Question For The Christians

[Guest end3]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

 

I don't know how God would handle this truthfully, her being a Jew, yet faithful. I revert back to the natural branches vs. the grafted branches explanation.....and that effectively God hardened Israel so that the Gentiles could come in. I am not sure if many theologians even have a definitive answer.

I'm not writing this in an angry, hostile voice. Please don't take my post as a personal attack on you.

 

You actually DO know how god would handle this, but it makes you terribly uncomfortable. You want to believe that god is loving, but are having a hard time accepting that your god would burn someone in hell on the basis of a criterion as fickle as belief in jesus.

 

The definitive answer is that Anne Frank would burn in hell, because she is did not believe in jesus. The bible is pretty clear on that.

 

I used to be very disturbed by this too when I was a christian and had muslim friends. Knowing they loved god, but that they would burn in hell when they died, really undermined my concept of god as a loving being. You can invent all sorts of apologetics to try to circumvent what the bible says, but ultimately, you KNOW what the bible says on this issue, and you're just faced with a crisis. Belief that god is loving and good versus knowledge that god will burn people who love him because they don't believe in jesus.

 

If belief in god was the criterion, then muslims, followers of bahai, jews, and anyone else who believes in the monotheistic god of abraham would be saved. But christian practice and mainstream belief tells you otherwise. The criterion is belief in jesus, because jesus is supposedly the way to salvation. Nobody comes to the father but through him, right? You KNOW this, but you don't want to believe it and accept the moral consequences for it -- that the god you worship purports to be loving, but is quite content with millions failing his requirement (belief in jesus) and letting them burn for eternity in hell.

 

It was stuff like this that seriously undermined my concept of god as a loving being. Apparently he's loving, but his actions tell us otherwise. This is something that nudged me towards deconversion. I could not reconcile a loving god with the eternal torture of millions, many of whom loved him but simply followed a different code.

 

You can be honest with yourself, and with us, and just accept that your 'loving' god would do this horrible thing, or you can keep trying to dig up apologetics to help yourself sleep at night. But its only you that you're kidding. We've all seen this and realised that the apologetics are unsatisfying half answers for a big question you're not ready to ask yourself yet. "Why are you more moral, kind, and compassionate, than god?"

 

It's a difficult proposition Donna. It's entirely possible that hell is a possibility. I reserve faith for these type of things. That is the best answer I can give. I do know that there are many Christians that feel the if the Jewish people don't accept Christ, then hell is the expectation. I personally believe that because God used Jews as he did, that there might be an acception. And there was a large portion of Israel that didn't go into the promise land....so you might be right. It is certainly a difficult concept. I am still trying to reconcile some of the this myself.

[Crazy Donna]

 

It's a difficult proposition Donna. It's entirely possible that hell is a possibility. I reserve faith for these type of things. That is the best answer I can give. I do know that there are many Christians that feel the if the Jewish people don't accept Christ, then hell is the expectation. I personally believe that because God used Jews as he did, that there might be an acception. And there was a large portion of Israel that didn't go into the promise land....so you might be right. It is certainly a difficult concept. I am still trying to reconcile some of the this myself.

I tried to use faith to help cope with this, but I found that my faith was undermined if I could not trust that god was loving and kind. If god was happy to treat people who loved him but didn't believe in jesus the same way he treats murderers and people who rape babies, then how could I have faith that I was saved? How could I know if I was all right in god's eyes, when these people, who thought they were okay in god's eyes, be condemned to hell? How could god let this happen, and love us at the same time?

 

Faith didn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. The Jews were god's chosen people. If god's chosen people are to burn in hell, then that puts poor little gentile me in a precarious position.

 

I also don't think it is possible to truly love someone (ie god) if the objective of loving him is to avoid some horrendous punishment. I don't think that if god wanted us to love him, he would create hell. If he wanted us to resent him for putting us in an impossible position, then hell would be an appropriate element to this.

 

Hell is not rehabilitative. It is for torture, to punish people for not believing in something. I know I cannot control belief. No matter how much I try, I can't make myself believe in santa claus, and I can't make myself believe in god. According to christianity, for this 'crime', I will burn in hell. There is no way I can convince myself that that is justice, or that it is fair.

 

The qualities that we are taught god embodies (justice, love,) are not demonstrated by a god who would do such things. I think realising that god did not live up to his advertising was a key ingredient in my deconversion.

[Ouroboros]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

 

I don't know how God would handle this truthfully, her being a Jew, yet faithful. I revert back to the natural branches vs. the grafted branches explanation.....and that effectively God hardened Israel so that the Gentiles could come in. I am not sure if many theologians even have a definitive answer.

