Calling All Liberal Christians

[Ramen666]

Ok here we go let me try to explain my explaination further. I understand the restraunt thing but Italian restraunts don't face Chinese restraunts either. If you don't eat the right one some mysterious imaginary friend wants you to eat you won't die.

 

 

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.

 

 

However this brings conflict to the issues. Islam is said to be the Truth however so is Christianity. Muslims are going to hell now. It is also the truth I do like your take on this though you sound more like an open minded Christian. ( Which is a vary good thing) I am just trying to point something out in this argument/debate/statement whatever it is. If more Christians were like you the world not be in such chaos. I want to tell you something though from my Christian life , when I was in church we talked about liberal Christians. Apparently you are being told false teachings and you will STILL burn in hell. Ok that is a true topic said in church. How do you know you are being told the truth? How do you the truth you were told is being right? You brought up a good point about people being born in other countries. Yes but since you are still a Christian in YOUR Bible THEY ARE GOING TO HELL. for what? Islam? No It is because they were born there. I have no problem with being good and kindest person you can be. I don't but the fact of the matter it that is technically destroying the Bible's text/ ( I don't mind one bit because we would be dead if Christians followed the Bible). That means how can the Bible be the truth when people completly ignore scriptures and choose to defend the mass murders that GOD COMMANDED HIMSELF.

 

You don't believe me check these verses out.

 

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

 

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

 

Death to Followers of Other Religions

 

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

 

Kill Nonbelievers

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

 

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 

Kill Men, Women, and Children

 

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

 

 

 

 

 

So you have read over these verses what do you think? Would you defend Adolf Hitler? Of course not. How can anyone defend this it is IN THE BIBLE. It is TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. I recall Christians are suppose to follow the Bible and agree with this. If you can not agree with it what makes God good then. How can he be moral? If you don't defend this. This is just a tip of the iceberg. What makes the Bible Holy if this is morally wrong.

[rad]

I must agree, ironically, with most of the skeptics here that any "cafeteria" Christianity, or what I call designer Christianity is intellectually repugnant. If "liberal" Christians reject the idea of hell, they cannot be Christians for Jesus had no doubts whatsoever about it.

 

That said, you should at least read C.S. Lewis, who might be called a liberal Christian by some and yet one who finds no need to tamper with the NT. He cannot be accused of fundamentalism or "black and white" thinking. He makes fools of most skeptics, intellectually speaking. He thinks hell is a place it's inhabitants would rather be than heaven, and he makes a powerful case for same in "The Great Divorce." I don't agree with him on everything but he answers all complaints with a simple but never simplistic wisdom few apologists will ever match.

 

He believes anyone who is sincere will be saved, and difficult as that is for fundamentalists, I cannot prove he is wrong from the NT. I can't find where Jesus says "all non-Christians will burn in hell even if they never heard of me." Skeptics keep telling me it's there but , like Lewis, I can find it. There are clues salvation is always available, but some are too self-righteous and proud to reeive it, ever.

 

If nothing else he should be read for the ironic truths about ourselves we don't like to hear, but recognize as generic. As I recall, he was a steadfast atheist until his friend Tolkien challenged him to show how the NT and Christ could possibly have been a mere legend.

 

The fact is there is no easy way to follow Jesus. You cannot be hot and cold, and I dare say a few sincere and honest skeptics realized they were neither and decided on cold. And I'm not sure God blames them much, given the churches some of them seem to have come from.

 

Rad

 

Can someone tell me how to edit a post? I must be going blind.

 

I said "I can" above where I meant "I can't."

 

Thanks, Rad

[trashy]

That said, you should at least read C.S. Lewis

You presume we haven't......

 

He makes fools of most skeptics, intellectually speaking.

I've read Mr. Lewis, I've read many skeptics - I disagree with your assertion here.....

[Antlerman]

He believes anyone who is sincere will be saved, and difficult as that is for fundamentalists, I cannot prove he is wrong from the NT. I can't find where Jesus says "all non-Christians will burn in hell even if they never heard of me." Skeptics keep telling me it's there but , like Lewis, I can find it. There are clues salvation is always available, but some are too self-righteous and proud to reeive it, ever.

