Fundamentals

[Antlerman]

so i think the bible leaves part of the interpritation of sin up to the reader. so if someone wants to live a more strict life than others, good for them. but the point i think Jesus stressed was that, it is Faith that there is a God, not your actions that is important.

 

with that said, i think there are certain inmoral acts that everyone would agree on (murder, theft, rape, etc...). and this is where a common ground should be established in every different sect of christianity.

Wow freeday, you constantly amaze me with comments like this, but of course I have learned to expect you will backpedal when I point out what you just said (as I'm about to), then I will bring you back to it, and eventually you will come to terms with it. Such is the dance.

 

Anyway let's look at what you just said, shall we? Sin being left up to interpretation? You are saying that it is not against God then. Because, if as you have said elsewhere that God is absolute holiness and anything that is sin is in contradiction with that and cannot be admitted into His presence, therefore banished to hell, then how, pray tell how is something on that serious of a level open to interpretation? Considering the slightest sin is a violation of absolute holiness and the consequences of such is eternal death and damnation, the knowledge of any sin should be explicitly stated and unambiguous and hardly a "personal interpretation." Think of crimes worthy of capital punishment in our society. Do you think those are personal interpretations??? Of course not.

 

So what in reality you are saying freeday is that it is "not your actions are important". In other words, sin is really defined as personal ethics, and not some eternal law. Yes, you are almost one of us. What is really important you say is faith in God. In other words, correct me if this sound too far off from what you just said that what is really important is to have a good system of ethics and positive outlooks on life? You have really just opened the door to all religions and world views, whether theist or atheist. Congratulations brother, you have just moved beyond dogma into being a true human!

[Ouroboros]

with this deffinition, you and i would agree that it is based on the social norm, so one thing that is unethical to us may be ethical to another. i think that the bible leaves a certian amount of leaway when interpreting exactly what sin is. i don't think that anyone could give a clear cut answer on exactly what sin is and what it isn't.

And that's why it's hard to explain why someone has to be saved. And since Heaven and Hell are also based on assumptions and belief, then what are we really saved from?

[freeday]

so i think the bible leaves part of the interpritation of sin up to the reader. so if someone wants to live a more strict life than others, good for them. but the point i think Jesus stressed was that, it is Faith that there is a God, not your actions that is important.

 

with that said, i think there are certain inmoral acts that everyone would agree on (murder, theft, rape, etc...). and this is where a common ground should be established in every different sect of christianity.

Wow freeday, you constantly amaze me with comments like this, but of course I have learned to expect you will backpedal when I point out what you just said (as I'm about to), then I will bring you back to it, and eventually you will come to terms with it. Such is the dance.

 

Anyway let's look at what you just said, shall we? Sin being left up to interpretation? You are saying that it is not against God then. Because, if as you have said elsewhere that God is absolute holiness and anything that is sin is in contradiction with that and cannot be admitted into His presence, therefore banished to hell, then how, pray tell how is something on that serious of a level open to interpretation? Considering the slightest sin is a violation of absolute holiness and the consequences of such is eternal death and damnation, the knowledge of any sin should be explicitly stated and unambiguous and hardly a "personal interpretation." Think of crimes worthy of capital punishment in our society. Do you think those are personal interpretations??? Of course not.

 

So what in reality you are saying freeday is that it is "not your actions are important". In other words, sin is really defined as personal ethics, and not some eternal law. Yes, you are almost one of us. What is really important you say is faith in God. In other words, correct me if this sound too far off from what you just said that what is really important is to have a good system of ethics and positive outlooks on life? You have really just opened the door to all religions and world views, whether theist or atheist. Congratulations brother, you have just moved beyond dogma into being a true human!

 

i think we actually agree, except i think that sin is against my percieved God and the person i commited the unethical issue with.

 

ex. i steal your car, i later feel bad for you and that i angered God.

 

i think there is an amout of the bible that can be interpretted either way, i think it states clearly the really bad unethical stuff to stay away from. the little stuff, i don't think really matters.

