Calling All Liberal Christians

[wonderer]

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment. (:

 

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that no religion, sect or cult has it 100% right. Let's further agree that men wrote the various works cobbled together by the Council of Nicea into a single Book, and that none of the writers featured in that book got it 100% right, none of the translators got it 100% right, and none of the scribes who laboriously copied the text through the Dark Ages got it 100% right.

 

Given all of that as a premise, is there any evidence that all of those men got it 100% wrong?

 

Suppose some of it is right, and some of it is nonsense or made-up stuff: How could anyone know the difference? But not knowing the difference doesn't lead to the conclusion that none of it is right, does it? And if that's a true statement, then I submit that picking and choosing those parts of the Bible that ring true for you is a perfectly rational approach to take.

 

 

Rob

[Antlerman]

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

I'm not sure exactly what your position is on this argument above, but I wish to point out the flaw in it. I once had a Bible professor who liked to say, "Good men wouldn't and evil men couldn't", in reference to the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. That no good man would deliberately write in misrepresentation of Jesus, and those who would do that, couldn't write a picture of a man who had such admirable qualities. This argument is like Josh McDowell's, "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument.

 

This is a straw man argument. By limiting it two these two possibilities only, it in fact sounds very logical. However it is overly naive.

 

The evolution of the story of Christ is driven by the eyes of faith, the telling and retelling of the story from one storyteller to the next, village by village, culture by culture, adding, tailoring, etc. There are whole academic studies on the nature of oral traditions. There are many things in the Gospels that present themselves to literary scholars. Mark follows the telling of hero's tale in a very Homeric style, Matthew and Luke absorb Marks tale and add traditions of their own, having their Jesus character attacking the Pharisees of Matthew's community, etc.

 

These are all ways of telling a core message of the Christian faith. The story of Jesus is a vehicle for that message. The problem is not in its creation, but in its interpretation today. Those who take these as actual, hard, factual historical accounting, rather that a literary vehicle are putting themselves into the position of defending that approach by using the naive apologetics the likes of Josh McDowell's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" framed argument. There are many, many more possible explanations for it beyond "truth or lie".

 

I do agree it is a little unfair to simply write of the content of the Bible as "a lie". But do you think that if CS Lewis were alive today and had access to the knowledge the academic world has today, would his arguments be the same, or would they have evolved with knowledge? What I am seeing all the time is that the fundamentalist is anti-evolution, both in science and in Biblical studies. They reject any sort of scholarship that challenges ideas that they have held as true traditionally. Do you think CS Lewis was also that sort of person?

[Amethyst]

And a little note to Amethyst..

 

People have seen white before.

 

But they haven't seen hell before, have they? So how can they say it exists if they can't even agree on an interpretation of the doctrine? Hell cannot logically exist. And if the hell doctrine isn't true, then chances are pretty good the rest of it isn't true, either.

[rad]

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?

 

I myself do judge the OT God- especially when he appears to order something Jesus never would. It's unfortunate many Christian do not acknowledge the discrepancies and apparent injustices, yes, but it is equally irrational to reject Christ because the OT has problems.

 

God clearly used the Jews to civilize an awful world (as John Adams allowed). And it seems clear to me the OT writers mixed up God and the devil. Job has no idea a devil even exists. Then, EVERYTHING, including evil, came from God, and we find Jesus working pretty hard to help people understand that is not the case.

 

Christianities' critics focus a lot on the OT because they can find almost nothing wrong with the new. Even the skeptic Will Durant called it's problems minutae. The question is whether you will be better off dumping the OT and follwing Christ, or dumping the Baby and the OT bathwater together. For me the latter would not be rational nor intellectiually honest.

 

Rad

[Panther]

 

Christianities' critics focus a lot on the OT because they can find almost nothing wrong with the new. Even the skeptic Will Durant called it's problems minutae. The question is whether you will be better off dumping the OT and follwing Christ, or dumping the Baby and the OT bathwater together. For me the latter would not be rational nor intellectiually honest.