I've had the thought before that if there was a heaven, only atheists would go there because they acted out of sincerity in rejecting the claims of today's face of Christianity. Atheists are viewed by the church and society as some sort of lacivious, evil, god-hating montrosty as some sort of creation of a power-mad religious institution seeing to maintain control over its peasant popluation. Reality is that those of us here reject the face of Christianity for the face we see everyday on the news. It is foul and everything contrary to what the symbol of God is supposed to stand for.

 

Atheists, and ExChristians as far as I have seen in my experience, left Christianity because of this anything-but spiritual nature. We are sincere. They are not. Who then goes to heaven, and who then goes to hell?

[Lycorth]

"all non-Christians will burn in hell even if they never heard of me." Skeptics keep telling me it's there but , like Lewis, I can find it.

 

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

Now, unless you hear about Jebus, how can you believe and thus be saved?

 

You say that you cannot find a passage where Jebus says even those who don't hear of him will be damned. Well, where are the passages that say those who don't hear of Jebus are saved?

 

And, assuming you're right and those who never hear of Jebus are automatically saved, how can you call your god just? Your god considers our "sin" so Hell-worthy that he had to be suffered and tortured first before we can be redeemed, and requires that we all believe in and honor this before we can avail ourselves of that redemption. Yet, he will only damn those who hear it and refuse to believe in it - those who don't hear of it (presumably under the same guilty conviction of sin as the rest of humanity) are saved as if they believed in Jebus to begin with?

 

Why would those who never hear about Jebus be treated any better than those who hear and refuse to believe?

 

If there is no belief, no faith, there is no salvation. Your book states this repeatedly. Those who do not hear about Jebus cannot believe in him, and thus are screwed by your "merciful" god. If not, then why spread Xianity to begin with? The only way to save all humanity would therefore be to not spread Xianity, so that no one can choose to refuse Jebus and therefore all are saved via ignorance.

 

What kind of fluffy-bunny crap are you trying to push and how dumb do you think we are to swallow it?

[Ramen666]

I wanted to say that yeah I agree it is ok to be a liberal Christian but it is not the same thing and the more you say " Do what suits you" It makes religion more fake. Choose what you want to agree with. Like the hell issuess it is all the same thing. Then go to another church and here the nicer version of the truth. In the end I see it is weakening the relgion issue.

 

 

all non-Christians will burn in hell even if they never heard of me." Skeptics keep telling me it's there but , like Lewis, I can find it.

 

I got some also for you:

 

Kill Nonbelievers

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

 

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 

 

Of course they will go to hell for being nonbelievers. God orders the killings of them what a loving God huh?

[weary traveler]

 

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?

 

THAT is something that I used to wonder about all the time too! IF the Holy Spirit is leading Christians to the truth, then why do they all have divergent interpretations of this "divine truth"? This used to come up all the time when I was a fundie. I believed that if someone said they were being "led by the Spirit" and it didn't seem to line up with the bible, then of course, they were being lead by the "unholy spirit"--Lucifer ("father of lies" according to John 8:44). So, I became an avid apologist in order to do what I felt was God's work of correcting thier errors in order to glorify the word of God. Well, over the many years of doing this, I found out that what people percieve as the "ultimate truth" for the most part, has more to do with what they WANT to be true, rather than what IS true. Someone else mentioned that there were no verses saying that people are going to hell if they don't have Jesus Christ as saviour. Well that is a bit uninformed if you don't mind me saying. There's not much "wiggle room" for interpreting verses like "I am the Way, The Truth and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME." John 14:6. Or "Unless you beliefe that I am He (savior/God), you shall die in your sins" John 8:24. And by the way when he says unless you believe that I am He, he was saying that he was God. Look at John 8:58 and John 10:30 for further clarity on that. Or Acts 4:12 "There is NO salvation in any other, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given unto men by which we must be saved."

