The Catholic church hierarchy historically perceived dream revelation as a threat to church authority, and this concern extended back to the time of the Gnostics. Elaine Pagels, for example, discusses this at length. The Gnostics believed God spoke to them in dreams and from their dreams came new revelations that challenged the claims of the orthodox. I just wondered if some contemporary Christians were making the same claims as the Gnostic did 2000 years ago?
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 15:15
Faith can be commendable and good. However, there is such a thing as being too much of a simpleton and too gullible and that is not good. Admittedly, there is such a thing as a "healthy skepticism". There is also a sinful unbelief.
Be discerning. Be good. May you all be blessed.
Faith can be commendable and good. However, there is such a thing as being too much of a simpleton and too gullible and that is not good. Admittedly, there is such a thing as a "healthy skepticism". There is also a sinful unbelief.
Be discerning. Be good. May you all be blessed.
Hello PaulsFam, here's the definition of religion from the Oxford Dictionary of English:
religion: the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
Now, I can understand how Judaism, Christianity and Islam fall under the umbrella of religion as every element of the definition fits all three belief systems, but I don't see how any part of it pertains to atheism. Atheists reject belief in a personal God. Atheists do not worship or hold a belief in any superhuman controlling power, unlike Jews, Christians, and Muslims who do.
When you argue above that atheists believe in man can you please provide some examples of what you mean and also explain how you see this as religious?
Essentially, atheism is simply a definition for non-belief in the existence of God. If you want to know what other beliefs the atheist holds you would have to ask, though it is a good bet that most will accept evolution; however, millions of Christians and Jews accept evolution as well. The opposite of atheism is theism and all theistic beliefs are religious in nature. What defines theism? Theists “worship ... a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God.”
religion: the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
Now, I can understand how Judaism, Christianity and Islam fall under the umbrella of religion as every element of the definition fits all three belief systems, but I don't see how any part of it pertains to atheism. Atheists reject belief in a personal God. Atheists do not worship or hold a belief in any superhuman controlling power, unlike Jews, Christians, and Muslims who do.
When you argue above that atheists believe in man can you please provide some examples of what you mean and also explain how you see this as religious?
Essentially, atheism is simply a definition for non-belief in the existence of God. If you want to know what other beliefs the atheist holds you would have to ask, though it is a good bet that most will accept evolution; however, millions of Christians and Jews accept evolution as well. The opposite of atheism is theism and all theistic beliefs are religious in nature. What defines theism? Theists “worship ... a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God.”
J
We know that Herod was a despicable human being. He killed anyone who might even oppose him, including one of his wives and 3 sons. He was notorious for violence and if he could kill a son who was a baby at the time, then we know he could order the slaughter of innocent boys in a small town like Bethlehem. It was even rumored that Caesar Augustus said, "it is better to be Herod's pig than his son" (Killing Jesus by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard).
So we know his character fits in line with such a slaughter. This alone gives the Biblical claim weight.
We also know that genocide was not considered that big of a deal back then.
"Genocide was replete throughout the Classical world. "He slits the wombs of pregnant women; he blinds the infants," goes an ancient Assyrian poem. Genocide often was considered ethically justifiable if the killing was done to inflict revenge or thwart an aggressor (Killing Jesus).
I'm not sure there would have been a historical document or pillar engraved with Herod killing innocent children.
Also, just because we do not have physical evidence for this event, in no way means that it didn't occur. Again, the Hittites mentioned in the Bible were thought not to ever have existed until archeologists discovered them.
In fact, archeology has only given more evidence to the Bible being true. There is another thread in this forum called "archaeology and the Bible" (I think) and it shows how many ruins support the accounts in the Bible, even to coral encrusted chariot wheels in the Red Sea.
So we know his character fits in line with such a slaughter. This alone gives the Biblical claim weight.
We also know that genocide was not considered that big of a deal back then.
"Genocide was replete throughout the Classical world. "He slits the wombs of pregnant women; he blinds the infants," goes an ancient Assyrian poem. Genocide often was considered ethically justifiable if the killing was done to inflict revenge or thwart an aggressor (Killing Jesus).
I'm not sure there would have been a historical document or pillar engraved with Herod killing innocent children.
Also, just because we do not have physical evidence for this event, in no way means that it didn't occur. Again, the Hittites mentioned in the Bible were thought not to ever have existed until archeologists discovered them.
In fact, archeology has only given more evidence to the Bible being true. There is another thread in this forum called "archaeology and the Bible" (I think) and it shows how many ruins support the accounts in the Bible, even to coral encrusted chariot wheels in the Red Sea.
A
Atheism IS a metaphysical worldview that posits metaphysical assertions of belief (which carry subsequent consequences when acted upon) concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.