 

Rad

 

 

But see that's the problem. The bible is comprised of BOTH the ot and nt. To completely dump one portion means that you don't see consistency. That leads you to cherry-pick what you like and what you don't.

And if the consistency being questioned isn't enough of a red flag..

Besides, you may think the NT all sounds good, but have you REALLY studied the WHOLE thing and THEN made a decision? There is some real questionable things in there as well.

Sure, there are some nice things and all that is certainly all sweet, but that's certainly not all it contains.

 

The problem with cherry-picking is the religion of christianity IS what it IS. As an individual, you can certainly take what you like and leave the rest....but then you aren't really practicing christianity anymore.

 

Personally, I can't follow something that I don't agree with all the way. It would feel uncomfortable to me and dishonest, rather like a scam. (kind of like when someone tries to sell ya something..you may like what they're selling, it may sound good. But then you find out the packaging was all pretty and it didn't contain at all what you thought...)

[rad]

I'm not sure exactly what your position is on this argument above, but I wish to point out the flaw in it. I once had a Bible professor who liked to say, "Good men wouldn't and evil men couldn't", in reference to the picture of Jesus in the Gospels. That no good man would deliberately write in misrepresentation of Jesus, and those who would do that, couldn't write a picture of a man who had such admirable qualities. This argument is like Josh McDowell's, "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument.

 

This is a straw man argument. By limiting it two these two possibilities only, it in fact sounds very logical. However it is overly naive.

 

The evolution of the story of Christ is driven by the eyes of faith, the telling and retelling of the story from one storyteller to the next, village by village, culture by culture, adding, tailoring, etc. There are whole academic studies on the nature of oral traditions. There are many things in the Gospels that present themselves to literary scholars. Mark follows the telling of hero's tale in a very Homeric style, Matthew and Luke absorb Marks tale and add traditions of their own, having their Jesus character attacking the Pharisees of Matthew's community, etc.

 

These are all ways of telling a core message of the Christian faith. The story of Jesus is a vehicle for that message. The problem is not in its creation, but in its interpretation today. Those who take these as actual, hard, factual historical accounting, rather that a literary vehicle are putting themselves into the position of defending that approach by using the naive apologetics the likes of Josh McDowell's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" framed argument. There are many, many more possible explanations for it beyond "truth or lie".

 

I do agree it is a little unfair to simply write of the content of the Bible as "a lie". But do you think that if CS Lewis were alive today and had access to the knowledge the academic world has today, would his arguments be the same, or would they have evolved with knowledge? What I am seeing all the time is that the fundamentalist is anti-evolution, both in science and in Biblical studies. They reject any sort of scholarship that challenges ideas that they have held as true traditionally. Do you think CS Lewis was also that sort of person?

 

Well I think Lewis was privy to all the "higher criticism" and certainly Will Durant was. He calls the NT "contradictions" minutae and so they are in the scheme of things. The atheist H.G. Wells for whom I have the highest regard, says "we are obliged to say 'here was a man.'" I think they would find your argument is a rationalization as well. The arguments against the trilemma are a potpouri of other "possibilities," not very convincing.

 

One telling fact is that skeptics cannot agree among themselves on the other "possibilities." Durant finally tries to resolve the trilemma by saying Jesus "swooned" and fooled even himself into thinking he rose from the dead. He finds this amazing theory more palatable than that they just made it up, for he finds the idea that they could have invented Jesus "a miracle greater than anything recorded in the Gospels." When I point this out, I am told "Well Durant wasn't a real historian." (No true historian fallacy?) In any case, some highly thoughtful and intelligent skeptics don't find the "trilemma" a fallacy at all. In fact they try hard to deal with it, but in the process are found contradicting themselves.