So it's not just God, but it has to be YHWH? It's not good enough to believe in Allah (Elohim), even though it's a belief in just one god. And it's not good enough to believe in Ahura Mazda (as Zoroastrians do--the religion that influenced Judaism to become monotheistic).

 

It doesn't make sense. You see that there are unanswered questions in this area. You don't know how God would handle it, and yet the Bible supposedly is The Book that answers these questions. Isn't the purpose of the Bible to argue and show the true way to salvation? So why doesn't it explain clearly what and what-not applies to those who believe in one God (Allah, Ahura) or YHWH?

 

(And to clarify, there are some hundred thousand persons today who still believe in Ahura Mazda. If I remember right, most of them live in Iran or Iraq. They don't believe in YHWH, but they believe in one all supreme God, and they've done so for as long, or longer, as Jews have believed in YWHW. Are they going to Hell? Or are Jews and Christians going to Zoroastrian Hell?)

[Guest end3]

I've got a question, as I haven't read the diaries/ book. Did she discuss in her writings about her belief(s) in God?

So it's only belief in God that's important then? Not Jesus specifically?

 

I don't know how God would handle this truthfully, her being a Jew, yet faithful. I revert back to the natural branches vs. the grafted branches explanation.....and that effectively God hardened Israel so that the Gentiles could come in. I am not sure if many theologians even have a definitive answer.

So it's not just God, but it has to be YHWH? It's not good enough to believe in Allah (Elohim), even though it's a belief in just one god. And it's not good enough to believe in Ahura Mazda (as Zoroastrians do--the religion that influenced Judaism to become monotheistic).

 

It doesn't make sense. You see that there are unanswered questions in this area. You don't know how God would handle it, and yet the Bible supposedly is The Book that answers these questions. Isn't the purpose of the Bible to argue and show the true way to salvation? So why doesn't it explain clearly what and what-not applies to those who believe in one God (Allah, Ahura) or YHWH?

 

(And to clarify, there are some hundred thousand persons today who still believe in Ahura Mazda. If I remember right, most of them live in Iran or Iraq. They don't believe in YHWH, but they believe in one all supreme God, and they've done so for as long, or longer, as Jews have believed in YWHW. Are they going to Hell? Or are Jews and Christians going to Zoroastrian Hell?)

 

I don't know why you chose to press the issue....the bible also states that we don't see everything. Noah was "favored" or "found righteous" within his day, but I doubt he was sinless....will he be in Heaven?. I don't know. Was Anne accountable at her age? I don't know. Will Jesus judge justly? I have faith that He will. Do I know where Anne will end up? I don't.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know why you chose to press the issue....the bible also states that we don't see everything. Noah was "favored" or "found righteous" within his day, but I doubt he was sinless....will he be in Heaven?. I don't know. Was Anne accountable at her age? I don't know. Will Jesus judge justly? I have faith that He will. Do I know where Anne will end up? I don't.

The only reason I pressed was to see if you are realizing that the Bible doesn't explain some of the things you would expect it to explain. The Bible is the word of God, the document showing how to be saved, and yet it fails to explain important things.

 

Right now, your explanation suggests that a lot of people will go to Heaven without believing in Jesus. It sounds like believing in Jesus isn't as necessary as most Christians make it out to be.

 

(And I'm sorry that it offends you that I'm asking these questions. But you're here after all, for the purpose of being challenged. You want the challenge to think and work out the kinks in your armor of faith, don't you?)

[Guest end3]

I don't know why you chose to press the issue....the bible also states that we don't see everything. Noah was "favored" or "found righteous" within his day, but I doubt he was sinless....will he be in Heaven?. I don't know. Was Anne accountable at her age? I don't know. Will Jesus judge justly? I have faith that He will. Do I know where Anne will end up? I don't.

The only reason I pressed was to see if you are realizing that the Bible doesn't explain some of the things you would expect it to explain. The Bible is the word of God, the document showing how to be saved, and yet it fails to explain important things.

 

Right now, your explanation suggests that a lot of people will go to Heaven without believing in Jesus. It sounds like believing in Jesus isn't as necessary as most Christians make it out to be.

 

I think if it explained everything we wanted to satify our minds, then we would be right back in the same position as before...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". They had miracles, they had Kings, they had.... What does it take to sway man's will? The threat of Hell?

[Phanta]

What does it take to sway man's will? The threat of Hell?

 

The threat of hell sows dishonest hearts.