 

with this deffinition, you and i would agree that it is based on the social norm, so one thing that is unethical to us may be ethical to another. i think that the bible leaves a certian amount of leaway when interpreting exactly what sin is. i don't think that anyone could give a clear cut answer on exactly what sin is and what it isn't.

And that's why it's hard to explain why someone has to be saved. And since Heaven and Hell are also based on assumptions and belief, then what are we really saved from?

 

inside the belief of christianity, it states that we are all destined to hell and undeserving. this is what we are saved from.

 

outside of christianity, i am not reall sure what we need saving from. the first thing that pops in my head is death. nothingness. what if that is hell. maybe if you believe in God he will let you join the party in the sky. maybe instead of looking at it as salvation, it could be looked at as invitation. i don't think that would be sacriligous to say that.

[K9 Jake]

In my opinion, a child or baby who dies would obviously go to heaven. And yes I am aware the Bible says you have to be saved. Like I said, the Bible may be my foundation, but all of its words are not cast in concrete to me. I think in order to have faith, whether it be in yourself, or your God or whomever or whatever,you have to follow your head and your heart. I cannot imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment for no reason other than they weren't old enough or mature enough to comprehend his teachings and turn to him. Now that does bring up another interesting question. This question is probably geared more towards Christians, but of course all are free to respond, and please do. What if someone grows up in a part of the world where Christianity is not the dominating force? Their parents raise them to follow their families religion which is not Christianity. And lets say that no missionary ever visits them. They never have any contact with a Christian throughout their entire lives. But.....they live a good life, they follow very similar principles as Christianity and other like minded religions. Now they never recieved the word of God from Christians. So they, much like the innocent child never had an opportunity to turn. So in theory are they going to hell? I have already stated my opinion about other religions and I think my answer is pretty obvious.

The reason I brought up that question, is becasue I took the religion that was taught to me in my upbringing by my parents. I think most people probably do so. So it makes sense that if I had been born somewhere else, I would more than likely take what I was taught since I was a child. So I could have just as easily been a Buddhist etc. And again, I can't imagine a God that would punish me for living a good life and simply calling out to him by another name.

[Ouroboros]

Jake, you're hitting the nail on the head (or is it the head on the nail? )

 

Anyway, take it one step further. This is pure hypothetical speaking here:

 

Let's say there is a difference in correct Christian teachings and wrong Christian teachings. And lets say that I was brought up and spent most of my life in a bad Church, and that resulted in my rejection of the Gospel. Now, the fault was obviously the teachers and the churches I belonged to, but would it be my fault too? Lets say I was in that bad church, rejected it because it was so bad and wrong (immoral), and then I died, would I go to Hell for not believing?

 

Or lets say that I was in the same bad Christian church, and they had the wrong teachings so I believed that I would go to Heaven just by being a member (because of the teachings), and I did not reject the teachings, but I would think I was okay and saved, but truth would be that I wasn't; I would go to Hell for having the wrong version of Christian faith!

 

Are these two options really Godly?

[freeday]

In my opinion, a child or baby who dies would obviously go to heaven. And yes I am aware the Bible says you have to be saved. Like I said, the Bible may be my foundation, but all of its words are not cast in concrete to me. I think in order to have faith, whether it be in yourself, or your God or whomever or whatever,you have to follow your head and your heart. I cannot imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment for no reason other than they weren't old enough or mature enough to comprehend his teachings and turn to him. Now that does bring up another interesting question. This question is probably geared more towards Christians, but of course all are free to respond, and please do. What if someone grows up in a part of the world where Christianity is not the dominating force? Their parents raise them to follow their families religion which is not Christianity. And lets say that no missionary ever visits them. They never have any contact with a Christian throughout their entire lives. But.....they live a good life, they follow very similar principles as Christianity and other like minded religions. Now they never recieved the word of God from Christians. So they, much like the innocent child never had an opportunity to turn. So in theory are they going to hell? I have already stated my opinion about other religions and I think my answer is pretty obvious.