 

So I think saying that those who deny Christ are still saved is ridiculous IF you are using the bible as your source. But liberal christains will say that basically those who deny Christ are still saved. See, it's what they WANT to believe that determines what is true for them, not what IS or IS NOT true by virtue of judging the date impartially. I have fallen prey to that myself as have most of us here. As an ex-fundamentalist, I am not condemning anyone. Matter of fact, I think I am more compassionate now that I have come off my spiritual "high horse" of thinking I knew "the truth" because "God spoke to me". Maybe it was just the collective consciousness of the ages that spoke to me. Who knows? But yes, if something is from a pure source (like God), then it would be in complete agreement no matter to whom it was revealed and no matter what time in history it was revealed. I won't even go into the flip-flopping of interpretations the church has had about major doctrines thorugh the ages...that's for another day.

[weary traveler]

I must agree, ironically, with most of the skeptics here that any "cafeteria" Christianity, or what I call designer Christianity is intellectually repugnant. If "liberal" Christians reject the idea of hell, they cannot be Christians for Jesus had no doubts whatsoever about it.

 

Yup. I used to believe the same way! That's before I realized how flawed the bible was, of course!

 

 

That said, you should at least read C.S. Lewis, who might be called a liberal Christian by some and yet one who finds no need to tamper with the NT. He cannot be accused of fundamentalism or "black and white" thinking. He makes fools of most skeptics, intellectually speaking. He thinks hell is a place it's inhabitants would rather be than heaven, and he makes a powerful case for same in "The Great Divorce." I don't agree with him on everything but he answers all complaints with a simple but never simplistic wisdom few apologists will ever match.

He believes anyone who is sincere will be saved, and difficult as that is for fundamentalists, I cannot prove he is wrong from the NT. I can't find where Jesus says "all non-Christians will burn in hell even if they never heard of me." Skeptics keep telling me it's there but , like Lewis, I can find it. There are clues salvation is always available, but some are too self-righteous and proud to reeive it, ever.

 

Fundamentalism, by the way, just means that a person holds to a LITERAL interpretation of the bible. It means that they believe it to be one hundred percent the Word of God. This was what I was for ten years. A hard core fundie! And I used to love Lewis' books! But i must say that saying that if someone is sincere then that means that they're 'saved' is silly. I am now a sincere ex-christian. So does that mean I'm still saved? Is a sincere practioner of Wicca 'saved'? Or is this sincerity leading to salvation open only to those claiming to be christian? What would you say to someone like me who used to say I was saved, but now I would say that I don't believe the bible anymore due to massive research and deep thought? I am SINCERELY looking for answers to so many things. Will my sincerity save me? Or at least save me again? If I need to be saved again, was I ever really saved? I was totally given to my spiritual walk with CHrist for many years. Saw a lot of stuff. But did I become unsaved when I realized some of my beliefs were based on faulty info?

 

As for proving Lewis wrong from the NT, see my other post and the post from Ramen66 which gave some good verses to start with.

 

 

The fact is there is no easy way to follow Jesus. You cannot be hot and cold, and I dare say a few sincere and honest skeptics realized they were neither and decided on cold. And I'm not sure God blames them much, given the churches some of them seem to have come from.

 

Rad

 

You're right in that sense, that you either believe the bible and the gospel or you don't. If you believe the bible is the word of God then you are a Fundamentalist. If you don't believe the bible is the word of God (or at least the ONLY word of God), then you're a liberal. If you believe that Jesus is God then you're a fundamentalist, but if you believe he was anything less than God then you can be a liberal BUT you are going against the Jesus you claim to folllow because he said unless you believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sins Jn 8:24 (in other words, you won't be saved). So as even CS Lewis said, If Jesus really wasn't God, then he wasn't even good because he himself claimed to be God. So I guess you would either have to be a fundamentalist and accept it all...or a liberal and deceive yourself into believing what you feel like...or just wake up out of the Matrix God program and continue your quest for understanding...

 

(sorry this was so long)

[wonderer]

 

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.