[Ouroboros]

I think if it explained everything we wanted to satify our minds, then we would be right back in the same position as before...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". They had miracles, they had Kings, they had.... What does it take to sway man's will? The threat of Hell?

End3, that explanation suggests that God is hiding the truth so he can trick people into the new covenant. Trickery is the method of a liar and deceiver, not the method of someone who stands for truth and honesty. If God is all good and all truth, the God can't be using tricks and deception to get what he wants. That wouldn't be fitting his character, right?

 

If there are alternative ways to salvation, then an honest God would reveal it and trust humans to make the right choice, not to trick them by withholding information. (It's sometimes called white lies.)

[oddbird1963]

 

I think if it explained everything we wanted to satify our minds, then we would be right back in the same position as before...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". They had miracles, they had Kings, they had.... What does it take to sway man's will? The threat of Hell?

 

No, End3.

 

They didn't have miracles.

 

Those were mythical/legendary tales at best. What historical or scientific evidence to you offer to verify that specific miracles occurred? The bible certainly doesn't provide such verification for us. It only tells a tale. Why should we believe the fantastic, impossible sounding tales? Just because you "feel" it is true due to something called "faith" doesn't mean it is something other people should be held responsible for believing.

 

...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". - What are you talking about?

 

"What does it take to sway man's will? " - If god can't give a better persuasive speech than Billy Graham or other highly regarded evangelists, then is he really god? Is god like moses? With a speech impediment? Surely a god could do at least as well as a persuasive speech combined with media presentation support and demonstrations. But he doesn't today. And there is no evidence provided to support that he ever did. It only takes information, presentation and credibility to sway the will. You haven't offered us any of those.

 

What we do have are plausible explanations of how myths and legends get started. We also have techniques, demonstrated by modern day magicians and illusionists, suggesting that miracle tales could have gotten started by tricksters or even well-meaning religionists and then expanded upon by people who added religious content.

 

So, where exactly do we go to get believable, clear guidance and understanding? You haven't shown that this god is worthy of faith.

[Guest end3]

 

I think if it explained everything we wanted to satify our minds, then we would be right back in the same position as before...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". They had miracles, they had Kings, they had.... What does it take to sway man's will? The threat of Hell?

 

No, End3.

 

They didn't have miracles.

 

Those were mythical/legendary tales at best. What historical or scientific evidence to you offer to verify that specific miracles occurred? The bible certainly doesn't provide such verification for us. It only tells a tale. Why should we believe the fantastic, impossible sounding tales? Just because you "feel" it is true due to something called "faith" doesn't mean it is something other people should be held responsible for believing.

 

...."oh yeah, I see you God, and thanks for the protection, but I will be back later". - What are you talking about?

 

"What does it take to sway man's will? " - If god can't give a better persuasive speech than Billy Graham or other highly regarded evangelists, then is he really god? Is god like moses? With a speech impediment? Surely a god could do at least as well as a persuasive speech combined with media presentation support and demonstrations. But he doesn't today. And there is no evidence provided to support that he ever did. It only takes information, presentation and credibility to sway the will. You haven't offered us any of those.

 

What we do have are plausible explanations of how myths and legends get started. We also have techniques, demonstrated by modern day magicians and illusionists, suggesting that miracle tales could have gotten started by tricksters or even well-meaning religionists and then expanded upon by people who added religious content.

 

So, where exactly do we go to get believable, clear guidance and understanding? You haven't shown that this god is worthy of faith.

 

OB, you may be as athoritative as you please in your posts.....it won't change my mind. It's not that difficult a concept.....if I become used to a luxury, the it ceases to be a luxury. If I am used to having God's sovereign protection or miracles, then it ceases to become as meaningful, as demostrated by Israel. Death scares me, and death plus hell, if it is true, would suck mightily (sp). I personally don't believe I accepted Christ because of the threat of hell. It may have been in my mind, but I don't believe it was at all the primary reason.

 

To the hell as a deception thing, a trick as Hans says,.......that was just something I had pondered in my mind.....because, when you ask yourself, what would it take for all of humanity to submit to something/anything.....the threat of hell doesn't even come close.

[Phanta]

It's not that difficult a concept.....if I become used to a luxury, the it ceases to be a luxury. If I am used to having God's sovereign protection or miracles, then it ceases to become as meaningful, as demostrated by Israel.

 

It's called hedonic adaptation.

 

To the hell as a deception thing, a trick as Hans says,.......that was just something I had pondered in my mind.....because, when you ask yourself, what would it take for all of humanity to submit to something/anything.....the threat of hell doesn't even come close.