The reason I brought up that question, is becasue I took the religion that was taught to me in my upbringing by my parents. I think most people probably do so. So it makes sense that if I had been born somewhere else, I would more than likely take what I was taught since I was a child. So I could have just as easily been a Buddhist etc. And again, I can't imagine a God that would punish me for living a good life and simply calling out to him by another name.

 

i take the same stance as you on this one. in romans it states.

 

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ"

 

gentiles being people who have not heard the good news. it reads to me that if they have a good heart, they will be judged accordingly. i need to reread revalations, i think there are varying degrees of judgement.

[Antlerman]

i take the same stance as you on this one. in romans it states.

 

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ"

 

gentiles being people who have not heard the good news. it reads to me that if they have a good heart, they will be judged accordingly. i need to reread revalations, i think there are varying degrees of judgement.

Gentiles are not people who have not heard the good news. Gentiles are those who are not Jewish.

 

Now as far as being judged according to their own hearts, this seems to be indicating in this part of the NT that the blood sacrifice of Christ applies to non-believers, or that we are judged by our hearts alone and that blood sacrifices are not required to be allowed into God's holy presence (in trying to keep theology consistent).

 

So in essence, everything is good and fine for Bob, being a good-hearted kind man who treats others in life with respect and good will, until a couple of wool-suited, ill educated, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-rational, exclusivist, arrogant, "True Christians" come along and share the "good news" that Bob just can't seem to see the benefit or reasonableness of beyond his current world view that would make him more pleasant of an individual. In fact on the contrary, he sees arrogance and narrow-mindedness that alienates others. He therefore rejects these missionaries, and NOW he goes to hell! Yep, makes good sense to me.

 

What the writer of Romans says there is pretty much how I see things, to a point. We sin when we violate the rules of our own conscience, and our own conscience is what we developed through exposure to our own cultures, along with our own thoughts, along with our own personalities. The actions we perform reflect and demonstrate what is in our hearts.

 

This is why theology is crap. It means nothing whether you have the right doctrines, whether you believe in Jesus, Buddha, or otherwise. If those symbols help someone nurture their own conscience and subsequent actions, then it is the individual who is judged on their hearts, not their theologies. Fundamentalists hide behind correct doctrine. They are the Pharisee’s white-washed sepulchers full of death inside.

 

This all said, it does not matter what religion you are, which god if any you believe in, what form your world view takes, so long as in the end the greater community of life is served. This is what "God" is supposed to symbolize, and if you are serving that ideal, then you are "saved". Making your god the only god and all others damned fails to serve that ideal of life. It alienates others from you, and it alienates yourself from others. It is anti-spiritual. It is legalism.

[Checkmate]

Okay...So we seem to have arrived at a concensus/impasse. NOBODY truly believes the Bible® is literally "god's word" to man. NOBODY, not even the assembled Christians, believes in Hell, and NOBODY believes in a "god" of wrath that will punish basically good and decent people for the "crime" of unbelief. That's just crazy.

 

Basically, what I'm reading is that it's not belief in GOD that is the problem, but the religion and Fundamentalism. It is the screwball CONCEPTS that people create around "god" that is the problem. Okay. I can buy that. (I STILL don't believe in "god", but as we've just established, THAT is OKAY. I don't have to. "Your" god won't punish me for my unbelief. Right? )

 

So, this begs the question...Why are you "Christians" still so hot-to-trot to cling onto your obviously failed/make-believe religion? Why not just throw it out and adopt NEW and BETTER religious beliefs? You all strike me (sometimes) as somewhat "rational" people who don't want to harm anyone. Why remain members of an obvious death cult? You all have as many problems with your religion as we do/did (which is why we left). Why do you put up with it? Since it is obviously man-made, and totally optional, and distinctly culturally driven, why keep it? Why not adhere to another religion of your own choosing? Why act like lemmings and follow the other "Christians" over the cliff of insanity?

 

There are better religions/beliefs out there. Why not pick a better one?

 

Please explain this, Christians, because your behavior makes NO sense to me. I don't comprehend holding onto something that you find offensive and untenable. Something that you have to defend and rationalize. Something that is MOSTLY an embarrassment. Why remain with THAT religion? Especially when you don't HAVE TO.