 

That's an easy one for me: No religion is the "true" religion.

 

 

Rob

[Guest Apostate]

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.

 

That sounds just like my experience! I spent several years as liberal Episcopalian, trying to ignore the nagging inconsistencies of Christianity and concentrating on the aesthetic pleasures of the liturgy and being part of the community. But in the end, that just wasn't enough. Walking into a liberal church and checking your brain at the door is just a more tasteful and pleasant version of walking into a conservative church and checking your brain at the door.

[currentchristian]

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.

 

That probably is quite an accurate observation. Just as humankind has developed all sorts of cuisine to satisfy the need for food and all sorts of music and art to satisfy the need for beauty, it has developed all sorts of religions to satisfy its spiritual needs. This is not to say that there is not also revelation of religious values, but likely much that we encounter is quite human in origin. While I do embrace a view that holds that we are fashioned in the image of the Creator, there is no doubt that we have fashioned God in our image, too.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[NotBlinded]

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.

I would say that of course there are conflicts because the truth isn't in the stories themselves, but what the stories are saying. How does one describe something that cannot be described because it has never been seen? They use stories about interactions between people they know or have observed. They sense this 'Essence' in people and their actions and it can be felt from the stories. It's just my opinion, but God isn't in the stories made by man. God is in the 'feeling' or the non-physical interactions of the characters in the story.

 

Cafeteria style religion...yes. The entire story is false literally, but not false cognitively. I hope that makes sense.

 

Once one gets to the point of understanding the story in a different way, then you can begin to see that the same thing is usually being said about the divine in a lot of religions. They just use different stories to express it because people have different backgrounds and cultures. They are myths and nothing more. They are stories of the Gods that deisre to instill in the reader a sense of the Divine. No one religion has the monopoly on that. People just need to see them for what they are and that is when they can gain insight from them, IMO.

 

Although it might sound counter-intuitive to "cherry-pick" the bible, I feel it is counter-intuitive to limit oneself to one religion alone. Why limit yourself to just one culture's understanding of what God is?

[currentchristian]

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.

 

It all causes me to scratch my head, too. So I study all the world's religions and enjoy doing so, but for me the spiritual ideal is found in the person/life/teachings of Jesus. I don't obsess over the details.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[NotBlinded]

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.

 

It all causes me to scratch my head, too. So I study all the world's religions and enjoy doing so, but for me the spiritual ideal is found in the person/life/teachings of Jesus. I don't obsess over the details.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Good for you. That is the point of what I'm trying to say. You have looked and found the most sprituality in Christianity. Indeed, it is there, but not just there alone as you recognize. Again, good for you. There can be no condemnation from God if said God belongs to no religion.

 

And a little note to Amethyst..

 

People have seen white before.

[currentchristian]

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

Kill Men, Women, and Children

 

Excellent questions, Ramen666; and I absolutely, positively do not have a total answer. I know what you are talking about in regard to each group thinking they have God in their box and no one else does. I was first baptized at age 10 in the Southern Baptist church. The next time I was baptized, when I really felt that I was old enough to make such a choice, I was 16 and that was in an Assemblies of God church. Neither group has a reputation for being easy-go-lucky. I know you know what I mean. It seemed to me that God's tent was much, much, much bigger than the one they protrayed (didn't Jesus say, "I will draw ALL men unto myself"??), so I left "organized" religion at age 21. That was 21 years ago. But I still believe. To stop believing in the man Jesus would be, for me, like ceasing to believe that Abraham Lincoln lived. (So in summer 2005 I was baptized again in a running river...this time just as an outward sign of my commitment to Christ.)

 

These verses you quoted are very troubling to me. There are many explanations offered to "explain them away": they didn't really happen; these men put their words in God's mouth; this was another time, another age, and like all ancient cultures the rules were a bit harsh (check out Hammurabbi's Code, for example). For me, ultimately, I will not judge God. If these things happened, or something like them, I will not judge God guilty; there must be a reason that is loving and just and right. Others may condemn God for these things, that's their right, but I will not.