Atheism is NOT neutral.
Many atheists proselyte in the world for new adherents to their metaphysical worldview just as many religious proselyte in the world for new adherents for their metaphysical worldview.
All metaphysical worldviews result in consequences when their core assertions are implemented in the world.
Atheists stating that atheism is "not a religion" is thus logically self-defeating when used as a cop out to try and excuse themselves from assuming the requisite responsibility related to the metaphysical worldview they adhere to and its consequences when implemented in the world as we saw in the 20th century.
Research atheistic democide for more information. Here let me get you started: What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion
Atheism is NOT neutral.
Many atheists proselyte in the world for new adherents to their metaphysical worldview just as many religious proselyte in the world for new adherents for their metaphysical worldview.
All metaphysical worldviews result in consequences when their core assertions are implemented in the world.
Atheists stating that atheism is "not a religion" is thus logically self-defeating when used as a cop out to try and excuse themselves from assuming the requisite responsibility related to the metaphysical worldview they adhere to and its consequences when implemented in the world as we saw in the 20th century.
Research atheistic democide for more information. Here let me get you started: What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion
J
If someone claims to have had a dream or vision that contradicts the Bible, then it is to be rejected.
This is what Joseph Smith did with the Latter Day Saints and is why it is a cult.
The Mormons also believe in something called "progressive revelation." In other words any "prophet" (which all presidents of the LDS are considered prophets) can make any claim that contradicts anything previously said and can be fully accepted.
for instance Blacks were not allowed to be apart of the LDS church until the 70's, I believe. They were accepted, because one of the presidents said that it was ok.
Christians do not have "progressive revelation" which means nothing new can be said that contradicts God's word.
This is what Joseph Smith did with the Latter Day Saints and is why it is a cult.
The Mormons also believe in something called "progressive revelation." In other words any "prophet" (which all presidents of the LDS are considered prophets) can make any claim that contradicts anything previously said and can be fully accepted.
for instance Blacks were not allowed to be apart of the LDS church until the 70's, I believe. They were accepted, because one of the presidents said that it was ok.
Christians do not have "progressive revelation" which means nothing new can be said that contradicts God's word.
A
Furthermore, what is morally good (ethical) cannot be separated from what is real (metaphysical) and what is true (epistemological).
But atheism has no ultimately transcendent foundation upon which to ground a normative morality. Without God, objective moral values have no metaphysical anchor and thus cannot be accounted for in an ultimately meaningful way.
In atheism, Charles Manson and Mother Theresa have exactly the same reward: nothing. There is no ultimate reward for doing good and no ultimate punishment for doing evil. In fact, in atheism, good and evil are simply repositories for whatever they want to fill them with.
Unlike atheistic attempts to account for morality, the ethics of Christian theism are grounded in the morally perfect nature of God who has specifically revealed his will to mankind. God is therefore the source and foundation for objective moral values in which absolute moral law extends from the cosmic moral Lawgiver.
The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the morally perfect person who stands behind the objective moral order discovered in the universe.
It is for these and many other reasons why Atheism, on the other hand, fails the world.
But atheism has no ultimately transcendent foundation upon which to ground a normative morality. Without God, objective moral values have no metaphysical anchor and thus cannot be accounted for in an ultimately meaningful way.
In atheism, Charles Manson and Mother Theresa have exactly the same reward: nothing. There is no ultimate reward for doing good and no ultimate punishment for doing evil. In fact, in atheism, good and evil are simply repositories for whatever they want to fill them with.
Unlike atheistic attempts to account for morality, the ethics of Christian theism are grounded in the morally perfect nature of God who has specifically revealed his will to mankind. God is therefore the source and foundation for objective moral values in which absolute moral law extends from the cosmic moral Lawgiver.
The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the morally perfect person who stands behind the objective moral order discovered in the universe.
It is for these and many other reasons why Atheism, on the other hand, fails the world.
RELIGION, n. relij'on. L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. (Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary)
Etymology the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. (Source: Google.com)
Etmologically, the original definition of "religion" was tied to a meaning of "to bind". Religion is whatever binds us. Religion might be described as the set of standards that we live by. Worldviews of atheism and various types of theism will connect us to the type of life that we choose to live. Word meanings have changed throughout history and different dictionaries will have different definitions. Religion can still be defined as beliefs and standards that "bind" and guide us. Atheism has been defined as the belief that there is no god.
There have been news stories in recent years about humanists and atheists seeking support (and funding) to serve as chaplains.
Some applications forms for organizations and activities such as summer camps will ask for an emergency point of contact and a religious preference. My estimation is that more than a few application forms have shown a religious preference of "atheist".