 

For many, a threat has the opposite effect. Threats rise defenses up further, eliciting revulsion and anger.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

It's not that difficult a concept.....if I become used to a luxury, the it ceases to be a luxury. If I am used to having God's sovereign protection or miracles, then it ceases to become as meaningful, as demostrated by Israel.

 

It's called hedonic adaptation.

 

To the hell as a deception thing, a trick as Hans says,.......that was just something I had pondered in my mind.....because, when you ask yourself, what would it take for all of humanity to submit to something/anything.....the threat of hell doesn't even come close.

 

For many, a threat has the opposite effect. Threats rise defenses up further, eliciting revulsion and anger.

 

Phanta

 

Which makes me think that the population of Christianity should be growing through love, yet we can certainly see why it doesn't. Which then reminds me of "by the fruits you shall recognize them" as AM always says.

[oddbird1963]

OB, you may be as athoritative as you please in your posts.....

I'm not sure what you mean. You find my posts "authoritative?" Are you saying I'm committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Or, are you saying you find merit in what I'm saying, but you aren't going to let it sway you despite that fact?

 

It won't change my mind.

Are you saying that even if logic, scientific evidence and history are against you, you would prefer to go on conducting yourself as if the stories are true?

 

If so, that is fine. But why do you unload principles of justice and morality upon people based on a god that exists only in your head?

 

 

It's not that difficult a concept.....if I become used to a luxury, the it ceases to be a luxury. If I am used to having God's sovereign protection or miracles, then it ceases to become as meaningful, as demostrated by Israel. Death scares me, and death plus hell, if it is true, would suck mightily (sp). I personally don't believe I accepted Christ because of the threat of hell. It may have been in my mind, but I don't believe it was at all the primary reason.

 

Once again, you act as if Israel actually saw miracles and wonders and experienced great visitations by the Almighty. My question to you is why anyone should believe this stuff actually happened? And if there is no reason to believe this stuff actually happened, why is it a part of your reasoning process? Why do expect US to include these things in our lives as we construct views of the world and make decisions about how to live?

 

To the hell as a deception thing, a trick as Hans says,.......that was just something I had pondered in my mind.....because, when you ask yourself, what would it take for all of humanity to submit to something/anything.....the threat of hell doesn't even come close.

 

All it would take is clear proof of God's existence, his involvement in the world and his intention to have a relationship with humankind. We don't have any clarity or reasons to believe he actually exists, is involved in the world and wants to have some sort of relationship with mankind. Religions try to manipulate and create a sense of clarity and certainty and call it "faith." But it is not based on god actually doing anything. That is why religion has to rely on "mystery" and shaming ("who are you to talk back?") and coerce people with doctrines like hell.

 

It's not that the threat of hell couldn't persuade. It's that the threat is an empty threat and most people, at some level, know that. To maintain a credible threat, one has to be able to conceive of what is being threatened, and assess the credibility of the threat.

 

The conception of hell is only based on analogy - - creative allusions to darkness, flame, garbage heaps and torment. These are loose associations at best of physical realities with something that is supposed to be eternal and exist somewhere outside of time and space.

 

Credible. Is the threat of hell credible? That gets back to the credibility of the biblical accounts. Plus, since hell only happens after you die, it is hardly testable and verifiable.

 

So, how is the threat of hell supposed to be persuasive? It's an abstract concept conceivable only by loose analogies dependent on a god whose existence cannot be established.

 

Even the subject of hell as a persuasive influence gets back to "Why do you believe what you believe, and why should we believe it?"

[LNC]

Let's simplify things a little for a second.

 

LNC, what does cause/result in a person being sent/ending up in/earning hell?

 

I did post earlier that the reason that a person is sent to hell is because of sin and rebellion against God.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Intellectual finesse is always in question, IMO, when one is a believer. He is, however, one of the few xians who visit who can string together a grammatically correct sentence and he does have a good vocabulary and a reasonably good understanding of logic. Unfortunately, his use of logic is self-serving and by definition intellectually dishonest. My best guess is the guy is above average in intelligence but below average in emotional intelligence as he lacks integrity and empathy. At least that's what I get from this thread. I've pretty much ignored his earlier posts.