 

Anyway, no dogmatic, infallible answers here. Just what I'm thinking.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[NotBlinded]

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

Awesome!

 

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?

Antlerman...you sooo rock!

 

I must agree, ironically, with most of the skeptics here that any "cafeteria" Christianity, or what I call designer Christianity is intellectually repugnant. If "liberal" Christians reject the idea of hell, they cannot be Christians for Jesus had no doubts whatsoever about it.

How can you be so sure? Are you understanding the concept correctly as he put forward? Or, are you understanding what the compliers of the bible wanted you to understand?

 

The fact is there is no easy way to follow Jesus. You cannot be hot and cold, and I dare say a few sincere and honest skeptics realized they were neither and decided on cold. And I'm not sure God blames them much, given the churches some of them seem to have come from.

Jesus means so much more to me now than he did when I was a Christian. I'm definately not cold to Jesus, but I am cold as hell to what the religion stands for. One can be hot and cold, IMO.

[currentchristian]

I must agree, ironically, with most of the skeptics here that any "cafeteria" Christianity, or what I call designer Christianity is intellectually repugnant. If "liberal" Christians reject the idea of hell, they cannot be Christians for Jesus had no doubts whatsoever about it.

 

But all Christians, Rad, are designer Christians. Pentecostals love the speaking in tongues chapters in the Bible. Catholics love the "thou art Peter" and "keys of the kingdom" words of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses want to see the name of God in print (even though Yahwah is a more accurate transliteration than Jehovah); eternal security Baptists highlight the verses that seem to indicate that no one can take us from the Father's hands and, therefore, once saved always saved; free-will Baptists emphasize the verses that seem to indicate that a Christian can lose his/her salvation. It goes on and on and on and on.

 

All Christians are cafeteria Christians. Just as all communists are cafeteria communists. And, I bet, all atheists are cafeteria atheists.

 

I don't see any problem with this, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

Atheists, and ExChristians as far as I have seen in my experience, left Christianity because of this anything-but spiritual nature. We are sincere. They are not. Who then goes to heaven, and who then goes to hell?

 

Each person must (to the limited extent this is possible) strip away the layers of culture, habit, indoctrination, hurt and pain, failure and disappointment, etc., and make a decision.

 

Sincere atheists, sincere agnostics, sincere believers -- all have my respect ... as long as they are respectful of the views of others who see the universe from a different perspective, and humble enough to admit that they may just be wrong.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Antlerman]

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.

 

It all causes me to scratch my head, too. So I study all the world's religions and enjoy doing so, but for me the spiritual ideal is found in the person/life/teachings of Jesus. I don't obsess over the details.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

When people are involved in the interpretation of anything objective, like a rock on the ground, there will be almost countless ways of looking at it and talking about it. No one person will have "the truth" about that rock because of the factor of the individual and all the variances that goes with each person (emotions, history, intelligence, experience, philosophy, etc). Any time an observer is looking at something, it in affects the interpretation of it.

 

People can come to a general consensus and agree with certain thoughts about it, like it's hard for instance, but even that interpretation is not "truth". Someone can take a hammer and hit it and shatter it easily, and then claim the opposite, "it is not hard". It is hard in relation to a lump of dirt, but is not hard in relation to a diamond, in other words from a different perspective.

 

When we move further away from an objective reality that exists outside us that everyone only gets at best a relative approximation of what it is, and then we move into intangible areas like "meaning", or the value of something, "truth" is much more about what value or meaning something has to the individual. Then when we factor in language differences, it will even further shade a perspective with the color of that person’s cultural views and values into their own personal perspectives of what value that thing has, or what its "truth" is.

 

This is one of the big reasons why fundamentalism is absurd. It claims absolute truth. Even if they had something that was absolute on that level, no two people will ever see exactly the same thing because of what I mentioned above. "Meaning" or "truth" cannot come from outside the individual. It must come from the person themselves.