Etymology the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. (Source: Google.com)
Etmologically, the original definition of "religion" was tied to a meaning of "to bind". Religion is whatever binds us. Religion might be described as the set of standards that we live by. Worldviews of atheism and various types of theism will connect us to the type of life that we choose to live. Word meanings have changed throughout history and different dictionaries will have different definitions. Religion can still be defined as beliefs and standards that "bind" and guide us. Atheism has been defined as the belief that there is no god.
There have been news stories in recent years about humanists and atheists seeking support (and funding) to serve as chaplains.
Some applications forms for organizations and activities such as summer camps will ask for an emergency point of contact and a religious preference. My estimation is that more than a few application forms have shown a religious preference of "atheist".
J
Wow! so well said! I read the article from the link and it had me saying, "Wow!" Over and over again. It truly was powerful! I saved it to my computer.
this was exactly what I trying to say about athiests who would assert they know 100% that there is no God. I could not just say it as eloquently as the link you posted did!
"These new atheists then extrapolate their own spiritual void onto everyone and everything else which is a fallacious thing to do since they must assume they know everything in order to deny the irrefutable evidence of the existence of the supernatural which is logical absurdity. At least the agnostic admits they don't know everything and are open to qualifying all of the evidence properly."
this was exactly what I trying to say about athiests who would assert they know 100% that there is no God. I could not just say it as eloquently as the link you posted did!
"These new atheists then extrapolate their own spiritual void onto everyone and everything else which is a fallacious thing to do since they must assume they know everything in order to deny the irrefutable evidence of the existence of the supernatural which is logical absurdity. At least the agnostic admits they don't know everything and are open to qualifying all of the evidence properly."
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Are you asking or making a statement as the question mark (e.g. ?) is missing from your first sentence?
Never mind, I'll answer whether you're asking or making an assertion.
When genuine Christians (not to be confused with non-genuine Christians) CHOOSE to incorporate God's normative morality into their lives then obviously they DO have morals resulting from a freewill choice.
It is fallacious contradiction to argue that when Christians choose to incorporate God's normative morality into their lives that equates to them not having morals (an obvious logical contradiction).
And, since God's normative morality is opposed to murder (as murder is defined in the canon which is based on God's special revelation within the Christian worldview), God would never have someone actually murder a child.
Neither of the two common objections (e.g. God testing Abraham's faith with respect to Isaac nor children killed in ancient battles between the nation of Israelite and pagan nations during times of war) qualify as valid objections within this definition.
Finally, what some people on an Internet forum say they would do in a fabricated speculative scenario is not relevant to what God's normative morality actually IS. God's normative morality is NOT dependent on their words or behavior which may or may not align with what God's normative morality IS, in reality.
Never mind, I'll answer whether you're asking or making an assertion.
When genuine Christians (not to be confused with non-genuine Christians) CHOOSE to incorporate God's normative morality into their lives then obviously they DO have morals resulting from a freewill choice.
It is fallacious contradiction to argue that when Christians choose to incorporate God's normative morality into their lives that equates to them not having morals (an obvious logical contradiction).
And, since God's normative morality is opposed to murder (as murder is defined in the canon which is based on God's special revelation within the Christian worldview), God would never have someone actually murder a child.
Neither of the two common objections (e.g. God testing Abraham's faith with respect to Isaac nor children killed in ancient battles between the nation of Israelite and pagan nations during times of war) qualify as valid objections within this definition.
Finally, what some people on an Internet forum say they would do in a fabricated speculative scenario is not relevant to what God's normative morality actually IS. God's normative morality is NOT dependent on their words or behavior which may or may not align with what God's normative morality IS, in reality.
A
Which does not negate the rightness of aligning with the truth nor the wrongness of not aligning with the truth.
If I say X is X and another person comments that X is X and X really is X then their bias is, in reality, justified.
A bias may or may not be justified. Your posts suggest to me that you possess an equally strong bias only against the information being presented not for it. So it's rather hypocritical of you to criticize their bias while ignoring your own.
Furthermore, I'd argue this entire line is a red herring to the discussion and the discussion would be more relevant if you did not make these kinds of posts at all.
If I say X is X and another person comments that X is X and X really is X then their bias is, in reality, justified.
A bias may or may not be justified. Your posts suggest to me that you possess an equally strong bias only against the information being presented not for it. So it's rather hypocritical of you to criticize their bias while ignoring your own.
Furthermore, I'd argue this entire line is a red herring to the discussion and the discussion would be more relevant if you did not make these kinds of posts at all.
A
The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. The red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead. Your post qualified and it doesn't matter if you're too ignorant and uneducated to understand that it did because it still did.