 

A skeptic must at least be skeptical of skeptics, as Wells and Durant were. Wells makes a better case against skeptics than he does against nascent Christianity. He talks about the "man" Jesus as if he were absolutely all the Gospel writers claimed. The miracles he does not believe apparently, but he does not say they were made up either. Some very brilliant skeptical writers don't really know what to do with Jesus, and that is because of the trilemma. They simply cannot say he's not the Son of God. So friend, I think I am in excellent company- your own company- when I say that the trilemma is a big problem for all true thinkers. You can say we "just wanna believe" but you can say that about any skeptic who writes off the Gospels without facing the trilemma head on. The idea that unbelievers don't rationalize while Lewis and Tolkien do is just wishful thinking.

 

For some reason you want to drag evolution into the argument, I guess because you think it would have made a great difference to commentators like Lewis. But evolution was a fact to most thinkers of Lewis' day and it is to me. It does not bear on the truth of the Gospels I don't think. Wells writings about evolution are brilliant and hold true today, like much of what he wrote. But that doesn't stop him from praising the uncomfortable sayings of Jesus as if they were all true.

 

Rad

[Antlerman]

 

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?

If I am looking at a white shirt, I will say it is “white” if the question is what is its color? I could also say “beyaz”. But unless you speak Turkish, that word would be meaningless to you. That word might also mean something entirely different to another culture and language. Also, someone could easily counter it is not white, it is offwhite, or it is stark white, or it is pantone# 0213. Even that question has many contradictory answers.

 

Additionally, some people might not agree that a rock is a rock. A rock may be a god to them. So calling it a rock, has very little meaning outside your own culture's use of language. What do you mean by rock, what do they? Languages frame people’s understanding of the world, and how they talk about it.

 

This is why in science they use mathematics as a universal language to describe concepts. The point is even something as simple as “what color is it”, can have difficulties in meaning between different groups of people, and so “truth” becomes difficult even on simplistic levels.

 

But what I seem to see you doing (please correct me if I’m wrong) is taking a concept that appears to have a relatively common use in our language sytem, like “a rock is a rock”, and from that saying

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?

A shirt being white, or a rock being a rock is relatively simple to resolves differences over, but it is not anywhere near on the same level as questions of “is there a God”, or what really happened historically, etc? My point is that even something simple is not really that simple even, let alone when you increase the complexity of the question by about a hundred million times.

 

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???

The disagreement between two Christians about an interpretation of something does not, in itself, negate the thing they dispute (there are other arguments for that purpose). However…. It does negate any claim that we should be held responsible for knowing “the Truth” about something. Since no one can no “The Truth”, it is a moot argument. Whose version of “hell” do we need to believe? Whose version of “salvation” do we need to accept, etc. This does invalidate the notion of damnation for those who don’t accept the Gospel. Whose Gospel?

 

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.

I actually did mean respect. I think it is healthy for people to esteem, and even celebrate others beliefs, rather than simply tolerate them. By respecting them, you acknowledge the dignity of another human being’s sincerity in choosing what is meaningful to them, while at the same time acknowledging your beliefs to yourself are on equal footing with theirs and deserving of their respect too. It’s not the same thing as adopting them for yourself. It’s a sort of golden rule thing for me. (I do however exclude those who show intolerance and disrespect to others, like the fundamentalists. That attitude is destructive to societies, and to themselves).

[rad]

 

 

But see that's the problem. The bible is comprised of BOTH the ot and nt. To completely dump one portion means that you don't see consistency. That leads you to cherry-pick what you like and what you don't.

And if the consistency being questioned isn't enough of a red flag..

Besides, you may think the NT all sounds good, but have you REALLY studied the WHOLE thing and THEN made a decision? There is some real questionable things in there as well.