 

The best we hope for is finding things that others have expressed about what is meaningful to them, and if it finds a good fit for us, then it becomes incorporated into the language that we choose to use to look at and talk about these things. No two people will be exactly the same in their perspectives, but many will find commonality of expression and be able to communicate with each other. Other's who it doesn't speak to, have their own language they found that works for them, and so on.

 

What we are seeing today with globalization are attempts at bridging these language gaps. Science can be one language that is more universal, but science does not speak the language of human emotional aspirations. That's the language of art, music, poetry, mythology, and faith.

 

No one is wrong, everyone is right, but not everyone speaks a similar language, except for our common humanity. The only golden rule to govern it should be respect for others, and an acknowledgement no-one has the only truth.

[Amethyst]

 

When people are involved in the interpretation of anything objective, like a rock on the ground, there will be almost countless ways of looking at it and talking about it. No one person will have "the truth" about that rock because of the factor of the individual and all the variances that goes with each person (emotions, history, intelligence, experience, philosophy, etc). Any time an observer is looking at something, it in affects the interpretation of it.

 

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they'll all agree that it's a rock. You're kind of missing my point. If you look at a white shirt, and someone asked you what color it was, would you not say white, assuming you are not visually impaired or something?

 

No two Christians can agree on an interpretation of hell. How can hell logically exist if Christians can't even agree on who goes there???

 

No one is wrong, everyone is right, but not everyone speaks a similar language, except for our common humanity. The only golden rule to govern it should be respect for others, and an acknowledgement no-one has the only truth.

 

I think you are confusing respect with tolerance. Most people do.

[currentchristian]

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

A couple of things about this passage, Varokhar, that may or may not make it less exclusive.

 

Some of the more ancient Greek manuscripts of Mark's gospel do not include the verses in chapter 16 after the 8th or 9th verse; therefore, these passage may not be from Jesus.

 

Assuming it is from Jesus, which most do, to be "damned" (most other English translations use the word "condemned") does not mean burn in hell forever. One could interpret this in many ways. A criminal is "condemned" to prison until he has paid for his crime against society. Condemnation can be quite temporary.

 

Let's say one interpretes it as condemnation (sent off with the goats, to make use of another parabolic image), that does not mean that in this life only one has the opportunity to believe and be baptized. (Mormons, for example, baptize on behalf of the dead as a regular part of their faith practices.)

 

This may or may not be correct, but just wanted to shed some other lights on this passage.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

When people are involved in the interpretation of anything objective, like a rock on the ground, there will be almost countless ways of looking at it and talking about it. No one person will have "the truth" about that rock because of the factor of the individual and all the variances that goes with each person (emotions, history, intelligence, experience, philosophy, etc). Any time an observer is looking at something, it in affects the interpretation of it.

 

People can come to a general consensus and agree with certain thoughts about it, like it's hard for instance, but even that interpretation is not "truth". Someone can take a hammer and hit it and shatter it easily, and then claim the opposite, "it is not hard". It is hard in relation to a lump of dirt, but is not hard in relation to a diamond, in other words from a different perspective.

 

When we move further away from an objective reality that exists outside us that everyone only gets at best a relative approximation of what it is, and then we move into intangible areas like "meaning", or the value of something, "truth" is much more about what value or meaning something has to the individual. Then when we factor in language differences, it will even further shade a perspective with the color of that person’s cultural views and values into their own personal perspectives of what value that thing has, or what its "truth" is.

 

This is one of the big reasons why fundamentalism is absurd. It claims absolute truth. Even if they had something that was absolute on that level, no two people will ever see exactly the same thing because of what I mentioned above. "Meaning" or "truth" cannot come from outside the individual. It must come from the person themselves.

 

The best we hope for is finding things that others have expressed about what is meaningful to them, and if it finds a good fit for us, then it becomes incorporated into the language that we choose to use to look at and talk about these things. No two people will be exactly the same in their perspectives, but many will find commonality of expression and be able to communicate with each other. Other's who it doesn't speak to, have their own language they found that works for them, and so on.

 

What we are seeing today with globalization are attempts at bridging these language gaps. Science can be one language that is more universal, but science does not speak the language of human emotional aspirations. That's the language of art, music, poetry, mythology, and faith.