 

Thank you for the nice things that you said. As for the charge of intellectual dishonesty, I will be willing to debate you on any subject for which you think that is the case. As to the charge of emotional intelligence and empathy, I don't think you have enough evidence on which to judge me in that area. My wife and kids would be a better judge as they puts up with me every day. I'll ask them and let you know what they say. However, as to your charge, it seems a bit undeserved as I never attack people on this (or any other) site and don't try to play on emotions, call names or in any other way be mean. So, I'm not sure on what you base that.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Since I can conveniently read Attic Greek, the parent language to the Koine Greek of the New Testament, would you mind posting the SPECIFIC verse or verses that you say were not found in the original? I would like to see how this material was rendered in it's original greek.

 

From my cursory examination of Mark 16:16 in the original Koine Greek, it is evident that the exact meaning of that verse is that belief is the criteria for salvation, and without belief, there is no salvation. Do you have any other verses to back up your interpretation of the bible? I would also like to examine them in the original Koine Greek.

 

I don't need a "good English translation", as I am quite competent with the original Greek. And for the record, I was a christian for decades, and I have never met a christian who would not accept belief as the SOLE criteria for salvation. According to standard christian doctrine, as I am aware of it, Anne Frank would burn in hell, because she did not believe in jesus christ as her lord and saviour. The question is not whether she was an ethnic jew, but whether she was a practicing jew, and it is her identity as a practicing jew that precludes her from salvation. If she accepted jesus christ as her lord and saviour, she would no longer be a jew, but a christian.

 

Hey, that's great. Why in the world do you know Attic Greek? Are you studying ancient documents? There are three that come to mind immediately, two found in most English NTs and one that is only in the KJV. The two found in all English NTs are John 7:53-8:11 (woman caught in adultery), and Mark 16:9-20 (called the long ending of Mark's Gospel). The passage included in the KJV, but not in other English NTs is 1 John 5:7-8. I believe those are the only ones, but I may be mistaken on that.

 

Now, I'm not sure what your understanding of Greek will do for you since these are not considered to be texts that Christians use in defense of doctrines regarding the Christian tradition. Again, it is not the criteria for salvation that was in question here, it was the criteria for condemnation; at least, that was with what the original question dealt. I too would say that salvation is based upon Jesus finished work on the cross and our trust in him. So, neither Anne Frank nor anyone else will go to hell for not trusting in Jesus; however, trusting in Jesus can spare a person from hell. Can you see the distinction?

 

LNC

[DesertBob]

So, how is the threat of hell supposed to be persuasive? It's an abstract concept conceivable only by loose analogies dependent on a god whose existence cannot be established.

This is an excellent point. Hell is a very weak concept and has traction only because of fear of the unknown and centuries of legend and indoctrination at all levels of society.

 

If some random thug knocked on my front door and tried to extort $$ out of me, what would be effective in forcing me to comply? Perhaps, the threat of having my face pulverized with brass knuckles, made credible by the fact I can observe the guy weighs 275 pounds, is all muscle, is menacing, and actually has brass knuckles? Perhaps it would be even more persuasive if he gave me a brief demonstration.

 

But what if he said, pay up, or I'll send you to hell when you die?

 

The first threat I can assess and relate to the real world, observable similar incidents, the reputation of the mob, etc. The second threat I cannot assess at all, and so it has relatively little credibility. In addition, he's a 275 pound guy with brass knuckles; it would be much simpler to just bash my face in and promise more to come if I don't pay up. Why go through the gyrations of posing a theological threat when there is a concrete temporal threat at his disposal, which is much easier to evaluate?

 

Now we're talking about god here, who is capable of anything. So why not give people an experience of hell (or better, a blissful taste of heaven -- carrot rather than stick)? Why not say, here is a pot of gold, a beautiful and adoring woman, and your dream job -- all yours if you will follow me. Or, if he must, "here is a 60 second preview of the torments of hell" -- you can avoid this if you will follow me. But no ... he speaks to no one, you have to stumble on some statements in a book about something no one has ever seen or experienced that will allegedly happen after you are dead. The very need to appeal to such an obscure reason for doing anything suggests an utter lack of substance to the whole proposition.

[LNC]

I enjoy your posts. I share in your thoughts expressed here. I'll add that "works" is a double-edged sword that cuts through what I experience coming from those voices of the Christian faith who uphold doctrinal correctness and adherence as indications of salvation. They are correct that works don't save, but incorrect in not recognizing that doctrinal correctness and adherence as the judge of salvation is itself a salvation by works. It's "what" you believe. It's "what you don't do" that makes you "saved", in how it is expressed through their perceptions.

 

Then there are those who say that works are evidence of salvation (to use that word as an indication of an active relationship, or connection with the "divine", or the higher, transcendent state of ultimate Being - tough language to express). And I would agree that one who is living in connection with higher Truth (however you wish to speak of that in terms of higher love), will in fact express in their actions that very nature.

 

The double-edged sword is that in the religion that says we aren't saved by works, they are cut by it when that exclaim on one hand this truth, but then fail to show the fruits of it themselves. They are who they attempt to judge, and by that are themselves condemned by their own words applied to them exposing their carnal-minded hearts which manifests in their imaginations, attitudes, words, and actions.

 

First, this is a very thoughtful post. I obviously don't agree with everything you've said, but you apparently have thought much about what you believe and express it well.

 

The issue of faith versus works has been a hotly debated issue through the centuries. I was raised in a tradition that taught that it was works, plus faith, that saved a person. As I grew up I always wondered how much I would have to do to be saved. Would my works simply have to outweigh my sins? If that was the case, I realized early on in my life, before i started acting "really bad", that that wasn't going to happen. Then, things just got progressively worse. Fortunately, the Lord saved me from myself and what I was doing. Unfortunately, two of my brothers continued down that path and are dead today because of it.

 

The issue is how to reconcile the Apostle Paul, who says that we cannot be saved by works (Eph. 2:8; Gal. 2:15-16) and James, who says that we are saved by works (James 2:18-19). Luther wanted to solve it by ripping James out of the Bible, but obviously that did not happen. The way that it works out is the way that you seem to be implying. From a heavenly perspective, we cannot be saved by works. However, from a human perspective we determine whether a person is saved by looking at how he lives his life. I cannot look into the heart or mind of a person, I can only look at how he lives his life. God will look at the life the person lived in judging him, but not for salvation, only for the amount of reward due.

I've come to see that Christianity in the way it is being expressed in modern apologetic is focused on the system as being true, and not a way to Truth that transcends not only its' own system it seeks to defend, but all systems. It trades that higher, transcendent truth that manifests itself through humans - everywhere, for a system of religion as the truth itself. It's literalism is an attempt to reduce it, to reduce "God", to scientific terms, and thus negating and destroying its nature in so doing and supplanting it with the argument as that truth. And so the double-edged sword comes back to cut them as they "wrongfully divide".

 

What's helpful for me to understand about Christianity is that it can, or rather should be understood in a greater context of human evolution, part of a process of our evolution, and not a singular static system that can be evaluated in binary, two-dimensional terms. It's a multifaceted, non-singular system in a minimally, four-dimensional space, just as any system of religion or society or philosophy is. The questions then become not questions of right/wrong, but of value to growth and deeper and higher truth. To be literalistic with it, or any other system of human truth (which transcends, but includes science alone), is to disallow its effectiveness in the human life and the world.

 

Nobody goes to some barbaric hell, but plenty live in unawareness. And the fruits of their lives show their hearts. It's not about doctrinal correctness. It's about life, as evolving beings.

 

 

Sorry LNC I've been occupied elsewhere. Maybe at some point we can have that discussion beyond your apologetic.

 

I would disagree with you as to your assessment of Christian apologetics. I am now taking a class in ethics and we have spent most of our time reading and discussing epistemology (how we know what we know). In other words, we have to know that there is a Truth and that we can access it before we can determine what that Truth is. However, I don't know how Truth can transcend its own system, that seems to be illogical to me. Maybe you can explain how that would happen. I don't know that Christianity reduces God to scientific terms; however, if God is true, then he must fit within our understanding of science, or at least, not be done away with as a result of that understanding as Stephen Hawking is attempting to do now. Because we try to understand God truly in no way implies that we will know him exhaustively. So, if I know literal facts about God, I haven't diminished him, I have simply understood certain aspects of him that he has revealed.

 

I'm not sure if you are saying that right/wrong are invalid categories, but if so, then we have no basis for growth and deeper and higher truth. Unless we can really say that some things are right and some are wrong, i don't see a way to distinguish truth from error. If we really don't know what is literally true than there is no real truth, only opinions, feelings, etc. We end up in a type of Enlightenment emotivism that the postmoderns rail against.

 

Now, you say that nobody goes to a barbaric hell, which is a statement that is either literally true or literally false. However, it is a statement that we can assess for its truth value as we can your other statements. I would ask you on what you base your view?

 

Good to interact with you.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Let's simplify things a little for a second.

 

LNC, what does cause/result in a person being sent/ending up in/earning hell?

 

I did post earlier that the reason that a person is sent to hell is because of sin and rebellion against God.

 

LNC

Unless they believe in Jesus. Jesus is the magical pixie dust that will undo sin and rebellion, and since everyone, regardless of faith, is born with a sinful nature and rebellious against God, it would mean that what really separate a person from God is the belief in Jesus or not. Since sin and rebellion is something that is uniform for all humans.

 

Or do you believe that some people can live a life without sin or rebellion against God and yet not believe in Jesus?

[Guest end3]

I'm not sure what you mean. You find my posts "authoritative?" Are you saying I'm committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Or, are you saying you find merit in what I'm saying, but you aren't going to let it sway you despite that fact?

 

I was referring to your "No END3" declaration.

 

Are you saying that even if logic, scientific evidence and history are against you, you would prefer to go on conducting yourself as if the stories are true?

 

If so, that is fine. But why do you unload principles of justice and morality upon people based on a god that exists only in your head?

 

Where else is it relevant that He exist?

 

Once again, you act as if Israel actually saw miracles and wonders and experienced great visitations by the Almighty. My question to you is why anyone should believe this stuff actually happened? And if there is no reason to believe this stuff actually happened, why is it a part of your reasoning process? Why do expect US to include these things in our lives as we construct views of the world and make decisions about how to live?

 

Yes, the bible states this is what happened...visits, etc. Why you ask? Because it presents a hope for something better in I expect all present scenarios.....by my reasoning. I have faith that some of it did happen as stated and perhaps some of it is symbolic, which, when it goes through my brain as a resonable explanation for life, that affirms my using it in my reasoning process. I don't expect anything of you with regard to you own understanding.....other than to vote Republican this fall.

 

All it would take is clear proof of God's existence, his involvement in the world and his intention to have a relationship with humankind. We don't have any clarity or reasons to believe he actually exists, is involved in the world and wants to have some sort of relationship with mankind.

 

Well, I assume that is an option for sure, but one that is not on the table at the moment.

 

Religions try to manipulate and create a sense of clarity and certainty and call it "faith." But it is not based on god actually doing anything. That is why religion has to rely on "mystery" and shaming ("who are you to talk back?") and coerce people with doctrines like hell.

 

This is always a possibility

 

It's not that the threat of hell couldn't persuade. It's that the threat is an empty threat and most people, at some level, know that. To maintain a credible threat, one has to be able to conceive of what is being threatened, and assess the credibility of the threat.

 

Ask some of the people here if the threat of hell couldn't persuade. It's not an empty threat, it's unknown. And even with credible threats, people don't conform one way all the time, discounting physical involutary function.......key word...involuntary.

 

The conception of hell is only based on analogy - - creative allusions to darkness, flame, garbage heaps and torment. These are loose associations at best of physical realities with something that is supposed to be eternal and exist somewhere outside of time and space.

 

Then please present something regarding subjective manifestation that you can present without an analogy.

 

Credible. Is the threat of hell credible? That gets back to the credibility of the biblical accounts. Plus, since hell only happens after you die, it is hardly testable and verifiable.

 

Is the threat of sadness credible?

 

So, how is the threat of hell supposed to be persuasive? It's an abstract concept conceivable only by loose analogies dependent on a god whose existence cannot be established.

 

You might consider changing schools OB.

[oddbird1963]

I was referring to your "No END3" declaration.

Well, I did write it in a deep voice.

 

Where else is it relevant that He exist?

It sounds as if you are saying god only exists in your head? Is that what you are intending to convey?

 

Yes, the bible states this is what happened...visits, etc. Why you ask? Because it presents a hope for something better in I expect all present scenarios.....by my reasoning. I have faith that some of it did happen as stated and perhaps some of it is symbolic, which, when it goes through my brain as a resonable explanation for life, that affirms my using it in my reasoning process. I don't expect anything of you with regard to you own understanding.....other than to vote Republican this fall.

So, I am curious. Which things in the bible do you think happened as written? And what was the reasoning process by which you concluded "this really happened?"

 

 

Well, I assume that is an option for sure, but one that is not on the table at the moment.

 

And , without clear proof, or shall I say, credible evidence, it would be unreasonable to expect somebody to submit their will to a god that is only in your head.

 

 

Ask some of the people here if the threat of hell couldn't persuade. It's not an empty threat, it's unknown. And even with credible threats, people don't conform one way all the time, discounting physical involutary function.......key word...involuntary.

 

What is the difference between an empty threat and an unknown threat?

 

A lot of the people here were indoctrinated by parents and teachers they trusted at a very young age who thought that threatening children with hell was a good thing. That's not persuasion. That is brain-washing.

 

Then please present something regarding subjective manifestation that you can present without an analogy.

 

". . . subjective manifestation . . . " So, are you also now saying that hell only exists in your head?

 

Is the threat of sadness credible?

 

It depends on who is making the threat, what they are threatening you with and if it is reasonable to expect that they are able to follow through with the threat.

 

You might consider changing schools OB.

I must once again ask, "what are you talking about?"

[Guest end3]

It sounds as if you are saying god only exists in your head? Is that what you are intending to convey?

 

Pretty much....if humanity were not here to discuss such, God wouldn't be relative to humanity.

 

So, I am curious. Which things in the bible do you think happened as written? And what was the reasoning process by which you concluded "this really happened?"

 

Maybe you could be more specific...there is alot of material there OB.

 

And , without clear proof, or shall I say, credible evidence, it would be unreasonable to expect somebody to submit their will to a god that is only in your head.

 

As I was saying before, if you didn't have a head, it wouldn't matter other than the theory that you have an existing soul. It is a popular myth to be evaluated. I don't see many others that offer the need to evaluate them on more than a cursory level.

 

 

Ask some of the people here if the threat of hell couldn't persuade. It's not an empty threat, it's unknown. And even with credible threats, people don't conform one way all the time, discounting physical involutary function.......key word...involuntary.

 

A lot of the people here were indoctrinated by parents and teachers they trusted at a very young age who thought that threatening children with hell was a good thing. That's not persuasion. That is brain-washing.

 

I think that is very unfortunate

 

". . . subjective manifestation . . . " So, are you also now saying that hell only exists in your head?

 

I was attempting to demonstrate that there are subjective things in our lives that present a threat even though we can't adequately define them....emotions.

 

gotta go OB...will catch up later.

[DesertBob]

...we have to know that there is a Truth and that we can access it before we can determine what that Truth is. However, I don't know how Truth can transcend its own system, that seems to be illogical to me. Maybe you can explain how that would happen.

I don't think that was AM's point. My take on it in any case is that any system of belief that has real value should point to ultimate truth, such that one can transcend any mere "-ism" including the belief system's own "-ism". Presumably any system is imperfect or at least imperfectly accessible without a certain level of awareness and understanding. You find this even in within the belief system of scripture, where the Law is characterized as a teacher that leads one to a higher truth, namely grace, where "all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable" -- where the Law, the teaching of the entire Old Testament, is fulfilled and transcended and yet on another level not at all invalidated. Both are correct, neither is incorrect.

 

I agree with AM that Christianity tends to focus on proving itself as "correct" and its rival belief systems as "incorrect" rather than acting as a path to greater understanding. Paradoxically, truth isn't a matter of "correctness" so much as it is a matter of enlightenment, of greater and greater awareness, larger and larger perspective, fewer and fewer preconceptions, etc.

... if God is true, then he must fit within our understanding of science, or at least, not be done away with as a result of that understanding as Stephen Hawking is attempting to do now.

I agree that God, if he exists, would not conflict with science -- or, I'd add, with reason. All Stephen Hawking is doing, though, is saying that we lack evidence he exists, and as posited, he would conflict with both science and reason. A Christian cannot go there, even if the facts lead him there, because he is attached to the idea or necessity of god -- or at least, to a particular understanding of god. Stephen can go there because he is not married to any preconceptions about god.

I'm not sure if you are saying that right/wrong are invalid categories, but if so, then we have no basis for growth and deeper and higher truth. Unless we can really say that some things are right and some are wrong, i don't see a way to distinguish truth from error. If we really don't know what is literally true than there is no real truth, only opinions, feelings, etc. We end up in a type of Enlightenment emotivism that the postmoderns rail against.

This is an understandable concern and one that I used to share. It is what I call a "slippery slope" concern based on a perceived need for absolutes or at least for certitude. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it's a needless concern -- or, at least, a pointless one, as the real world doesn't operate that way.

 

To say that there is no absolute right or wrong is no more a capitulating to moral apathy than is to say that because Newtonian physics is not a completely comprehensive description of reality, you can't calculate a trajectory or know the boiling point of water using Newtonian physics. However, in some contexts, Newtonian physics does break down.

 

In the same way, in some contexts, right and wrong break down and get fuzzy. If you want a Biblical referent, consider again how grace is an environment where "all things are lawful". How's that for moral relativism? It's not that the Law was bogus, just that it was not a complete moral framework -- it was relatively simplistic, a blunt, tone-deaf instrument for going through the motions of being a moral being.

[Ouroboros]

Damn good post DesertBob. I just wanted to point that out.

[oddbird1963]

 

. . . good stuff . . .

 

I second Ouroboros on your post. Well-worded!!