Sure, there are some nice things and all that is certainly all sweet, but that's certainly not all it contains.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't abide by the theory that you take it "all or nothing." IMO, that's a good way to learn and experience nothing. The NT is a little more than "nice and sweet." It's about a guy who rips hypocrites to shreds with withering sarcasm, says he's the one and only Son of God and all others are thieves and robbers (which they are compared to him), and leaves behind disciples that would much rather die than give up the spiritual gifts he left for them. As Durant says, "no one can doubt the reality" of the person behind his words. You do. I don't, and I feel I have to remind you that arguments about the veracity of the NT and its writers should contain a little more than assertions of "there is a lot of questionable stuff there and a few sweet thing."

 

Good grief.

[Panther]

 

I'm sorry but I don't abide by the theory that you take it "all or nothing." IMO, that's a good way to learn and experience nothing. The NT is a little more than "nice and sweet." It's about a guy who rips hypocrites to shreds with withering sarcasm, says he's the one and only Son of God and all others are thieves and robbers (which they are compared to him), and leaves behind disciples that would much rather die than give up the spiritual gifts he left for them. As Durant says, "no one can doubt the reality" of the person behind his words. You do. I don't, and I feel I have to remind you that arguments about the veracity of the NT and its writers should contain a little more than assertions of "there is a lot of questionable stuff there and a few sweet thing."

 

Good grief.

 

Hello Rad.

I think you have missed my point.

I am an exchristian, so I am aware of the NT and what it contains, however, I did not feel a need to go into indiviual points as that is not what this is about.

 

What I did learn and experience, I chose to dismiss based on similar reasons other's have here on this board.

 

Personally, I don't disrespect you. I believe people are free to chose whatever religion/philosophy works in their indiviual life.

 

Like you, there were a lot of biblical doctrines I began to dismiss after a period of time. After a point, though, I had to ask myself if I could or even wanted to call myself a christian anymore. I began to recognize, through intense biblical study/discussion with other christians that I was getting so liberal I was walking myself right out of the religion. Evenutally, obviously, I did after much more intense study.

[rad]

Hello Rad.

I think you have missed my point.

I am an exchristian, so I am aware of the NT and what it contains, however, I did not feel a need to go into indiviual points as that is not what this is about.

 

What I did learn and experience, I chose to dismiss based on similar reasons other's have here on this board.

 

Personally, I don't disrespect you. I believe people are free to chose whatever religion/philosophy works in their indiviual life.

 

Like you, there were a lot of biblical doctrines I began to dismiss after a period of time. After a point, though, I had to ask myself if I could or even wanted to call myself a christian anymore. I began to recognize, through intense biblical study/discussion with other christians that I was getting so liberal I was walking myself right out of the religion. Evenutally, obviously, I did after much more intense study.

 

OK I accept that you did it in good conscience, as I do. I still would argue that we can all test and experience what Jesus said we would by taking some risks few people, inside or outside the church, seem very willing to do. Where the NT is concerned people on both sides "gotta believe" something while claiming to be the most rational. Honestly I don't think believing it is true leads to the brain death skeptics predict, and in fact a skeptical openness to it's veracity shows up in the writings of all great thinkers.

 

Sure you can say I am cherry-picking by declaring the OT writers ignorant, but that is surely better than Jefferson's assumption that he could cherry pick through the NT, calling adjacent verses "diamonds" and "dung." The point is we ought not to make claims to have figured it all out a lot more carefully or we all can be accused of having blind faith. The NT Jesus should remain an enormous pain to the intellectually honest skeptic. We all have our ways of dealing with him- seldom with the rationality we claim, without contradicting those on "our side" and without hypocrisy. The beauty is, if he is who he says, he will forgives and loves us all the same.

 

Rad

[currentchristian]

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'm not sure that Jesus ever claimed to be God. Remember his response to the person who called him "good": "Do not call me good, for there is only one who is good and that is God." He also said, "The Father is greater than I" in John's gospel. Paul wrote that in the end everything will be subjected to Jesus who himself will be subjected to God so that "God may be all in all."