 

No one is wrong, everyone is right, but not everyone speaks a similar language, except for our common humanity. The only golden rule to govern it should be respect for others, and an acknowledgement no-one has the only truth.

 

Excellent! Your analysis seems very "true" to me, Antlerman.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Lycorth]

If more Xians thought like you do, CC, Xianity would be less problematic.

 

Problem is, the passage reads as it reads, and the language is pretty blunt and clear. Either you believe in Jebus or you burn in Hell - otherwise, Jebus isn't necessary for anyone's life.

 

All the fluffy interpretations (though more palatable than the traditional ones) don't hide the blunt language and plain meaning in the passage I cited. Jebus is depicted as blackmailing humanity - either believe or burn.

 

The language is clear.

[rad]

 

But all Christians, Rad, are designer Christians. Pentecostals love the speaking in tongues chapters in the Bible. Catholics love the "thou art Peter" and "keys of the kingdom" words of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses want to see the name of God in print (even though Yahwah is a more accurate transliteration than Jehovah); eternal security Baptists highlight the verses that seem to indicate that no one can take us from the Father's hands and, therefore, once saved always saved; free-will Baptists emphasize the verses that seem to indicate that a Christian can lose his/her salvation. It goes on and on and on and on.

 

 

 

Well that is clearly NOT what the skeptics I am agreeing with are saying. You might want to read the thread before we discuss this further.

 

Rad

 

 

You presume we haven't......

 

 

I was speaking to the OP author FYI

[rad]

 

Fundamentalism, by the way, just means that a person holds to a LITERAL interpretation of the bible. It means that they believe it to be one hundred percent the Word of God. This was what I was for ten years. A hard core fundie! And I used to love Lewis' books! But i must say that saying that if someone is sincere then that means that they're 'saved' is silly. I am now a sincere ex-christian. So does that mean I'm still saved? Is a sincere practioner of Wicca 'saved'? Or is this sincerity leading to salvation open only to those claiming to be christian? What would you say to someone like me who used to say I was saved, but now I would say that I don't believe the bible anymore due to massive research and deep thought? I am SINCERELY looking for answers to so many things. Will my sincerity save me? Or at least save me again? If I need to be saved again, was I ever really saved? I was totally given to my spiritual walk with CHrist for many years. Saw a lot of stuff. But did I become unsaved when I realized some of my beliefs were based on faulty info?

 

As for proving Lewis wrong from the NT, see my other post and the post from Ramen66 which gave some good verses to start with.

 

You're right in that sense, that you either believe the bible and the gospel or you don't. If you believe the bible is the word of God then you are a Fundamentalist. If you don't believe the bible is the word of God (or at least the ONLY word of God), then you're a liberal. If you believe that Jesus is God then you're a fundamentalist, but if you believe he was anything less than God then you can be a liberal BUT you are going against the Jesus you claim to folllow because he said unless you believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sins Jn 8:24 (in other words, you won't be saved). So as even CS Lewis said, If Jesus really wasn't God, then he wasn't even good because he himself claimed to be God. So I guess you would either have to be a fundamentalist and accept it all...or a liberal and deceive yourself into believing what you feel like...or just wake up out of the Matrix God program and continue your quest for understanding...

 

 

I don't think you understand. Lewis seems to think that people can be saved after they die. Although there are few verses which support the view, none seem to refute it, fundy views to the contrary. In The Great Divorce he imagines a bus taking a load of people to heaven and hell so people can decide where they want to spend eternity. Some people he says (people who will never acknowledge the truth even after they have proof) don't like heaven. They don't like God, Jesus or heaven. They don't like the rules. They are insincere in their claims that proof will make some difference. These, he suggests will voluntarily return to hell. They hate heaven more than they hate hell.

 

Hope that clears up his position, which is hardly a fundy position, and he doesn't have to spend his life trying to convince himself the Gospels and the peerless person of Christ were invented out of thin air. He simply finds it intellectually dishonest to write off the Gospels as false and cross his fingers. One must choose honestly- either he is who he said, or a Grade A nutball, along with the Gospel writers.