[K9 Jake]

Mr. Grinch,

 

Which better religion would you be referring to? And what defines a better religion? Is it one that you deem better according to your personal morals and ethics? Is it one that you consider more scientific, or down to earth? Maybe you could pick my beliefs for me and save me some time. I think its very clear that we do not "HAVE TO" accept Chrisitanity as our religion. Even in the most basic principles of Christianity, 'free will' is an important part of the foundation.

 

You ask why not adhere to a religion of your chosing? This is the religion of my chosing. Yes there are obviously things I do and do not agree with within my religion. That is why I have chosen what I believe in my heart to be true within my religion. And I have rejected what I believe to be false. My basic foundations are still Christian, but I guess you could say I have trimmed off a little fat (or atleast what I, in my mind perceive to be fat). And again, in all fairness, this is the religion that I was raised as a child to believe in. I could just have easily adopted another if I lived somewhere else or had been brought up different. I have briefly looked at other religions, whether it be out of curiosity, or sincere interest. But this is what I chose.

 

I think your general reference of Christianity as a "Death Cult" might be just a little bit over the top. Then again, maybe I am just misunderstanding the context in which you are trying to put it.

 

Because I believe that some of the Bible may be exaggerated, or slightly changed by man, or maybe taken out of context, or even mis-interpreted, does not mean that I concede that my religion is a falsehood or that it is make believe. If I believed my religion to be a phony, I dare to say that I would have no part in it.

 

I hope that whatever you chose to believe in, whether it be a God, a set of principles, or even simply the power of your own mind, you are happy. The same way as I am happy with my religion.

 

I definately dont feel like I am a lemming. But I suppose thats an arguable label. If anyone here has the world figured out please enlighten me. I am just searching for answers like most people. I do it my way, and you yours. And sometimes our searches can intersect our paths. I believe in science and logic as well. I think Christianity and science can co-exist.

[NotBlinded]

Until he does those, his answers are as valid as me saying that sin is when you don't iuqweyvuwe your uiqwrn ert...

OH MY GOD! I have never done that!

 

 

 

Oops...sorry for the side post, but I just couldn't help it!

[NotBlinded]

I have to state my opinion here...some know it and others don't and some don't care, but I'll say it again anyway.

 

The only 'sin' is the original sin of believing that we are born imperfect. That is a lie, IMO and anyone of any faith that claims we are, is believing in a lie. Just as Adam and Eve did. The allegory of Adam and Eve makes perfect sense when understood as that...an allegory.

 

What happens when we believe we are imperfect? We strive to be perfect forsaking anyone else that stands in our way. These are 'transgressions' that occur from the original sin. We think we are not good enough so we must seek ways of becoming better. Better than what? Others? This is nothing but the ego having a party and we allow it. The allegory is speaking of spiritual perfection and many people confuse spiritual perfection with material perfection. The ego loves materials!

 

Of course, we all make mistakes in the world (material), so we are not perfect in this sense.

 

So when Christians use the Adam and Eve allegory to understand that they are not perfect and deserving of god, there can be no other outcome other than secondary 'sins' that are of the ego and show intent. Look what happened to Adam and Eve when they believed they were not perfect (as gods). Their intent was one of the ego. If we believe we are spiritually perfect, then we understand that everyone else is also and the mistakes they make are not one of intent. This is where morals and values being relative come in. What is one's intent when lying? What is one's intent when killing? Is it to further their feeling of importance or is to pacify or to save another without any egoic intent?

 

The entire message is lost when one reads it literally and what it refers to will continue to happen over and over again. We will continue to suffer from shame and guilt. Men and women will be enemies and their offspring will be enemies as long as they believe the lie of imperfection. My little nephew lies and picks fights all the time trying to show that he is better than other children including my daughter. And so it goes...

[chefranden]

i want to take the genocides just a little step further. If there really is a God, and he has designated a wonderfull place for you to go after you die that is 10 times better than any earthly experience. wouldn't it be more mercifull to take your life as a baby so it would never have the opportunity to grow up in a culture that would greatly limit its ability to devolope a relationship with God.