 

Yes, Jesus is "the express image of God," and God was "in Jesus, reconciling the world to himself," and Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life," and Jesus is the one "in whom all things hold together," and the "head of the church," and, etc., etc., etc. But there is leeway around this issue of "is Jesus God?" At least it seems so to me.

 

I also don't think anyone has to accept or be forced to accept any label such as "conservative" or "liberal." While I know what they mean (e.g., conservative Christians are less likely to accept gay persons as brothers in Christ than liberal Christians are), it seems divisive to wear such labels on one's sleeve.

 

I may be wrong about everything. But this is how I see it at this moment in time.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

Jebus is depicted as blackmailing humanity - either believe or burn.

The language is clear.

 

Please allow me to dissent on this one. I don't take it that Jesus is blackmailing anyone. It does seem to me that Jesus is "the way," but it does not seem to me that these few years here below in this confused and confusing world are the only opportunities one has to "believe and be saved." Not even death can separate us from the love of God; therefore, it seems plausible to me that there exists an opportunity for redemption beyond the grave when we see everything as it is and are free to make a choice without all the hindrances of time, caste, culture, family, disappointments, etc. I certainly hope so, and would expect such amazing grace from a God who is love.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

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)

 

No, yes, yes and yes. I do not believe in Santa Claus (December was a much more enjoyable month when I did!), but I do believe in the historical existence of Mohammad and the Buddha and in the sameness of Yahweh and Allah.

 

What I meant to convey in the previous post, poorly though I may have done so, is that I am as certain that CNN cameras would have captured the resurrection of Jesus as I am that they would have captured the assassination of Lincoln -- if they had been at the tomb and at Ford's Theater. That's what I meant to express.

 

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.

 

For me, it is not reasonable for the creature to creator. I won't do so. There are some, you know, who believe that God has evolved along with the universe. Maybe that's so; maybe God has "matured," and moved beyond the seemingly (notice that I wrote seemingly) vindictive outbursts we see from time to time. (We see much more love and grace in the God of the Bible, even the God of the OT, than we do the God of jealousy and wrath.) Maybe, too, these events are not accurate. Whatever the case, I hold to my prerogative to submit to God, to hold God blameless; others can hold to their prerogative to damn God to hell.

 

I think God can handle both views. I really do think God has very big shoulders and we do not offend God by questioning. I really don't.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Personally, I can't follow something that I don't agree with all the way. It would feel uncomfortable to me and dishonest, rather like a scam. (kind of like when someone tries to sell ya something..you may like what they're selling, it may sound good. But then you find out the packaging was all pretty and it didn't contain at all what you thought...)

 

Gosh, for me that would mean I would sit in my room all day doing nothing. I have found nothing I agree with "all the way." I think it's okay to disagree. I disagree with St. Paul who wrote that women should be silent in the church; I disagree with him when he wrote that women should not teach men; I disagree with him when he wrote that wives should submit to their husbands; I disagree with him when he wrote that homosexuals are unnatural and against nature. I disagree with him a lot. But I agree with him much more. I hope one day to sit with him, literally, face to face, and discuss all these things. While Paul was "caught up into the third heaven," he was a man, a man with a thorn in his flesh, a man who could be arrogant and prone to judgmentalism. (He sounds a lot like me, and I think all of us!) To disagree is not grounds for divorce. Seems to me. We are to walk by faith, not by sight. If everything is written out for us in black and white, where's the faith???

 

But I may be wrong....I like to say that because it's so very true.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

The beauty is, if he is who he says, he will forgives and loves us all the same.

