselves out, but yet as a country we say let them suffer.
In the first case, the government is God, where everyone wants the problem to go away (not believing in Him), so the government gives all of the homeless money and houses (God allows everyone into Heaven no matter what). But in this case, you have uneducated people (people without faith) trying to compete in the job market (living in a place of pure faith); it's not going to work.
In the second case, you have the government (God) deciding that it can't save everyone, so there will always be a homeless problem (people will go to Hell). People who are born into a sucky circumstance (living in a deserted jungle, or being a baby, and having no chance to gain faith, so they go to Hell) continue to live in a suky circumstance their whole lives (go to Hell).
In a perfect world, we could save everyone under Socialism (everyone goes to Heaven), but if the world was perfect, we wouldn't have any reason to live (we would have no morals or free will). So thus, in a capitalistic society (competition; you must show God your faith), although there is a homeless problem (people go to Hell), atleast we have morals and free will (a reason to work and keep on living).
Thoughts? Concerns? Epic speeches? Make your mark. |
| | 12 | 12/6/2009 1:40 AM | The Gospel of John, Symbolism and Fun Stuff So am I the only one that smelled the connections Mr. Chisnell was looking for a mile away? Let's take a brief look at the symbols we were asked to analyze in the Gospel of John.
Light v. Darkness
Jesus is the light. They say that in pretty much the first 10 lines. So the symbol of light can be associated with Jesus, and following that, darkness is symbolic of Not-Jesus. Fair to say? Light is also archetypal of knowledge, hence why light bulbs show that we have a good idea. In the biblical sense, knowledge that Jesus is the savior of humanity would be represented by so-called "seeing the light". So light is symbolic of both Jesus and the knowledge of him and who he is. This brings us to the symbolism of knowledge vs. not-so-much-knowledge that Mr. Chisnell also asked about.
Knowledge v. Darkness
So we've established that Jesus is light and also knowledge. So Jesus, aside from being a person, is also representative of knowledge. This could be interpreted to mean that following the path of Jesus is in fact following the path to true spiritual enlightenment. Thus, the symbols in John reinforce the idea of Jesus as the Messiah. This brings me to my final point about Mr. Chisnell's symbol choices.
The Shepherd and his Flock
Sheep are pretty dumb right? I mean, anything that can be herded around with a stick can't be too bright (unless you count hitting other people with sticks, they tend to listen if you hit hard enough). So is it safe to say that Sheep are without knowledge? Following that, are sheep without the light (symbolic of knowledge)? I would say so. But wait, they say that we're sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd? Are we without knowledge? Are we without the light? Yeah, pretty much. I think most religions would agree that humans are generally incapable of that type of knowledge (the capital letter type). So Jesus must be our shepherd so he can guide us to the truth of God and the light. I think this symbol is pretty darned obvious. So obvious that I'm going to stop talking about it right.... about.... now.
Sorry if anything in this post offended anyone, I'm feeling rather silly at the moment. |
| | 7 | 12/6/2009 12:56 AM | Back to Ktys post Katy brought up a very interesting topic to me that forever 21 has John 3:16 on the bottom of the beags.... ive always wondered that yself but if I may put myself in a libral point of view I would argue why would somebody trying to spread "the word" be advertising by selling Sheer tops and mini skirts? It is a bit contradicting and decieving of the christian beliefes. |
| | 0 | 11/24/2009 10:12 PM | interesting... in the letter of paul to the romans, paul basically says you get salvation from sins through faith. although we haven't earned it or deserve it, God does it anyway. He compares Adam's death and Jesus' sacrifice and the contrast between the two events that occurred after. adam=death and sin, Jesus=forgivness and life. it also went on to explain what occurs during a baptism. It's pretty cool. |
| | 12 | 11/22/2009 12:16 AM | John 3:16 For any of those of you out there who love Forever 21 , you may have noticed that the words "John 3:16 " are on the bottom of all the bags. Why? I'm not so sure.
The verse itself says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This makes it even more confusing when asking the question whether or not Jesus is the son of God, particularly if you were leaning towards not. I was sort of leaning towards he is the son, and the christ, and our savior. Maybe He isn't one of these things, he is all of these things, a human son before He was crucified and obviously became the others after he was resurrected.
And the part about eternal life, I interpreted it as eternal life in heaven, not an eternal life on Earth. |
| | 12 | 11/22/2009 12:12 AM | Credibility, New vs. Old A question I enjoy proposing every once in a while is this: assuming we are just comparing both the new and old testement, which one of the two would can be seen as more factual? I understand that the majority of the New testement is primarily seen as a book of lessons rather than stories, but there are some stories present. Whether you agree with all, some, or absolutely none of the Bible, the majority of individuals I believe would agree with at least a very small percentage of the Bible containing some realistic evidence. So which half is more legitimate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|