 

I can't let this one go by.

 

Why don't Christians kill all their babies? According to your logic here that would be the best way to evangelize them. Why do you let your kids grow up and risk going to hell? I can't figure it out. Y'all must not love your kids enough to risk hell for the sake of your children. Bah! And you call yourself a follower of Jesus who went to hell for you.

 

Edit

If God loves everyone equally then why doesn't he kill everyone before they can think? If God wants everyone in heaven, what is the point of this fleshly life? Why not go straight to heaven if that is the goal? Is God too incompetent to pull that off? Just what does your god do for you besides forcing you to risk hell by giving you a body?

[chefranden]

... I cannot imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment for no reason other than they weren't old enough or mature enough to comprehend his teachings and turn to him..

Just because you cannot imagine god X, does that mean that god X does not exist. I cannot imagine ChristianGod in any form, therefore GhristianGod does not exist. Is that correct?

 

Paul could and did imagine the God you cannot imagine (Romans9: 10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.") Is this bullshit? Did Paul have the wrong God but you have the right God because you are too squeamish to imagine the Great Mafia Don in the Sky?

 

Since you have imagined a portion of BibleGod away, why don't you just go ahead and imagine the rest of BibleGod away? (I think I'm begining to admire fundimentalists.)

 

 

What if someone grows up in a part of the world where Christianity is not the dominating force? Their parents raise them to follow their families religion which is not Christianity. And lets say that no missionary ever visits them. They never have any contact with a Christian throughout their entire lives. But.....they live a good life, they follow very similar principles as Christianity and other like minded religions. Now they never recieved the word of God from Christians. So they, much like the innocent child never had an opportunity to turn. So in theory are they going to hell? I have already stated my opinion about other religions and I think my answer is pretty obvious.

So then "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," would be bullshit to0. Is that correct? What is the point of bothering with God, if knowing about God only increases your chance of going to hell?

[Ouroboros]

Good points Chef,

 

Just to add to your first part. What about people that don't have the mental capability to make a good choice? There are people that have certain mental deficiencies that makes them unable to care for themselves, but yet should religion claim they are capable of making the choice of eternity? Where does God send the handicapped people?

[K9 Jake]

Chefranden,

 

Your argument about Paul imagining a God that I could not would mean something to me, if I had not repeatedly stated on this thread that I do NOT see eye to eye with the Bible in every facet. I am not going to say whether or not its bullshit. I can't say that its bullshit. I don't know. I am going to say that I believe and have faith otherwise.

 

So basically because I pick and chose what I want to believe in a religious sense based on the way I feel, and based on my personal ethics and morals, I am an idiot....is that about right? Is that what this argument/debate is reduced to?

 

In reference to "I am the way, the truth and the light" and so on. You said "What is the point of bothering with God, if knowing about God only increases your chance of going to hell"?

If you read my earlier post, I make it very clear as to my belief regarding those of different beliefs and denominations going to heaven. Feel free to read my forementioned post on the subject. Save the "is there is only one way into heaven" argument for someone who actually believes it in the first place. It will make your argument much more effective. I brought up my hypothetical question which you quoted to point out that I don't believe there is only one way to salvation or heaven or paradise or whatever you would like to call it. NOT to say that if you don't know about God, you have a better chance of going to heaven. So either you misunderstood my intention, or I mis-communicated my thoughts. Either way, there it is.

 

And just to be perfectly clear. When I said I could not imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment ....... I absolutely mean in every sense of the words that I do NOT BELIEVE in a God that would do that. Does it mean that what I believe is the way it is? Of course not. It means that is what I have chosen to believe. If Paul choses the contrary notion, then thats his belief system, not mine. Paul and I share many similar base beliefs, but that would not be one of them.

 

I realize that you and I do not share the same beliefs. So what? You have chosen your path and I have chosen mine. I don't see anything wrong with the life you have chosen. Whats so wrong with mine, so long as I don't hurt anyone, and it makes me happy? I don't think anything I have posted regarding my personal beliefs makes me even remotely unaccepting of people whos beliefs are different from my own. Would it make you feel better if everyone believed the exact same things that you do?