Rad

 

Amen to that. That's my hope! For one and all.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[rad]

Please allow me to dissent on this one. I don't take it that Jesus is blackmailing anyone. It does seem to me that Jesus is "the way," but it does not seem to me that these few years here below in this confused and confusing world are the only opportunities one has to "believe and be saved." Not even death can separate us from the love of God; therefore, it seems plausible to me that there exists an opportunity for redemption beyond the grave when we see everything as it is and are free to make a choice without all the hindrances of time, caste, culture, family, disappointments, etc. I certainly hope so, and would expect such amazing grace from a God who is love.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

So well said. Now you guys have Lewis, currentchristian and Rad saying maybe it does't take throwing out the entire NT and becoming "liberal" to follow Jesus in good conscience. What makes skeptics think they have to be either black and white thinking fundies or nothing? Is it possible some of us might have really thought through all this before deciding? Sure some people became Christians just to save their own ass. Some think all unbelievers are lost by default if they don't believe before they die, but we don't. And why should we? The only verse which comes close it an interpolation at the end of Mark which any real student knows is bogus. And if Jesus wanted to scare the hell out of a few listeners in order to save them too, so what? What did you want him to say? "Yes my children, don't worry about it. Do whatever you want and think is OK and God will save you anyway." (?)

 

Most of us became Christians because, if there was a God, he ought to be like Jesus, ever compassionate, just, righteous to a fault, and yet sacrificing all to save every last possible person short of forcing them into heaven. I don't know what else you could ask for honestly. No I think Jesus' biggest problem is that he sees right through us and we hate that. So we try to find fault wth the OT, his followers' weaknesses, relatively minor contradictions, etc. We invent all sorts of theories about what happened, if we don't ignore him completely. I know because I did it and so did every other honest-hearted person who began to learn of him. As even Wells said, he leaves no cozy burrow undisturbed.

 

Including the "well I can't be a Christian who thinks every unbeliever is doomed" burrow. We listed above can't either, and if Jesus had said that anywhere, we would not be Christians either.

 

Rad

[Ramen666]

For me, it is not reasonable for the creature to creator. I won't do so. There are some, you know, who believe that God has evolved along with the universe. Maybe that's so; maybe God has "matured," and moved beyond the seemingly (notice that I wrote seemingly) vindictive outbursts we see from time to time. (We see much more love and grace in the God of the Bible, even the God of the OT, than we do the God of jealousy and wrath.) Maybe, too, these events are not accurate. Whatever the case, I hold to my prerogative to submit to God, to hold God blameless; others can hold to their prerogative to damn God to hell.

 

I think God can handle both views. I really do think God has very big shoulders and we do not offend God by questioning. I really don't.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

But WE DO offend God by questioning that is the whole thing. Now that I am an athesist or someone of another religous belief on here. We have offeneded God because now we are on route to hell. BECAUSE WE DID NOT BELIVE. BECAUSE WE USED LOGIC AND REASON!You honestly haven't read your Bible. You have to do believe in Jesus ( Christian version) to go to heaven. Did you even read those verses? Or just overlooked them those are just from offending God. He is a little pussy who can get his feelings hurt to easy.

 

Here is God (since we like using examples today)

 

This is how God is an example:

 

God is putting a gun to our heads. He is demanding "love" for him. If we don't "love" him God will pull the trigger.

 

It is a believe or die scenerio if you don't belive in God well to bad off to burn in hell. God does not give a rats ass about you because he LETS IT HAPPEN. He even knew that Adam and Eve would fail but did he do anything? NO HE CURSED ALL OF HUMANITY. Remember I said cursed so God is not a lovable puppy dog like most Christians make him out to be. He is just chilling watching BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY. He is like Hitler it is a believe or die anyone who opposes will be killed ( look in the Bible it is true.). How can God be loving and yet send people to hell for not believing??? What kind of God is that????? If I was born in the middle east were would I be? ROASTING A HELL because apprarently I did not know God.

 

He is some loving motherfucker.

[Lycorth]

Jebus being compassionate, all-just, and loving?

 

He demands I believe in him or else I will burn for all eternity. He demands I honor him above all my loved ones, myself, or what I know is best for my life. He also promises to answer all prayers offered in his name, yet hasn't answered a single one to date from anyone that I'm aware of.