 

Rad

[Ramen666]

That was 21 years ago. But I still believe. To stop believing in the man Jesus would be, for me, like ceasing to believe that Abraham Lincoln lived. (So in summer 2005 I was baptized again in a running river...this time just as an outward sign of my commitment to Christ.)

 

These verses you quoted are very troubling to me. There are many explanations offered to "explain them away": they didn't really happen; these men put their words in God's mouth; this was another time, another age, and like all ancient cultures the rules were a bit harsh (check out Hammurabbi's Code, for example). For me, ultimately, I will not judge God. If these things happened, or something like them, I will not judge God guilty; there must be a reason that is loving and just and right. Others may condemn God for these things, that's their right, but I will not.

 

Anyway, no dogmatic, infallible answers here. Just what I'm thinking.

 

To not believe in Jesus as not to believe in Abraham Lincoln, I find that odd do you belive in Santa? Mohammad? Allah? Buddah? There is evidence enough to back this up. (Ask anyone who belives in them)

 

Why not judge God? Why not look at these through your own moral values. Not ones the church has made you have. Why can't he be the bad guy? Why can't these be of guilt? Why must Christians judge him and treat him on another level? Why is God exempt from doing terrible things? That is completly absurb to ignore the fact that it says in the Bible. You choose to overlook this and move on and keep thinking God is loving, God is good, God cannot do wrong because he is perfect? However clearly is you are disturbed by these verses it makes a false since of security. How can God be True and loving when he does this. You have to see something is terribly off or not right.

 

This is equvalent to Adolf Hitler. You know what he did for a fact. Hitler NEVER killed anyone, he ordered it. Yet he was just as guilty because what he did was wrong. When you go through the Bible and you see these verses you know in your heart they are disturbing. ( I am glad you see that) How can be God be loving and just when BILLIONS of people are burning in hell because they were being born in the wrong place, diseased, whatnot.

 

 

 

I am not going to hit you with a lot of verses at once but here is more for you to see, see what BibleGod really like here is a couple more verses. These are a little different than the last ones. You will see what I am talking about. INNCONET CHILDREN!!!! That is what the Nazis did and you don't ok but if God does it , he is guilt free?

 

 

Killed by a Lion

 

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

 

 

 

God Will Kill Children ( HONESTLY HOW IS GOD NOT GUILTY?)

 

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

 

More Rape and Baby Killing ( WTF???)

 

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

 

 

Kill Old Men and Young Women

 

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

 

(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

 

 

Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

 

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

 

 

 

You must draw a line here these are not moral. These are ordered by God himself and Christians ok it. Please take in consideration that your religion may be feeding you shit and lies for control. Think I know what you must be thinking, you may be in denial but it is there in the one book Christians worship out of . The same God which they say is loving and careing when that is just not the case. Look how many people are going to hell living today. Think about the people before today 1000's of years till now. JUST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN God? What logic is that really is there really any love there? No not at all? God is suppose to be all knowing and all powerful , watch the news tonight see how powerful he really is. See how many kids burn in houses to death. See how the jetliners exploded into the World Trade Center and the death. God can't do shit because he doesn't exsist. These verses and 100's more and God is guilt free? How is that guilt free he has done EVIL AND YOU KNOW IT.

[Amethyst]

If more Xians thought like you do, CC, Xianity would be less problematic.

 

Problem is, the passage reads as it reads, and the language is pretty blunt and clear. Either you believe in Jebus or you burn in Hell - otherwise, Jebus isn't necessary for anyone's life.

 

All the fluffy interpretations (though more palatable than the traditional ones) don't hide the blunt language and plain meaning in the passage I cited. Jebus is depicted as blackmailing humanity - either believe or burn.

 

The language is clear.

 

Agreed. Either hell exists or it doesn't exist, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. I realized that after trying to believe in a fluffy-bunny hell version for a long time myself.