[chefranden]

Chefranden,

 

1.Your argument about Paul imagining a God that I could not would mean something to me, if I had not repeatedly stated on this thread that I do NOT see eye to eye with the Bible in every facet. I am not going to say whether or not its bullshit. I can't say that its bullshit. I don't know. I am going to say that I believe and have faith otherwise.

 

2.So basically because I pick and chose what I want to believe in a religious sense based on the way I feel, and based on my personal ethics and morals, I am an idiot....is that about right? Is that what this argument/debate is reduced to?

1. I know your stated positon. I think you need to defend it, if you are not just making up your own God.

 

If Paul's God can hate a person before it is born or even concieved, then either Paul is wrong or you are. You are uncomfortable with calling Paul's writing bullshit, while at the same time you consider it bullshit though you may not use that particular word. That is dishonest in my book (which of course I made up myself.)

 

You don't seem to see the delema that either you follow the faith of your fathers or you make up your own. Making up your own faith/religion is ok. Lots of people have done it including your fathers. But you ought to admit that is what you are doing. I think that is the honest course.

 

Perhaps you have done that, and I just missed it.

 

By the way, at least in his writings, Paul was an asshole. I'm sure if you admit it you'd feel much better.

 

2. Well I haven't called you an idiot yet. In fact if you I did think you an idiot, I wouldn't waste time responding to your posts with anymore than "you are an idiot." But usually I would just ignore you altogether after reading a couple of posts, 'cause I'm lazy. I can do that because after all I'm an "Evil Atheist" without basis for moral behavior.

 

In reference to "I am the way, the truth and the light" and so on. You said "What is the point of bothering with God, if knowing about God only increases your chance of going to hell"?

 

If you read my earlier post, I make it very clear as to my belief regarding those of different beliefs and denominations going to heaven. Feel free to read my forementioned post on the subject. Save the "is there is only one way into heaven" argument for someone who actually believes it in the first place. It will make your argument much more effective. I brought up my hypothetical question which you quoted to point out that I don't believe there is only one way to salvation or heaven or paradise or whatever you would like to call it.

 

NOT to say that if you don't know about God, you have a better chance of going to heaven. So either you misunderstood my intention, or I mis-communicated my thoughts. Either way, there it is.

If there are other ways to God then you must assume that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," is bullshit, though you may not use that word. So you could have answered the question, "yes that is bullshit," or perhaps in light of your sensibilities, "Jesus wouldn't have said such a thing, because I wouldn't like it." If you had answered in that fashion then the second part of the question would be moot because of course it woudln't apply.

 

And just to be perfectly clear. When I said I could not imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment ....... I absolutely mean in every sense of the words that I do NOT BELIEVE in a God that would do that. Does it mean that what I believe is the way it is? Of course not. It means that is what I have chosen to believe. If Paul choses the contrary notion, then thats his belief system, not mine. Paul and I share many similar base beliefs, but that would not be one of them.

 

Since you are being perfectly clear, let me try to clarify my confusion. Which of the following is true if any?

 

1. You believe in a God that may or may not be real?

 

2. What ever God a person may make up (re-invent) out of what ever tradition is real?

 

3. If the real is God is something you don't like, you won't believe in it.

 

4. You are a universalist?

 

1. I realize that you and I do not share the same beliefs. So what? You have chosen your path and I have chosen mine. I don't see anything wrong with the life you have chosen. Whats so wrong with mine, so long as I don't hurt anyone, and it makes me happy?

 

2. I don't think anything I have posted regarding my personal beliefs makes me even remotely unaccepting of people whos beliefs are different from my own.

 

3. Would it make you feel better if everyone believed the exact same things that you do?

 

1. Well gee, since the thread was about fundimentals concerning Why does someone have to be saved? What are they saved from? And what makes someone saved? I may have assumed that you were trying to establish some fundimentals, or at least denying them. Thus my questions.

 

2. I don't assume, yet, that you are unaccepting. You may be another Amanda, for all I know, i.e. a person that accepts everything that might be deemed spiritual has merit. I don't argue with her anymore because I understand that she stands nowhere in particular.

 

3. I doubt it. Very little makes me feel better. But you can give it a try if you like.

[Antlerman]

And just to be perfectly clear. When I said I could not imagine a God that would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of torment ....... I absolutely mean in every sense of the words that I do NOT BELIEVE in a God that would do that. Does it mean that what I believe is the way it is? Of course not. It means that is what I have chosen to believe. If Paul choses the contrary notion, then thats his belief system, not mine. Paul and I share many similar base beliefs, but that would not be one of them.

I just wanted to inject that your approach to faith is one that I respect and appreciate. The only beliefs I oppose are those which are exclusivist and judgmental of others. It's refreshing to hear a voice of reason and consideration on these forums coming from the religious community. There are a few here who counter the trend of ultra-conservative thought that seems to fill the Christian world these days, and it’s nice to have another voice here among them.

[RHEMtron]

Quick question to freeday and other Christians:

 

Why are 97% of your quotes from Paul and not Jesus?

[Open_Minded]

Quick question to freeday and other Christians:

 

Why are 97% of your quotes from Paul and not Jesus?

 

 

Damn RHEMtron ... I think that question deserves a thread of its own.....

 

I can't wait to hear the anwers - especially from Freeday and AmyMarie and Paul and well all the literalists out there in wonderland.

[K9 Jake]

Chefranden

 

In response to your four questions:

 

1. Yes, I believe in a God that may or may not be real. Just as you do not believe in a God that may or may not be real. If nothing else, just think of it as "perception is reality" atleast to the person. You percieve there is no God, thus in your reality there isn't one. I perceive there is one, thus in my reality there is.

 

2. The God that a person choses is real to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

3. Who is to say who the "real God" is? You don't believe in said God, so my choice should be inconsequential to you, unless I project my beliefs on you, or try to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. Simply because I dislike something does not mean I don't believe in its existance. But in this particular case, I do not believe that God would judge an innocent person or child to a life of damnation. So no, I don't believe that God is like that. That is just a simple explanation.

 

4. By the very little that I have read on universalist, no I am not a universalist. The one thing that stuck out to me is that they believe that 'all will be saved'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist I do not believe that all will be saved if I am understanding "all" to mean every last person on the planet. I do not believe that a murderer or rapist, or child molester is someone that has a nice place waiting for them after this life.

 

Now you call me dishonest for not calling Paul on bullshit. I think thats a bitch move on your part. I told you that I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I say again, I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am NOT here to convince you or anyone else to believe like I do. I am here to save no one. I am here to debate, talk, and maybe even learn a thing or two. There seem to be alot of people around here who really like to think, and I like being around that.

If you want to argue semantics then go right ahead. My thoughts are written down in the simplest terms I can think of to convey them. I encourage anyone who has questions to ask me like you did, in a very specific manner, if they have specific questions. I am also not a person that is afraid to say "I don't know". I am not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you the way the world is or that I have all the answers. But I will tell you what I think.

 

You say "either Paul is wrong or you are". There is more to it then that. Maybe Paul and I are BOTH wrong. Maybe we are both partially right. Just becasue I do not share the exact beliefs of my father or mother, does not put me in the middle of a conundrum. It doesn't mean that I have constructed my own religion. It means that I have grown to be my own man with my own life. And my beliefs are very similar to theirs. But some of what they have believed, I have not. I do not believe that heaven or salvation is R.S.V.P for Christians only.

 

You say that in his writings "Paul is an asshole. I'm sure if you would admit it you would feel much better". I realy don't have much concern for Paul so I fail to see the relevance. But it has obviously served you well to call him an asshole so congratulations. So just for the sake of being stubborn ...no, I won't call Paul an asshole.

 

Lastly, I don't believe you are an "Evil Athiest, without basis for moral behavior". If someone else believes that, then thats their problem, not mine.

 

If I had to try and sum up my beliefs I guess I could say "Find what make you happy in life, and try to be a good person".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antlerman,

 

I appreciate your words. I think far to often those with faith dont respect those without it, and those without it dont respect those with it. Its nice to meet on a somewhat common ground every now and again.

[Ouroboros]

4. By the very little that I have read on universalist, no I am not a universalist. The one thing that stuck out to me is that they believe that 'all will be saved'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist I do not believe that all will be saved if I am understanding "all" to mean every last person on the planet. I do not believe that a murderer or rapist, or child molester is someone that has a nice place waiting for them after this life.

Unless they become Christians and say they are "really, really, really, sorry" for what they did. But the raped and murdered woman that were not a Christian fair a huge chance of going to Hell.

 

Justice is not served in Christianity.

[K9 Jake]

HanSolo,

 

That is what a literal interpretation of the Bible says. My posts or excerpts from my post do not reflect that belief.

[freeday]

i take the same stance as you on this one. in romans it states.

 

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ"

 

gentiles being people who have not heard the good news. it reads to me that if they have a good heart, they will be judged accordingly. i need to reread revalations, i think there are varying degrees of judgement.

Gentiles are not people who have not heard the good news. Gentiles are those who are not Jewish.

 

Now as far as being judged according to their own hearts, this seems to be indicating in this part of the NT that the blood sacrifice of Christ applies to non-believers, or that we are judged by our hearts alone and that blood sacrifices are not required to be allowed into God's holy presence (in trying to keep theology consistent).

 

So in essence, everything is good and fine for Bob, being a good-hearted kind man who treats others in life with respect and good will, until a couple of wool-suited, ill educated, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-rational, exclusivist, arrogant, "True Christians" come along and share the "good news" that Bob just can't seem to see the benefit or reasonableness of beyond his current world view that would make him more pleasant of an individual. In fact on the contrary, he sees arrogance and narrow-mindedness that alienates others. He therefore rejects these missionaries, and NOW he goes to hell! Yep, makes good sense to me.

 

What the writer of Romans says there is pretty much how I see things, to a point. We sin when we violate the rules of our own conscience, and our own conscience is what we developed through exposure to our own cultures, along with our own thoughts, along with our own personalities. The actions we perform reflect and demonstrate what is in our hearts.

 

This is why theology is crap. It means nothing whether you have the right doctrines, whether you believe in Jesus, Buddha, or otherwise. If those symbols help someone nurture their own conscience and subsequent actions, then it is the individual who is judged on their hearts, not their theologies. Fundamentalists hide behind correct doctrine. They are the Pharisee’s white-washed sepulchers full of death inside.

 

This all said, it does not matter what religion you are, which god if any you believe in, what form your world view takes, so long as in the end the greater community of life is served. This is what "God" is supposed to symbolize, and if you are serving that ideal, then you are "saved". Making your god the only god and all others damned fails to serve that ideal of life. It alienates others from you, and it alienates yourself from others. It is anti-spiritual. It is legalism.

 

you must have come in contact with some strange christians. i don't find us to be arrogant. i have never told anyone they are going to hell. i have asked a handfull of people once if they wanted to know about Jesus, but have never forced it on anyone, or condemed anyone for their belief.

 

i will disagree with you on one subject. i don't think we should look at God as a symbol. i think if you are going to believe, it should be the most important thing in you life. i don't find it our belief to alienate us from anyones religion. i am friends with people of all walks of life, i don't condem them for there actions, i try to exhibit my faith by example.

[freeday]

HanSolo,

 

That is what a literal interpretation of the Bible says. My posts or excerpts from my post do not reflect that belief.

 

you have to watch out, you are going to trim and trim fat untill the next thing you know, you are a mormon.

 

chefranden: i love the card you are trying to play. if you don't believe word for word, you can't be a christian. how can you tell someone the are or aren't a christian. hell even hitler stated to be a christian. but his actions did not implicate it.

[RHEMtron]

hell even hitler stated to be a christian. but his actions did not implicate it.

Then enlighten us on how a "true Christian" is supposed to act please.