 

Jebus is an asshole.

[currentchristian]

It is a believe or die scenerio if you don't belive in God well to bad off to burn in hell. God does not give a rats ass about you because he LETS IT HAPPEN. He even knew that Adam and Eve would fail but did he do anything? NO HE CURSED ALL OF HUMANITY. Remember I said cursed so God is not a lovable puppy dog like most Christians make him out to be. He is just chilling watching BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY. He is like Hitler it is a believe or die anyone who opposes will be killed ( look in the Bible it is true.). How can God be loving and yet send people to hell for not believing??? What kind of God is that????? If I was born in the middle east were would I be? ROASTING A HELL because apprarently I did not know God.

He is some loving motherfucker.

 

I must say, Ramen666, that I don't see it this way at all. I've read the Bible five or six times and studied it for thousands of hours in the past 25 years, and I don't see it this way at all. There's room for other views.

 

In my view, God is not offended by you or anyone else. In my view, God is love and love is from God. In my view, whatever consequences there are to our "faults" or "wrongdoings," or "sins" or whatever you may call them, God in Christ has reconciled us, the whole world. The reconciliation is there for the asking.

 

A principal justice teaching in the OT is "eye for eye and tooth for tooth." Of course, Jesus altered that to be "bless those who abuse you," etc. Sticking with that OT view, God would not demand that one roast in hellfire for 70 trillion years for "sins" committed over a lifetime of 70 years. That would not be just; that would be grotesque. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth justice would -- at the very most -- demand 70 years of punishment for 70 years of "sinning." But, as I see it, whatever separates us from God was accepted by Jesus who laid down his life for his friends. The scales of justice are balanced for all of us!

 

Just my view. Not wanting to offend or upset anyone. Just one view of one 41-year-old currentchristian in massachusetts.

[rad]

Jebus being compassionate, all-just, and loving?

 

He demands I believe in him or else I will burn for all eternity. He demands I honor him above all my loved ones, myself, or what I know is best for my life. He also promises to answer all prayers offered in his name, yet hasn't answered a single one to date from anyone that I'm aware of.

 

Jebus is an asshole.

 

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus came back in a blaze of glory, healed 1000 terminally ill people in his first hour here, and declared he would save 72% of the world because the other 28% openly refused to believe he was Lord, would you call him the same?

 

I think most skeptics would have second thoughts.

 

Rad

[Lycorth]

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus came back in a blaze of glory, healed 1000 terminally ill people in his first hour here, and declared he would save 72% of the world because the other 28% openly refused to believe he was Lord, would you call him the same?

 

I think most skeptics would have second thoughts.

 

Wrong.

 

Why would a "blaze of glory" matter? Millions of Xians have asked to see Jebus, I'm sure - including all of the ex-xians here. He should just get his ass down here and start answering those prayers - unless he doesn't exist.

 

Why only 1000 of the terminally ill? That would be great, but why not all at once?

 

And I'd still call him an asshole for damning those who simply choose to believe and live otherwise. Jebus has no right torturing people for choosing a different religion or lifestyle.

 

I think most skeptics would chew up your question and spit it back out - like I just did.

[Dhampir]

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus came back in a blaze of glory, healed 1000 terminally ill people in his first hour here, and declared he would save 72% of the world because the other 28% openly refused to believe he was Lord, would you call him the same?

 

I think most skeptics would have second thoughts.

Let me ask you a question. If Zeus returned to mount Olympus on a thundercloud and said that henceforth all lightning was his judgement bolts, directed against evildoers in a world that had forgotten his existence, would you still cling to your belief in Jesus?

 

Hypothetical questions like that don't amount to much if the askee can't acknowledge the possibility they present.

[rad]

 

Wrong.

 

Why would a "blaze of glory" matter? Millions of Xians have asked to see Jebus, I'm sure - including all of the ex-xians here. He should just get his ass down here and start answering those prayers - unless he doesn't exist.

