Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

  1. #11
    So much to learn! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,069
    Local Date
    01-21-2020
    Local Time
    12:54 PM

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    I think the values I've learned and believed came from God would still hold up as the best thing to do so not much would change.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Hope6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,033
    Local Date
    01-21-2020
    Local Time
    02:54 PM

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Quote Originally Posted by shelbell View Post
    I couldn't know, and can't even put myself in pretend mode because I know there IS a God.
    yeah i'm like you, i can't explain it or know how to prove it to anyone else, but in my heart i know there is a God!

  3. #13
    jimbo
    Guest

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    if i knew there was no god i dont think i would change at all i enjoy being a good fair person and being the best person i can be it gives my life an inner warmth i cant explain


    but i spoze the biggest change i would make if there was no god i'd spend less time praying and going to church

    but seeing as there is a god no change there


    thank god for jesus eh

  4. #14
    fuzzy butt
    Guest

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Okay say god doesn't exist? but there was an incredible socialogical professor at work here. (Namely Jesus)

    His sermon on the mount , how would we see it as a world populace?

    One of the most important debates over the sermon is how directly it should be applied to everyday life. Almost all Christian groups have developed nonliteral ways to interpret and apply the sermon. McArthur lists twelve basic schools of thought on these issues:

    The Absolutist View :rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest.
    One method that is common, but not endorsed by any denomination, is to simply Modify the Text of the sermon. In ancient times this took the form of actually altering the text of the Sermon to make it more palatable. Thus some early copyists changed Matthew 5:22 from "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" to the watered-down "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." "Love your enemies" was changed to "Pray for your enemies" in pOxy 1224 6:1a; Did. 1:3; Pol. Phil. 12:3. John 13:34-35 tells the disciples to "Love one another". The exception for divorce in the case of porneia may be a Matthean addition; it is not present in Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11, or 1 Cor 7:10–11; and in 1 Cor 7:12–16, Paul gives his own exceptions to Jesus' teaching. Additions were made to the Lord's Prayer to support other doctrines, and other prayers were developed as substitute. More common in recent centuries is to paraphrase the Sermon and in so doing make it far less radical. A search through the writings of almost every major Christian writer finds them at some point to have made this modification.[citation needed][8]
    One of the most common views is the Hyperbole View, which argues that portions of what Jesus states in the Sermon are hyperbole, and that if one is to apply the teaching to the real world, they need to be "toned down." Most interpreters agree that there is some hyperbole in the sermon, with Matt 5:29 being the most prominent example, but there is disagreement over exactly which sections should not be taken literally.
    Closely related is the General Principles View that argues that Jesus was not giving specific instructions, but general principles of how one should behave. The specific instances cited in the Sermon are simply examples of these general principles.
    The Double Standard View is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. It divides the teachings of the Sermon into general precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation, but obedience to the counsels is only necessary for perfection. The great mass of the population need only concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels must be followed by only a pious few such as the clergy and monks. This theory was initiated by St. Augustine and later fully developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, though an early version of it is cited in Did. 6:2, "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able" (Roberts-Donaldson), and reflected in the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-21). Geoffrey Chaucer also did much to popularize this view among speakers of English with his Canterbury Tales (Wife of Bath's Prologue, v. 117-118)
    Martin Luther rejected the Roman Catholic approach and developed a different two-level system McArthur refers to as the Two Realms View. Luther divided the world into the religious and secular realms and argued that the Sermon only applied to the spiritual. In the temporal world, obligations to family, employers, and country force believers to compromise. Thus a judge should follow his secular obligations to sentence a criminal, but inwardly, he should mourn for the fate of the criminal.
    At the same time as the Protestant Reformation was underway, a new era of Biblical criticism began leading to the Analogy of Scripture View. Close reading of the Bible found that several of the most rigid precepts in the sermon were moderated by other parts of the New Testament. For instance, while Jesus seems to forbid all oaths, Paul is shown using them at least twice; thus the prohibition in the Sermon may seem to have some exceptions; though in fairness to Paul, it should be pointed out that he was not present at the Sermon on the Mount and may not have been aware of all of its teachings. See also Pauline Christianity.
    In the nineteenth century, several more interpretations developed. Wilhelm Herrmann embraced the notion of Attitudes not Acts, which can be traced back to St. Augustine. This view states that Jesus in the Sermon is not saying how a good Christian should behave, only what his attitude is. The spirit lying behind the act is more important than the act itself.
    Albert Schweitzer popularized the Interim Ethic View. This view sees Jesus as being convinced that the world was going to end in the very near future. As such, survival in the world did not matter as in the end times material well-being would be irrelevant.
    In the twentieth century another major German thinker, Martin Dibelius, presented another view also based on eschatology. His Unconditional Divine Will View is that the ethics behind the Sermon are absolute and unbending, but the current fallen state of the world makes it impossible to live up to them. Humans are bound to attempt to live up to them, but failure is inevitable. This will change when the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed and all will be able to live in a Godly manner. A similar view is also described in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, written in the late nineteenth century.
    Closely linked to this is the Repentance View, which is that Jesus intended for the precepts in his Sermon to be unattainable, and through our certain failure to live up to them, we will learn to repent or that we will be driven to faith in the Gospel.
    Another Eschatological View is that of modern dispensationalism. Dispensationalism, first developed by the Plymouth Brethren, divides human history into a series of ages or dispensations. Today we live in the period of grace where living up to the teachings of the sermon is impossible, but in the future, the Millennium will see a period where it is possible to live up to the teachings of the Sermon, and where following them will be a prerequisite to salvation.




    Yes i took the easy way out and put a wiki thing up but when you really think about the sermon on the mount it makes you think.

    See a lot of Christians can tell you what date easter and christmas is, but if you were to ask them what sermon /teaching did Jesus give they can't tell you . And yet it's supposed to be about all his teachings. Not his birth or resurrection. but what he taught . *shrugs *

    what teachings from this genius goes against humanism? simply it doesn't, we all have it in us. whether there is a god or not.

  5. #15
    Senior Member hoppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,495
    Local Date
    01-21-2020
    Local Time
    02:54 PM

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Nothing.

  6. #16
    fuzzy butt
    Guest

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Quote Originally Posted by hoppy View Post
    Nothing.
    you've made me smile hoppy

  7. #17
    Senior Member SOJOURNER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Right here.................
    Posts
    5,356
    Local Date
    01-21-2020
    Local Time
    02:54 PM

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Quote Originally Posted by RedGlitter View Post
    ....what would you do differently?
    I can't begin to answer this until I consider what this world might be like if there was no God.

    The Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorra (sp?) kind of come to mind................... If there was no God, would we all be like that? What would matter besides food, shelter and pleasure? Would family bonds and love exist since we would not have been 'made in that image'?

    What an empty life this would be and I use the the term life very loosely here. This would be just plain existance which most, I think, would consider a complete waste.

    I guess what I would do different is buy huge quanities of stock in antidepressants so I could make my life mentally and materially comfortable until the end.......................

  8. #18
    Senior Member mikeinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    By the Irish Sea
    Posts
    3,141
    Local Date
    01-21-2020
    Local Time
    08:54 PM

    Re: If you knew for fact there was no God.....

    Register to remove this ad.
    I wouldn't do anything different... Well, baybe ask the church for all those donations back, but I doubt they would give it to e.

    Oh, then become a Buddhist

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. it's a FACT!
    By SlipStream in forum Word Games
    Replies: 357
    Last Post: 11-14-2007, 09:02 AM
  2. Is That a fact ....?
    By Clancy in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-31-2006, 02:45 PM
  3. It's a fact.....
    By Sheryl in forum Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 06:34 AM
  4. God- Fact or Myth (I say FACT)
    By computerchic8301 in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-17-2006, 11:16 PM
  5. Fun Fact of the Day
    By gameshowguy in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2005, 01:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts