Calling All Liberal Christians

[Amethyst]

So, Currentchristian, let me ask you this. If someone was shot and left on the street, and another person walked past them and didn't do anything and it was clear that person was alive, would you consider it ethical for the second person not to call 911, even though they had a cell phone in their pcoket or access to one close by (for example, a phone booth or a cell phone in their parked car)? If the dying person could have been saved but wasn't because of someone's inaction, would you consider the second person's action ethical?

[Jun]

So my hope is that after we leave this world, we are shown the truth. Those who will accept the truth, will be saved. Those who won't will have to be allowed to remain dead.

 

 

Why does one have to wait to be dead to see the truth? What's wrong with right now, in this life, while something good can come of it? Why all this talk of afterlife? And why does someone else have to show it to you?

 

I'm really finding it hard to believe that Christianity is anything other than a death cult that focuses on nothing more than an envisaged afterlife - kinda like the Pharohs.

[currentchristian]

So my hope is that after we leave this world, we are shown the truth. Those who will accept the truth, will be saved. Those who won't will have to be allowed to remain dead.

 

 

Why does one have to wait to be dead to see the truth? What's wrong with right now, in this life, while something good can come of it? Why all this talk of afterlife? And why does someone else have to show it to you?

 

I'm really finding it hard to believe that Christianity is anything other than a death cult that focuses on nothing more than an envisaged afterlife - kinda like the Pharohs.

 

Hi Jim...One does not have to wait until s/he is dead. One can embrace the truth of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Atheism right now, in this life. I have embraced the truth of Christianity...the teachings of Jesus, not the dogmas of Christendom...in this life.

 

But I think it's a very confusing world. There are so many "truths" marketing their wisdom; there are so many mean-spirited prophets of all religions and views (atheism, too); there are so many competing concepts. Therefore, it's easy to simply throw up one's hands and forget about it. Good, sincere, wonderful people can do this.

 

Unless God is going to interrupt all 300 satellite channels and XM/Sirius channels, etc., and speak to the entire world at the same time and tell us exactly what is what, then it seems to me fair for us to be freed from this body with all its prejudices and fears and anxieties and cultural contaminents so that we can SEE the truth, unadulterated, KNOW the truth not through a glass darkly (to quote St. Paul) and then SUBMIT to it or not.

 

I'm just speculating here to a certain extent, and hoping that all will be saved and all will enjoy eternal bliss in the light and love of the Source of all that is. (For me, that Source is the Father revealed in Jesus.)

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

 

So, Currentchristian, let me ask you this. If someone was shot and left on the street, and another person walked past them and didn't do anything and it was clear that person was alive, would you consider it ethical for the second person not to call 911, even though they had a cell phone in their pcoket or access to one close by (for example, a phone booth or a cell phone in their parked car)? If the dying person could have been saved but wasn't because of someone's inaction, would you consider the second person's action ethical?

 

Hello Amethyst, It would seem to me that a Good Samaritan should/would call 911 and attend to the person until EMTs arrived. To do otherwise would be to fail to "love one's neighbor as oneself." Seems to me.

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

[Antlerman]

I don't think God will murder anyone. We all die. Some will be allowed to remain deceased due to their inability to enjoy peace and enjoy a world in which no one is hungry, suffering, sick, dying, and where the love of power and money and war are things of the past. They will be allowed to remain in the grave. Those who want to live in a world governed by love will be present, whatever their religion in this life.

 

Or so it seems to me.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Welcome CC,

 

It's refreshing to hear a different perspective on the Christian faith from the typical non-spiritual Biblical literalist. You sound like a modified version of Universalism. You see some people just dying and never going to salvation, those who prefer violence and a lack of peace. Those who do prefer peace will go to heaven, no matter what their religious beliefs are here.

 

I find this approach to the belief certainly less offensive and more inviting to the human race. But where I see this as a modification of the Univeralist belief is that the vast majority of humans desire peace, therefore making the grave a place where just a select few of thousands will end up, with the trillions of humans going to heaven. A true Univeralist would see everyone being redeemed.

 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have the conservative, Bible believing fundamentalist who has practically every human since the first upright man walked this earth, burning in everlasting torment at the hands of their loving deity for not accepting their ill-educated drivel of a salvation message.

 

So I think what Jen is having an issue with is that grotesque incarnation of faith that spews death and misery to humanity at the hands of their God. I commend her for seriously questioning it.

 

There are some issues I could take with your approach, but you don't offend me so I will just offer my kind welcome.

[currentchristian]

I don't think God will murder anyone. We all die. Some will be allowed to remain deceased due to their inability to enjoy peace and enjoy a world in which no one is hungry, suffering, sick, dying, and where the love of power and money and war are things of the past. They will be allowed to remain in the grave. Those who want to live in a world governed by love will be present, whatever their religion in this life.

 

Or so it seems to me.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Welcome CC,

 

It's refreshing to hear a different perspective on the Christian faith from the typical non-spiritual Biblical literalist. You sound like a modified version of Universalism. You see some people just dying and never going to salvation, those who prefer violence and a lack of peace. Those who do prefer peace will go to heaven, no matter what their religious beliefs are here.

 

I find this approach to the belief certainly less offensive and more inviting to the human race. But where I see this as a modification of the Univeralist belief is that the vast majority of humans desire peace, therefore making the grave a place where just a select few of thousands will end up, with the trillions of humans going to heaven. A true Univeralist would see everyone being redeemed.

 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have the conservative, Bible believing fundamentalist who has practically every human since the first upright man walked this earth, burning in everlasting torment at the hands of their loving deity for not accepting their ill-educated drivel of a salvation message.

 

So I think what Jen is having an issue with is that grotesque incarnation of faith that spews death and misery to humanity at the hands of their God. I commend her for seriously questioning it.

 

There are some issues I could take with your approach, but you don't offend me so I will just offer my kind welcome.

 

Thank you, Antlerman. I love your answer to the "any gods?" question, by the way. Can you help me out: How in the heck do I reply to a post without having the whole previous post and all that preceded/followed it carried over to the new post. I just can't figure it out how to have just a snippet carried over.

 

Thanks for the welcome,

currentchristian in massachusetts

[Amethyst]

So, Currentchristian, let me ask you this. If someone was shot and left on the street, and another person walked past them and didn't do anything and it was clear that person was alive, would you consider it ethical for the second person not to call 911, even though they had a cell phone in their pcoket or access to one close by (for example, a phone booth or a cell phone in their parked car)? If the dying person could have been saved but wasn't because of someone's inaction, would you consider the second person's action ethical?

 

Hello Amethyst, It would seem to me that a Good Samaritan should/would call 911 and attend to the person until EMTs arrived. To do otherwise would be to fail to "love one's neighbor as oneself." Seems to me.

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Okay, so you obviously think it is unethical for a human to let someone die/be destroyed when they could have done something to stop it. Why then should a different standard apply to a god? Why do Christians hold god to a different standard than human beings? How can you honestly think that it is kind and loving for a god to destroy people, or let them die, however you want to word it in your own fuzzy terms, when he doesn't have to? Why can't you people see that it is really just as bad and unethical as condemning people to hellfire?

[rad]

I'm new to this site anyhow, but I've been pursuing Christianity for the last year or so. I've been suppressing (what I think is) my brain's inner bullshit meter with leather bound Bibles and "I love yous" from Jesus. My mind just cannot cope with a conservative Christianity, it turns out: like a bad transplant. The end result of all of this is that I do now recognize (after having examined my atheism) that a God could exist, that it might be Jesus, but that the Bible just does not seem to have the literal truth. To say that it does have the literal truth almost seems to be like ignoring what's right in front of you. Maybe I'll be wrong in the end, and God will point His finger at me and say "Foolish child, did I not tell you man's wisdom was foolish and one day I would make a debacle of it all?" The reason I do not give up Christianity and merely convert to some form of Deism is because I have seen God work in people, I have seem Him answer prayers, strange as that may seem. I believe there is truth somewhere buried in the Bible, but between scribal errors and Paul's editorializing it's pretty hard to pick out what's what. So, what are some resources you guys have concerning a liberal view of Christianity?

 

This is an excellent post and very interesting to me. I may believe in the virgin birth, an eternal hell (for those who eternally refuse to do the will of God), and the literal return of Christ, yes, but let me suggest my understanding of Jesus and his mission are ironically more "liberal" than most liberal Christians. I will limit my scriptural back-up to the NT as I think arguments about the OT God ar kind of futile and irrelevant. I don't know that Jesus would care much if you followed him while rejecting OT passages you find offensive. I still do reject many of them, which I think conflict with his teachings.

 

Why I'm more "liberal" than most "liberal Christians":

 

1. Not one liberal Christian I have met believes in the doctrine of imputed righteousness. As I understand it, imputed righteousness is something you get for free so God can justly save you because really, no one is good enough. What that means is that anyone can be justly saved at the last minute, like the thief on the cross, and God has done for them what they cannot do.

 

2. When you converse with many (not all) "liberal" Christians, you soon learn they are not particularly merciful to those who fail to produce "good works" as they define them. I find them far less merciful than Jesus was, in actual practice. Many "liberal" Christians mix up liberal politics with liberal spirituality and think we ought to all be working for social justice causes. Almost all of them would be surprised to learn of the social miracles worked through revival, and "conservative" activists such as William Lloyd Garrison, the revivalist Charles Finney and the early Oberlin female graduates. (Oberlin was a "fundy" college which graduated the first women and the first black women in America. The "liberal" Christian colleges did not, for another 20 years.

 

Why? Because genuinely "spiritual" Christianity is about seeing people through Christ's eyes- as perfect equals. You may hate the sin but you love the sinner so much, that you will give your life, as Jesus did, to see them free of anything which hinders them. (And that includes telling them to leave a church which is opressive and intolerant in ay way.

 

3. I really hate that people claiming ot be "liberal" will cherry pick the Bible as they do. They throw out the Baby with what looks to them like dirty bathwater. They are just too intellectually lazy to study anything thoroughly and make their own independent judgements. They start with some presumably "tolerant" belief system and just pick out verses they think support it. For example they associate the atonement with intolerant "fundy" beliefs, so they just throw out the whole idea and a hundred verses that go with it. But of course the atonement is, ironically, the most merciful, just way God could save all humankind. In fact he no longer has any excuse not to, other than continued and open rebellion I suppose.

 

4. "Liberal Christians" act like they want everybody in heaven, but that's just not true. Some will leave if they see me around, or demand separate meeting houses. And what are they going to do about those who just won't do anything Christ says in heaven? Talk nice to them and hope they do the right thing? Are they going to force people to like Jesus and obey him? How?

 

5. "Liberal Christians" act as though they love everybody more than I do, but I've called more black people "brother" and "sister" than any liberal I have ever met. I do it naturally because it's far more of a reality to me than they. Genuinely spiritual people feel a kinship with all other humans, and especially with those who really know who Jesus is and what he can do in the huma heart.

 

6. In the end, who will you say loved you more if Jesus is half of what he claimed? Would it be the "conservative" Christian friend who said something you did not want to hear? Or the "liberal" one who never said anything offensive to you and let you drift far from the teachings of Jesus.

 

7. My grandmothers were the most loving persons I have ever known, and neither was a "more tolerant liberal Christian." They believed Pauls' commentaries yes, but they also saw everybody through Jesus' eyes. I know the burning compassion and care for my soul I will see in Jesus' eyes, for I saw it in theirs.

 

"Liberal" is just a word, another label, even a trap and in the end, meaningless.

 

Rad

[Lycorth]

It's better to be a liberal Xian than a traditional Xian, but liberal Xianity is just a bunch of fluffy-bunny bullshit.

 

Fluffy bunnies emphasize the positive and ignore the negative, no matter how inseperable the negative is from the whole.

 

If you don't want believe in Hell, then dump Xianity. Hell is an inseperable part of Xian mythology and philosophy. Without Hell, there's no need for Jebus, and no Jebus means no Xianty.

 

Fluffy bunny bullshit

[Guest mook2357]

I'm new to this site anyhow, but I've been pursuing Christianity for the last year or so. I've been suppressing (what I think is) my brain's inner bullshit meter with leather bound Bibles and "I love yous" from Jesus. My mind just cannot cope with a conservative Christianity, it turns out: like a bad transplant. The end result of all of this is that I do now recognize (after having examined my atheism) that a God could exist, that it might be Jesus, but that the Bible just does not seem to have the literal truth. To say that it does have the literal truth almost seems to be like ignoring what's right in front of you. Maybe I'll be wrong in the end, and God will point His finger at me and say "Foolish child, did I not tell you man's wisdom was foolish and one day I would make a debacle of it all?" The reason I do not give up Christianity and merely convert to some form of Deism is because I have seen God work in people, I have seem Him answer prayers, strange as that may seem. I believe there is truth somewhere buried in the Bible, but between scribal errors and Paul's editorializing it's pretty hard to pick out what's what. So, what are some resources you guys have concerning a liberal view of Christianity?

 

http://www.gnosticchristianity.com/

 

That is more or less what I believe, at least in the perusal - if it is the same site I read in the past, they have made some changes to it. But I think it IS possible to believe everything the Bible says, if you aren't specifically looking for a fundamental perspective. It is only the more fundamental perspectives that are hard to swallow. IMHO, of course

[roman]

It never ends.

 

Jimmy cracked corn.

[currentchristian]

Okay, so you obviously think it is unethical for a human to let someone die/be destroyed when they could have done something to stop it. Why then should a different standard apply to a god? Why do Christians hold god to a different standard than human beings? How can you honestly think that it is kind and loving for a god to destroy people, or let them die, however you want to word it in your own fuzzy terms, when he doesn't have to? Why can't you people see that it is really just as bad and unethical as condemning people to hellfire?

 

I don't see this as a different standard. God cannot override a person's wish. If a person does not want to live in a world ruled by love of self, love of God, love of neighbor, they must be imprisoned, just as we imprison those who are at war against society today. The final prison is our grave. Likely Hitler, for example, will be destroyed in the grave; he will not taste eternal life. Can you imagine having him around forever? Sometimes it is the "kind and loving" thing to have one's pets (creatures) put to sleep; likewise, some will have to be "put to sleep" as an act of love because they would be miserable in the world ruled by love.

 

Please keep in mind these are just my views. I do not speak for God, obviously. God forbid.

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

It's better to be a liberal Xian than a traditional Xian, but liberal Xianity is just a bunch of fluffy-bunny bullshit.

 

Fluffy bunnies emphasize the positive and ignore the negative, no matter how inseperable the negative is from the whole.

 

If you don't want believe in Hell, then dump Xianity. Hell is an inseperable part of Xian mythology and philosophy. Without Hell, there's no need for Jebus, and no Jebus means no Xianty.

 

Fluffy bunny bullshit

 

The Hebrew and Greek words (sheol, hades) translated "hell" in the KJV more accurately mean "the grave." We are all going to hell, if hell means the grave. There is no sense of hellfire in the Hebrew scriptures (OT). The NT definitely can be construed to exclude the idea of hellfire. Dante's images of hellfire are as unbiblical as Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper or the imedieval paintings of Jesus. While I do believe in the fundamentals of Christian thought, I do not find hellfire to be among the scriputrally-supported fundamentals at all. (And I don't know one Christian believer in hellfire who believes anyone they love is there, so I don't think many actually believe in an eternal hellfire. Yes, they'll preach about it, etc. But they don't really believe it. Try to pin them down. Ask them why if they believe in a literal hellfire they aren't out knocking on doors every hour of every day trying to save the lost.)

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

[Mongo]

I'm really finding it hard to believe that Christianity is anything other than a death cult that focuses on nothing more than an envisaged afterlife - kinda like the Pharohs.

 

Jun... you have given birth to the very thought that has been lingering in the back of my mind, latent and embrionic.

 

You've hit it. Christianity is obsessed with death.

 

Thanks.

 

Mongo

[Lycorth]

..there is no sense of hellfire in the Hebrew scriptures (OT). The NT definitely can be construed to exclude the idea of hellfire...

 

The Old Testament doesn't have teachings about Hell because Orthodox Jews don't believe in Hell, not because Xians don't.

 

From http://www.lookup.org/hell.htm

The Greek word "Hades" is translated into English as "Hades" 10 times in the New American Standard (NASB) and that is the ONLY way it is translated.

 

* Matt 11:23 (NASB) "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.

* Matt 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

* Luke 10:15 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!

* Luke 16:22 "Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.' 25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and [that] none may cross over from there to us.'

* Acts 2:27 Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.

* Acts 2:31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.

* Reve 1:18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

* Reve 6:8 And I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. And authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

* Reve 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one [of them] according to their deeds.

* 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

 

From this little study of the Greek word, Hades, we learn this:

 

1. Hades is down (Luke 10:15)

2. Those in Hades are being tormented (Luke 16:23) in flames (vs 24.)

3. All dead do not go to Hades. Some go to "Abraham's Bosom."

 

4. (Luke 16:22, 25) Once you are dead, there is nothing you can do about about your whereabouts. (Luke 16:26)

5. The soul (the conscious part of us) is what goes to Hades. (Acts 2:27.)

6. Jesus (who was dead but is now alive forever) has the keys of Hades. (Rev 1:18.)

7. The dead who are in Hades, will one day come out to be judged. (Rev 20:13)

8. Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14.)

 

LAKE OF FIRE

 

So what is this "lake of fire"? It is spoken of 5 times. Read those verses below.

NASB Concord. # 3041- limnh, hV limnˆ; from leib“ (to pour); a lake :-- lake(11).

NASB Concord. # 4442 - pur, oV pur; a prim. word; fire :-- burning(2), fiery(2), fire(69).

 

* Reve 19:20 (NASB) And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

* Reve 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

* Reve 20:14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

* Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [will be] in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

 

From these we learn:

 

1. The "lake of fire" burns with brimstone (sulfur.) (Rev 19:20)

2. It is a place of torment "day and night forever"(Rev 20:10)

3. Going there is "the second death" (Rev 20:14)

4. Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life goes there!!!! (Rev 20:15)

5. Those who commit bad sins go there, but then so do the cowardly and unbelieving! (Rev 21:8)

 

eternal...

 

Another passage sheds a little more light on the subject.

 

Matt 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels ; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me [nothing] to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 " And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

1. The fire is "eternal." (Mt 25:41)

2. It was not prepared for man. It was prepared for the devil and his angels (demons.) (Mt 25:41)

3. The punishment is "eternal" (vs 46)

 

unquenchable...

 

Need more proof?

 

Mark 9:41 "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as [followers] of Christ, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. 42 "And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. 43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 45 "And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 47 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

 

1. The fire never stops, it is "unquenchable". (Mk 9:43,46,48)

2. There are also worms (maggots) which are involved in the torment, and they never stop either! (Mk 9:44,46,48) Yukkkk!!!

 

maggots...

 

Does the Old Testament describe this? You bet it does!!!

 

* Isa 11 'Your pomp [and] the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out [as your bed] beneath you, And worms are your covering.'

* Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the Lord, "So your offspring and your name will endure. 23 "And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the Lord. 24 "Then they shall go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched; And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

 

HELL

 

And what do you think about "hell" (Gehenna)? You know that the term came from a garbage dump where refuse was constantly burning. I think the idea conveyed is the constant burning (and maybe the stench). Read each time that Greek word is used in the scriptures and decide for yourself.

 

NASB Concord. # 1067 geenna, hV geenna; of Heb. origin 01516 and 02011 ; Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer., also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly :-- hell(12).

 

The only 12 uses of gehenna are these:

 

* Matt 5:22 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty [enough to go] into the fiery hell.

* Matt 5:29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

* Matt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

* Matt 18:8 "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell.

* Matt 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

* Matt 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?

* Mark 9:43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

* Mark 9:45 "And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell...47 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell,

* Luke 12:4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

* James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the [very] world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of [our] life, and is set on fire by hell.

* Hell is fiery (Mt 5:22)

* The fire is "eternal" and it is "hell". It is so bad that it would be better to cut off a part of your body to avoid going there. (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9; Mk 9:43-48) Does that sound like "the grave" to you?

* Hell is for the soul as well as the body. (Mt 10:28)

* Some people are sentenced to hell (Mt 23:33)

* They are then cast into hell. (Mk 9:45,47)

* Those who only kill the body do not cast anyone into hell; they merely cast someone into their grave. Only the Lord has the authority to cast a person into hell. (Luke 12:4)

 

ABYSS

 

There is another place called the abyss. It is also called the bottomless pit. It seems to be a location inside the earth, or something, and may possibly be the same as hades, but it is definitely different from the lake of fire. If you are interested, look up these references to the abyss: Luke 8:31; Romans 10:7; Rev 9:1,11;11:7;17:8;20:1

 

You will find out...

 

1. Demons don't want to go there. (Lk 8:31)

2. Presumably, no one can go there, or perhaps no one can go there and get back out on his own accord. (Rom 10:7)

3. It is down, and Jesus was there. (Rom 10:7)

4. It is in the earth, and is locked with a key which an angel has. (Rev 9:1)

5. It has smoke (and where there's smoke...) (Rev 9:2)

6. It has a King (Rev 9:11) and locust-like demons (see vs 3-10)

7. A beast comes out of it to kill the two witnesses. (Rev 11:7)

8. Then he (he is identified as Antichrist here) goes to destruction (Rev 17:8)

9. Satan is chained up here for 1000 years (Rev 20:1-3)

 

In looking over all of these scriptures, I'm sure you can see why most teach that some people are being tormented in Hades even as we speak, but other people are in Paradise or Abraham's bosom. However, there is no one in the Lake of Fire yet. People will go there after their judgment, and we will all be judged. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Cor 5:10

 

The truth is, none of us are "good enough" to stand before a Holy God. No matter how "good" we are, no matter how hard we try, "all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment" Isa 64:6. That is why the sinless Lamb of God, Jesus, had to be sacrificed, in our place, so that we would have a means to escape the fate of hell, which was originally intended only for the devil and his demons.

 

And from Wikipedia:

The Christian idea of Hell is different from the Sheol of Judaism. The nature of Hell is described in the New Testament on several occasions. For example, in Matthew 3:10-12, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:30, Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 3:9, Luke 12:5, Luke 13:28, Luke 16:19-28, and Revelation 12:9, Revelation 14:9-11, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:10, Revelation 20:14-15, Revelation 21:8; in the Book of Revelation Hell is also mentioned as the "abyss" and "the Earth". Jesus himself describes Hell as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth"; this quotation has overwhelmingly frequent appearance in the New Testament.

 

It's a good thing that you, as a Xian, don't accept the teachings about Hell and choose to fluffisize them; if we must have Xians, best to not have them teaching the traditional concept of Hell.

 

But, as you can see, Hell is indeed taught as a very real place in Xian mythology. You may not like Hell, but that doesn't mean it's not taught in the Babble. Also, consider that if two versions of "Hell" are taught within one book, that indicates the book is in contradiction with itself - which is the Babble's main problem.

 

And having been a Xian for around 27 years before kicking it to the curb, I'm hardly ignorant of the Hell teaching.

[Ramen666]

I don't see it that way, Ramen666. Take music, for example. Some are moved by jazz and others by gospel and still others by classical. Why should religion be any different? For me, it's light through a prism. Yes, in my view there is one light (the Source) and one prism, but the one light that emanates from the prism is in a wide and wonderous variety of hues.

 

 

Ok let me explain you are saying music but that does not equate to religion. You say "Choose what best suits you." However lets look at this lets pretend Christianity is true whatever domination you are in. I decide I don't like this form so I choose Buddhism....because it suits me. But now I am going to hell because I did not fit in with Christianity. Because I have opposed God I am going to hell because it didn't suit me. Or I didn't believe in it...so see a problem. In fact I am going to hell because of a false teaching??? How do I know what the domination you are in isn't false? My domination would claim it false and you are being led astray. There is a vary huge problem in there.

 

Now I was a "conservative" Christian at one time. My friend still is and he says liberal Christianity is false teachings Now say I choose liberal Christianity it is STILL WRONG in another religions eyes. So which religion can you necessarily is true. Since every religion knows the one and only truth.

 

Another example Fred Phelps ( The guy that protests at soilders funerals has the website godhatesfags.com He is doing technically what the Bible does say so does that make it right. Does it make it wrong to not follow the Bible like most Christians do. You will not kill me because the Bible says so. (It does say it in matter of fact)

 

So religion becomes more igsignifigant when their is so many truths. To me now Christianity is just another relgion which says it is right and everyone else is wrong even within itself.

[Ziggy]

 

So religion becomes more igsignifigant when their is so many truths. To me now Christianity is just another relgion which says it is right and everyone else is wrong even within itself.

 

I agree that this is what it is. But i don't think it is right.

 

I liked NBBTL's post about not labeling herself a Christian because of what most people think it stands for .. but she may reconsider if the label had different connotations

 

I am in that boat .. From what I know of Christ and his teachings I could never say he was a bad guy and there is 'truth' in what he teaches about how to live your life And in general i think its a good thing for people to have a faith of sorts

But I don't buy into the christian 'one truth only' message ... and i don't buy hell at all for that matter

 

Don't know what that makes me - similar to a number of people here it seems like

[godlessgrrl]

Welcome to the site, CC.

 

I'm glad to see you asking questions and considering your beliefs; it means you're using your head, and that's always a good thing, in my not even remotely humble opinion.

 

All I'd say at this point is that I was at one time a conservative Christian. I moved to a more liberal kind of Christianity when I could no longer stomach the cruelty of the conservative interpretation. Yet I finally moved away from liberal Christianity as well, when I realized that in the end it didn't really make any more sense than conservative Christianity had.

 

I was pagan for awhile too, then realized that - whaddaya know - paganism didn't make any more sense than Christianity had. In fact, no religion involving belief in a deity or the supernatural makes any sense at all, since there isn't any particularly convincing evidence that there's anything supernatural out there in the first place. Not God, not Allah, not Zeus, not the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nothing. Topping that off, it's debatable whether or not Jesus ever actually existed, either. I'd personally find it intellectually dishonest to place any kind of spiritual faith in... well, anything, since faith has to do with trying to believe things that give no assurance of actually being real. I can't live like that, m'self.

 

I'm able to live with considering the gospel writers as, say, philosophers of a sort. If you can glean some wisdom from Jesus' teachings, that's fair enough. I'd wonder, though, how much of the Bible and Christianity do you have to discard, to stop believing in, before you actually aren't Christian anymore?

 

Anyway. Use your head, keep thinking, keep asking questions... it'll sort out. And again, welcome, and good luck.

[Antlerman]

Thank you, Antlerman. I love your answer to the "any gods?" question, by the way. Can you help me out: How in the heck do I reply to a post without having the whole previous post and all that preceded/followed it carried over to the new post. I just can't figure it out how to have just a snippet carried over.

 

Thanks for the welcome,

currentchristian in massachusetts

I think we should have a FAQ on how to do the quote function. It always throws new people off.

 

If you want nothing to quote, then just hit the straight "AddReply" button at the bottom of the page, and not the user's post. Otherwise use the "reply" button at the bottom of the post if you wish to quote something from that post.

 

After hitting the "reply" button which brings the person's post into the window for you to type in, I just do it manually in the text body by copying and pasting the first enclosed [q u o t e = username and date] line (I'm leaving spaces in the word "quote" so it doesn't actually format it here. Then I insert at the end of what I want inside the quote with the / switch like this [/q u o t e] (minus the spaces).

 

There is a limit of 10 quotes allowed per post. You need to pay attention that the open quotes and close quote switch are matched. If there is one mismatch in there, they all break. It makes it much easier for people to follow using that feature.

 

BTW, I'm curious what you take my putting the PI number in there to mean? I'm thinking it may seem a bit obtuse.

[dulce]

I tried being a liberal Christian and realized that I was just hanging onto the label of Christian just to make other people happy. Life is too short for that. I have to be true to myself, at least, and being true to myself isn't pretending to believe in 2,000 year old myths.

 

Not to mention, if you are a liberal Christian, you still have to come to terms with hell somehow. And if you say that hell doesn't exist but heaven does, you're just cherry picking what you want to be true. Just because you want something to be true, that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZJxdm090YYUS%2526i%253D23%252F23%255F30%255F109%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_30_109.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D23%252F23_30_109/image.gif"></a>

 

I tried being a liberal Christian and realized that I was just hanging onto the label of Christian just to make other people happy. Life is too short for that. I have to be true to myself, at least, and being true to myself isn't pretending to believe in 2,000 year old myths.

 

Not to mention, if you are a liberal Christian, you still have to come to terms with hell somehow. And if you say that hell doesn't exist but heaven does, you're just cherry picking what you want to be true. Just because you want something to be true, that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZJxdm090YYUS%2526i%253D23%252F23%255F30%255F109%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_30_109.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D23%252F23_30_109/image.gif"></a>

Well now that didn't work, did it?

My point being..... I fully agree!

[weary traveler]

I don't see it that way, Ramen666. Take music, for example. Some are moved by jazz and others by gospel and still others by classical. Why should religion be any different? For me, it's light through a prism. Yes, in my view there is one light (the Source) and one prism, but the one light that emanates from the prism is in a wide and wonderous variety of hues.

 

 

 

I tried the "liberal" christian thing too. Didn't work. Like your analogy about one source of light shining through a prism. Well it does sound nice and all, but if that One Source is reflected in all different shades, then how could there be different, and very conflicting beliefs, among those "shades" and hues that supposedly all come from the same place? While I agree that if there is a Creative Force (God), then it is possible that there would be many facets of it, but they wouldn't be facets that all massively contradicted on another. You know what I mean?

 

Liberal christianity to me, seemed like cafeteria style religion--take what you like and leave the rest but doesn't that just make us out to be our own gods since we all like something different and what I want to be true someone else says is false and what they believe is true, I think is false. As a liberal, you can't really share anything as "truth from God" because liberals view the bible as flawed (which it is). And being flawed, it cannot be from God, so it doesn't carry Divine authority by which you could share something as true or not.

[currentchristian]

 

 

Ok let me explain you are saying music but that does not equate to religion. You say "Choose what best suits you." However lets look at this lets pretend Christianity is true whatever domination you are in. I decide I don't like this form so I choose Buddhism....because it suits me. But now I am going to hell because I did not fit in with Christianity. Because I have opposed God I am going to hell because it didn't suit me. Or I didn't believe in it...so see a problem. In fact I am going to hell because of a false teaching??? How do I know what the domination you are in isn't false? My domination would claim it false and you are being led astray. There is a vary huge problem in there.

 

Now I was a "conservative" Christian at one time. My friend still is and he says liberal Christianity is false teachings Now say I choose liberal Christianity it is STILL WRONG in another religions eyes. So which religion can you necessarily is true. Since every religion knows the one and only truth.

 

Another example Fred Phelps ( The guy that protests at soilders funerals has the website godhatesfags.com He is doing technically what the Bible does say so does that make it right. Does it make it wrong to not follow the Bible like most Christians do. You will not kill me because the Bible says so. (It does say it in matter of fact)

 

So religion becomes more igsignifigant when their is so many truths. To me now Christianity is just another relgion which says it is right and everyone else is wrong even within itself.

 

 

You are right that music is not religion. My point, though, is that having a buffet of religious choice does not make those items not chosen any less significant. Your eating at an Italian restaurant does not make the Chinese place down the street less meaningful or important or significant. I simply feel that in this life it is best to let everyone have freedom of and from religion as their conscience, heart, soul, mind, reason, etc., dictates to them. I do not believe it is healthy for any of us to slander a person due to their religious choice. Freedom of/from religion means even Fred Phelps has a right, under God and the Constitution, to preach the truth as he sees it. "Freedom for the thought we hate," is how Oliver Wendell Holmes (I believe it was him) put it.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

BTW, I'm curious what you take my putting the PI number in there to mean? I'm thinking it may seem a bit obtuse.

 

Thank you, Antlerman. I appreciate the tutorial. If I followed instructions properly, all that appears above from your kind post is your question about PI. If you see more than that, I have made a mistake and next time I'll get it...maybe. You are right; there should be a FAQ on this question as it's quite confusing!

 

Regarding PI, I don't know what you meant. I liked it because, for one thing, I've always been a lover of math. Not big-time math (calculus almost killed me!), but I love algebra and geometry and word problems!! PI also represents an infinite number, never ending--just going on and on. I think a "god" is like that. Math also is a universal constant, as far as we know. I think a "god" would be like that. PI can be written as a decimal or a fraction (22/7); I think "god" can be written many ways.

 

Now tell me, why did you answer with 3.14.....??

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

I tried the "liberal" christian thing too. Didn't work. Like your analogy about one source of light shining through a prism. Well it does sound nice and all, but if that One Source is reflected in all different shades, then how could there be different, and very conflicting beliefs, among those "shades" and hues that supposedly all come from the same place? While I agree that if there is a Creative Force (God), then it is possible that there would be many facets of it, but they wouldn't be facets that all massively contradicted on another. You know what I mean?

 

Hello Weary Traveler,

The anaology of the prism, like all analogies, only takes us so far. It does break down at some point. There might be something to progressive revelation, too, that creates so many worldviews and religions. What I say is this, just as an example: "I do not believe in Islam, but I also do not disbelieve in Islam." Due to place of birth and circumstances far beyone my control, I wound up being raised down the street from a Christian house of worship. It makes sense to me; it seems reasonable; it seems true. But so does Islam to the boy born in Riyadh. So does Hinduism to the boy born in Bombay. They should, therefore, be the best Muslim and Hindu they can be: the best meaning, the kindest, the most loving, the most giving; the most trustworthy; the most peaceful. And I should be the best Christian I can be. In the "sweet by and by," the Light will be fully seen, fully known, fully felt, and then we'll all have to lay down our falsehoods and stand in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Antlerman]

Regarding PI, I don't know what you meant. I liked it because, for one thing, I've always been a lover of math. Not big-time math (calculus almost killed me!), but I love algebra and geometry and word problems!! PI also represents an infinite number, never ending--just going on and on. I think a "god" is like that. Math also is a universal constant, as far as we know. I think a "god" would be like that. PI can be written as a decimal or a fraction (22/7); I think "god" can be written many ways.

 

Now tell me, why did you answer with 3.14.....??

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Well this is interesting. My mind is pregnant at the moment and I can't sort my thoughts. Truth, lies, music, food, the number of PI, God, they all connect here. Where to begin?

 

Let's start with PI. I change the response to that question every now and then depending on my mood. I put PI in there as a sort of answer to the question of absolutes, that rudimentary math speaks of absolutes, like 2+2=4 transcends any language and is an absolute. PI is an answer to that in a way that means math also shows that absolutes do not exist. "Truth" in the real world, is non-absolute, like my quote from Einstein says in talking about the precision of math applied to the real world of physics. There are too many variables, too many unknowns, the problems of objectivity and the observer to make insistence on absolutes meaningful in the real world.

 

Now all this relates to your earlier discussions because what I see happening here is you are speaking a different language than what many of the ExChristians here (myself being one) were programmed how to perceive "truth". There are questions being brought to you by others of right and wrong, true and false. Fundamentalist thinking is in such absolute, black and white language. It is very difficult for many, myself included, to break that habit of this type of thinking.

 

What you speak of can be viewed as being a false approach to truth by the virtue of "cherry picking". I don't like that term applied to a liberal or neo-orthodox mindset of Christianity. It really doesn't apply. "Cherry Picking" historically means a form of intellectually dishonesty in only picking the good fruits and ignoring the others in promoting your harvest as "truth". But to the liberal, "truth" is really, honestly, best stated as "meaningful", IMHO.

 

Truth to me is what is meaningful to the individual. There is no objective truth that we can judge the value of everything by. It is all about purpose, it is all about what we are trying to address? There are truths that everyone can agree on, but it is more on the level of 2+2=4. But when we move into things like "the meaning of life", or "what is good or bad", then we are moving into very subjective things that are either mostly up to the individual, or an agreed upon value (or "truth") if it is for the purpose of society.

 

The only thing I wish to propose as consideration in your line of thinking about the source light and the prism, is that the commonality in the different shades of values in human societies and individuals, comes from being human? My thought to the all the flavors of religion? In a sense you are right, we strive for the most part towards meaning (or "truth" with a little t), and that systems of belief and mythologies are "languages" that we use to frame our understanding of these ideas and feelings. There are many language systems for this, myth, art, music, pleasure, silence, etc.

 

How did I do tying it all together?

[Amethyst]

Liberal christianity to me, seemed like cafeteria style religion--take what you like and leave the rest but doesn't that just make us out to be our own gods since we all like something different and what I want to be true someone else says is false and what they believe is true, I think is false. As a liberal, you can't really share anything as "truth from God" because liberals view the bible as flawed (which it is). And being flawed, it cannot be from God, so it doesn't carry Divine authority by which you could share something as true or not.

 

Right, it leads to god essentially being a highly idealized version of yourself or whatever you consider to be perfect, which is basically what god is in the Christian religion anyway. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many different interpretations.

 

Also, here's something else to think about. If something is true, shouldn't it only have one interpretation, or at least one interpretation with a small variance, versus hundreds or even thousands of differences? I mean, take something like the color white. Most people would recognize the color white for what it is, unless they're colorblind or something. They'd agree that it was the color white.

 

Then take the hell doctrine, which has been interpreted to mean everything from eternal torture for everyone who isn't a Real True Christian , including non-fundies, to only people who do bad things and aren't sorry for them go there, to simply letting someone die/stay dead, to an existence without god, to umpteen thousand different things, depending on how liberal or conservative you are.

 

How can something that is supposedly true be interpreted so many different ways and have very little consistency throughout it? And, if a major part of the Bible isn't true, then how can the rest be true? Hmm?