 

Why only 1000 of the terminally ill? That would be great, but why not all at once?

 

And I'd still call him an asshole for damning those who simply choose to believe and live otherwise. Jebus has no right torturing people for choosing a different religion or lifestyle.

 

I think most skeptics would chew up your question and spit it back out - like I just did.

 

Well if that is so, we've established that proof wouldn't make any difference. Is that fair to say?

 

I should probably save the link to your post here so folks can refer to it the next time they declare all he has to do is prove he exists. I don't think so. It is my position that proof would make no difference to their choice. It's a matter of the heart and will in most cases, or perhaps a moral judgement. Your post is pretty good evidence that is true, don't you think?

 

Rad

[Lycorth]

Jebus showing up doesn't change anything; he has to actually behave like an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing god ought. If he still acts like a dick, he gets treated like one.

 

Of course, since there's no evidence in any fashion to even suggest that he exists, it's not like he'll ever show up to begin with.

 

So yes, please do link to my post. If there are others who would be so easily swayed by Jebus just showing up and demanding worship, they need to check their heads - and their convictions.

[rad]

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus came back in a blaze of glory, healed 1000 terminally ill people in his first hour here, and declared he would save 72% of the world because the other 28% openly refused to believe he was Lord, would you call him the same?

 

I think most skeptics would have second thoughts.

Let me ask you a question. If Zeus returned to mount Olympus on a thundercloud and said that henceforth all lightning was his judgement bolts, directed against evildoers in a world that had forgotten his existence, would you still cling to your belief in Jesus?

 

Hypothetical questions like that don't amount to much if the askee can't acknowledge the possibility they present.

 

This is simply a red herring. You do no negate one hypothetical by asking another, but this I can say. I wouldn't call him an asshole for not doing it on my timetable. I would have to adopt a wait and see approach to serving him simply because I have no knowledge of Zeus as I (and you) have of Jesus' rules and regulations. Of course no one is claiming Zeus will return, nor is this an exZeusfollower site because no intelligent person feels any need to refute Zeusianity.

 

Rad

[currentchristian]

Well if that is so, we've established that proof wouldn't make any difference. Is that fair to say?

 

I've often wondered about this myself. Would I want God to show up on CNN? I don't know. Faith in the unseen is a gift many enjoy. While part of me would love to have an angelic visitation, another part of me would rather not. Frankly, I don't know that I'm ready to obey the message that would be announced to me!!! I'm certainly not ready to "surrender all" and sell all my possessions and follow! (I'm not proud of this, just stating a fact.)

 

I wonder, too, what difference it would make in the world if God were to show up. So many of his representatives (prophets) were not very well accepted, and his supreme ambassador (Jesus) didn't survive the experience. I don't know that an appearance would actually change things.

 

Remember, too, that Jesus warned against those who claim that the Messiah has returned and is in the desert or the inner chamber. "Don't go to see him," Jesus said. (Matthew 24:23-26)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Lycorth]

I think Dhampir's question is valid.

 

You assume Jebus is the only god which can exist. But if another somehow showed up, what would you do?

 

Afraid to admit that you might change your belief?

[currentchristian]

This is simply a red herring. You do no negate one hypothetical by asking another, but this I can say. I wouldn't call him an asshole for not doing it on my timetable. I would have to adopt a wait and see approach to serving him simply because I have no knowledge of Zeus as I (and you) have of Jesus' rules and regulations. Of course no one is claiming Zeus will return, nor is this an exZeusfollower site because no intelligent person feels any need to refute Zeusianity.

Rad

 

The "wait and see" approach (agnosticism) you outline Rad seems like a good one to me. Making up one's mind completely and absolutely that there is no God (atheism) seems extreme.

 

Of course, one could say that making up one's mind that there is a God (theism or deism) is also extreme. But Pascal's Wager would indicate that one who bets on God and loses actually loses nothing.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts