Why am I a Christian?

[rhuntermt]

Welcome to the forum.

Please don't run away if we ask difficult questions

Oops here comes the difficult questions

 

1)As someone asked. Save people from what?

2)"God in christ saves" Lets see some OT scriptures to back that up

The bible however contradicts you how many accounts

 

cya

Pritish

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pritish:

 

Thanks for the welcome.

 

If we have no difficult questions, we either must be too stupid to come up with them or too knowledgeable to need further answers. Either way, we wouldn't be here, would we? Is that a difficult question? ;-) But, if we both keep asking and pressing the other for good answers, we'll keep learning, so I welome your questions and will no doubt ask some of you.

 

To your difficult questions:

 

1. The "what" object of being "saved from" depends on context. There are two contexts that I care about. One is the condition of being dead. We all eventually obtain that condition, and the hope I see in scripture is that God in Christ saves us all from that condition through resurrection to life. The second condition is the experience of dying that we undergo from birth, intermixed with our experience of life. We experience this almost continuously through physical infirmities, emotional traumas large and small, angst, economic deprivation, social ostracism and various other unpleasantries.

 

2. I doubt you want me to list and exegete OT passages as proof texts, but assume you will agree that the Hebrew scriptures provided ancient Israel with an expectation of Messiah. Their vision of Messiah anticipated a ruler in the Davidic line who would establish Israel as a wealthy, powerful, incorruptible and unconquerable nation. This hope had risen to a fever pitch under the thumb of Rome. Jesus appears on the scene in the midst of a huge internal conlict: the zealots are pushing for overt rebellion, while the Jewish leadership is attempting to maintain calm accommodation to ride things out. All are hoping for Messiah, and many begin to proclaim that Jesus is the one. Jesus, however, refuses to satisfy the desire for physical kingdom. He keeps talking about "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you", emphasizes the sacrificial, servant-king teaching of Messiahnic scriptures and tells the Jewish religious leader as well as the Roman governor that his kingdom is spiritual and not of this physical world, to the dissatisfaction of both.

 

The NT expands on the servant-king/savior message of Jesus to explain how its application is not for Israel alone, and points back to OT passaages to support this contention, which was naturally controversial in a nation most concerned about itself and liberation from its sufferings under foreign powers.

 

If you'd like to cite the Biblical contradictions to the above generalities that you believe exist, I'll be glad to attempt more speficity.

 

RH

[rhuntermt]

RH*, we all want to live forever.  But our urge to live, as well as our unwillingness to die is not a reason to believe.  It's a motivation.  See the difference?

 

If I ask you, "why do you believe", and you answer something to the effect of "because I want to", you have not actually answered the question.  "Why" in this context does not mean "what motivates you", but rather, "what compells belief".

* he, he, I know what it stands for (hints, McLaren, healthcare, universalism).  You did present a challenge to us you know. "logical guesses.  keep guessing"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

spamandhand:

 

I am not aware of anything that compels spiritual belief. If any such object existed, I suspect only severely mentally handicapped people would not believe. So, no need to look to my responses for compelling reasons, as there will be none.

 

Belief involves both wanting something to work, and trusting that it wil, such as the brakes on our cars, the fidelity of our spouses and the loyalty of our friends. Want is motivation, just as you say. Trust derives from experiencing reliability. Rather than merely guessing at the kind of reliability you have in mind, pehaps you would be willing to share some important examples of how your belief system currently works for you, and what you would demand of any belief system to consider it reliable. I'll then attempt to address those demands that are most important to your question, rather than shotgunning from ignorance of what interests you.

 

Meantime, I assume your interest in reliability must have at least something to do with my expression of faith as concerns a God who saves people. In particular, by this I mean both saved from being dead and saved from living in such a way that promulgates more dying than living. With respect to the latter, I imagine many here object to the fundementalist mind set that slowly kills thought and reason. It doesn't require a religious degree to appreciate that the ethics of the kingdom come that Jesus taught - how to live now in such a way to produce abundant life within onesself and in relationships with others - requires transforming thought and reason that is intolerant only of the arrogant pride of having everything already figured out. The fundie mind set is contrary to the scriptures and observably does not work, as evidenced by the experiences of this web site's members.

 

As to being saved from the state of being dead, I am not aware of anyone who has undeniably been through this experience. I realize that there are claims about Near Death Experiences, but until I have the ability to see people good and dead rising to spiritual life from their state of death, I can speak directly to the reliability of the claim of resurrection. You've heard the arguments that something motivated fearful disciples of Christ as well as former opponents of Christ (Paul) to boldly claim Jesus had resurrected and appeared in what you and I might recognize as some quantumly-altered body. Wtihout resurrection, Paul said he and these ohers ought to be pitied. If you want me to ramble on about why I find the historicity of these texts reliable, I'll take a stab at it.

 

Now I gotta go with my wife somewhere, but I'll be back to respond to other messages here.

 

RH

[TruthSeeker]

Welcome to Ex-C. Your first post was interesting....and as so many before I have stated, you seem well on the path to a similar place to where many of us are now.

But, the questions posed are good: Why do you feel a need to refer to yourself as a Christian? You stated the God in Christ saves people...as a belief you hold....but you need not be "saved" at all. You have nver been condemned. That's the insanity of Christianity right there--they give you the illness (sin) and offer a cure (salvation)...but the premise is false. You need be "saved" from nothing. There is no such thing as "sin." We're human beings...we make mistakes...mistakes are only for correction.

 

As for your deep feeling that a part of you continues after this existence...that is your feeling...you can ponder that feeling and reject Christianity. The one thing you know you have is this moment--right now. Time spent thinking about an "after-life" (existent or non-existent) is time wasted from what you have now--this life...if there is contiued existence you'll find out then...if not, then you will lived this to the fullest free from false concepts of sin and punishment.

 

I wish you well....and, again, welcome to the ex-C....and I invite you to my website (below) go to articles page to read my reasons for rejecting Christianity. Your intelligence (as evidenced in your first and subsequent posts) is high...you are willing to question...so invite you to my testimonial of rejecting that religion as perhaps you may relate... Perhaps you feel that to have a spiritual life you need to still call yourself a Christian...that is a false assumption.

 

Best wishes.

[rhuntermt]

It seems like his Christianity is a fair version.  One that feels a Christ within, open to the valuable living teachings, and seeking to improve oneself.  He doesn't seem to be saying he has the answers for every- or anyone else.

 

I think I understand where he's coming from.  NO real room for debate though.

 

Welcome rhuntermt 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the welcome, MQTA. Maybe we'll yet find room to debate. How about starting with dialogue instead? If you're wiling, what is it about what you've heard herethat leads you to the conclusion that my brand of Christianity is fair? What would make it unfair?

 

RH

[rhuntermt]

Obviously Rob Hunter from Montana.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kryten:

 

Bingo.

 

RH, the Rob Hunter from Montana

[rhuntermt]

I think that rhuntermt really believes in his heart, in spite of what he writes, that he personally must accept and follow Jesus Christ as his saviour or he has a good chance of ending up in hell. This is a very powerful meme that has worked well for Christianity for 2000 years. It has infected billions of people, and it may never be removed from human culture.  If one can eliminate this concept from his/her  mind then they have no need for Christianity. But it is not easy. Now although I (and perhaps for some others on this site) profess to be an ex-Christian,  this thought tends to creep back in at times. Sometimes I still find myself talking to God, but then I remember I might as well be talking to a brick wall.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

NorthernSun:

 

The Christians who know me well would gladlly disabuse you of the notion that I need, or anyone needs, to "personally . . . accept and follow Jesus Christ as . . . savior" to avoid hell. But, you don't kno those folks, so I'll have to do my best to persuade you otherwise.

 

Suppose that I did believe just as you say. Then, since I hold Biblical wriitings in some esteem, I would supposedly believe what you've said because it is taught in scripture, right? So here's the first problem: I've studied the scriptures pretty hard, and I can't come up with the teaching that Jesus saves anyone from hell. At least, not from hell as you imagine it, which is as it has been conjured by Christian tradition. Technically, however, I believe that God in Christ saves everyone from hell as actually presented in scripture: the state of being dead, of non-existence, of irreversible loss of conscious being.

 

The second problem concerns your presumption that I believe that personal belief and obedience have anything to do with being resurrected (which is being raised from the dead). The scripture teaches the exact opposite of this, so again what would cause a Bible-thumper like me to embrace such a non-scriptural teaching?

 

The third problem concerns you conclusion that some people are saved and some are not. Again anti-Biblical.

 

Now, if you had instead qualiified your statement to express that I believe that if we adhere to the principles Jesus laid out for seeing and experiencing "heaven on earth" - the abundant life here and now - then you would have been in a much stornger position. But, we haven't had that conversation yet. In any case, if you'd like I'll put my right hand on the Bible or on any of Bertrand Russell's and swear that you got the belief and hell part upside own where I'm concerned.

 

Thank for expressing your doubt.

 

RH

[dario]

hello Rh, I've been gone for awhile, but I see you still haven't addressed my first question. If you did, then I'm sorry I must have missed it, for I just skimmed through seeing if you addressed me directly. I am also a Christian if you did not already catch on to that so I'm sure we hold on to a lot of similar beliefs. Now I realize that many Christians have different interpretations and different beliefs when it comes to Christianity. So I was wondering, going back to your list in the beginning, what makes you believe that there is no such thing as a hell? And in saying hell, I am meaning a place of eternal torture after you die. And if you have the time, could you also explain the reason for the other things you don't believe in that you listed? If you already explained this then just let me know and I will read the rest of this thread. Thanks again.

 

Brian

 

 

P.S. I most likely will not be able to check this thread tomorrow since I will be at a church that is hosting the players from the Browns team. (Even if church wasn't good for anything, at least they have this) GO BROWNS!!!

[dario]

One more thing before I leave.

 

RH, are you a Jevoha's Witness??

 

Just curious because the little that I read of your posts seems some what familiar to what I know of what they believe.

 

Dario

[♦ nivek ♦]

rhuntermt..

 

Welcome from rural OrYgunn...

 

 

Sounds like you've selected the Christ-like things to emulate and managed to pitch the pauline-bullsfuckingshit that has infected every aspect of the *church*.

 

Dunno what the hardcore christers will find to blast you about, but I can warrant that things tend to get fun fast here..

 

kevinL

[rhuntermt]

NorthenSun:  This was so well put.  The sentiment is so applicable to so many of us.  I couldn't have said it better if,  well,  I couldn't have said it better. 

 

Nicely done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra:

 

In my rush to dinner I overlooked a part of NorthernSun's message that your post brings back to my attention. NS states that if the idea of going to hell (as Christian tradition imagines it) is eliminated, then there is no need for Christianity. Interestingly, this is what some Christians say themselves. If I had no impulse to afterlife - if I was merely content to remain dead - then I would agree that not just Christianity, but Jesus himself serves no essential purpose. But since I am not so content, and since I define Chistianity as God in Christ saving people from the state of being dead, then Christianity remains essential. If you perceive Christianity as more than I define it to be, then I would instead say that God in Christ remains essential.

 

Rob

[Mythra]

If I had no impulse to afterlife - if I was merely content to remain dead - then I would agree that not just Christianity, but Jesus himself serves no essential purpose.  But since I am not so content, and since I define Chistianity as God in Christ saving people from the state of being dead, then Christianity remains essential. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, what you're saying is that you believe because it makes you feel comfortable? Content?

 

I'm not sure I'm crazy about the concept of being caput when my heart stops beating. I'd lots rather believe in an afterlife of some kind, where all the wrongs are made right, and there is nothing but love and kindness and all that.

 

But I refuse to believe something just because it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I believe that when the physical body expires, so does consciousness. Forever. Being content or freaked out about the concept has nothing to do with anything.

[spamandham]

Trust derives from experiencing reliability. 

...

Meantime, I assume your interest in reliability must have at least something to do with my expression of faith as concerns a God who saves people.  In particular, by this I mean both saved from being dead and saved from living in such a way that promulgates more dying than living.

 

Based on how you say trust develops, you have experience that tells you whether or not to trust what you have been told regarding how people should live, but you do not have experience from which to derive trust in the promise of resurrection.

 

Consider that "Christian morality is not uniquely Christian. It is possible for parts of a belief system (aka meme) to be true while others are false.

 

You've heard the arguments that something motivated fearful disciples of Christ as well as former opponents of Christ (Paul) to boldly claim Jesus had resurrected and appeared in what you and I might recognize as some quantumly-altered body.  Wtihout resurrection, Paul said he and these ohers ought to be pitied.

 

FYI, in Paul's extant writings, he never claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. His claim is that he was taken to heaven. The only thing Paul has to say about Jesus that even implies he is talking about an actual human is that he was crucified on a cross and was resurrected. However, he says this happened before the beginning of time. Paul is clearly referring to a spiritual sacrifice in eternal time, not a Roman crucifixion and bodily resurrection in the recent past.

 

If you read the introduction to Acts, you will see that the author clearly states his information had been handed down to him. The author of Acts is said to be the same author of Luke according to Christians. So we have an explicit admission that Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the events it records. This puts Matthew and Mark under great suspicion as well since they share plagarism with Luke.

 

If you want me to ramble on about why I find the historicity of these texts reliable, I'll take a stab at it.

 

The texts are historical only in the sense that they are genuinely old and historically important. But, they are genuinely old records of mythology, not history.

[rhuntermt]

Thanks hunter. I 'signed on' as a human mainly due to curiosity and the potential for humor and drama.  ;-)

 

Curiosity has always been my Achille's Heel or Samson's Hair, weakness or strength depending on the perspective I suppose. At this point, I'll just add that I appreciate the tone of your posts. Your non-partisan, non-exclusive worldview is very refreshing although the temptation is still there to play the polarities... as in, "my group is more tolerant and inclusive than your group".

 

Chohan:  As you say, that temptation is always present, for me, for you, for everyone, every group.  Whether or not tolerance and inclusivity are the specific issues, the general error is always along the lines of "we're better than you - somehow, some way."

 

Well I can see why you would look for some hope if you believe in "Full, conscious-less, post-mortem non-existence". Which of the 170 billion curls do you think ceased to exist? The ones who didn't accept your christ? How do we ALL get 'saved' if the majority cease to exist?

 

Logical questions given the filters through which you are perceiving my words.  Let me see if I can help you change filters.  Everybody not now living has died, right?  That's what I mean - they all ceased to exist, and so will we (unless we come up with a scientific means to achieve immortality - I'd settle for curing the common cold).  IOW, I don't buy into the idea of an immortal soul that lives on after the body dies, a belief that you may have assumed I held, thus your questions.  [The Biblical Hebrew word for soul means a living being, nothing more or less.  When the being stops living, the soul, the person, is dead, kaput, non-existent.  Whether or not one believes in Christ in this life is immaterial - everybody dies.  So, you underestimate me when you ask about only the majority who cease to exist - I mean everyone including you, me, the Pope and Billy Graham.  Likewise, we all get saved the same way, then: through resurrection to life.  "And this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."]

 

One might wonder: where does the "we" come from, if we all ceased to exist?  The Biblical claim is that we exist as spoken thought, or word.  That thought does not expire.  Rather, only its speaking does, as the inspired word or spirit which "returns to God, from whence it came." I'm persuaded, then, that the God who retains the thought of us speaks us back into existence, not merely as we were, but as something much more because something has been added to the speech.  That something is oneness with the one Savior to whom this power has been given, and oneness with God though Christ, which is the eternal life.

 

 

Well since we are already portions of the Whole, I don't see a problem. Amanda's ok and so are you.

I agree NS with your above statement and the power of the meme but I would edit it to read, "he has a good chance of ending up non-existant." until he can clarify his viewpoint.

 

Hope that is now clarified, but if not let me know.

 

For myself, it took much more trust to finally turn loose of a saviour/messiah than it ever took to believe. In fact, I can see alot of myself in rhuntermt... perhaps five years ago when I was still trying to hammer the square christ peg into the round hole of a multi-dimensional universe. I thought something was awry with the self-correcting universe only to realize the problem was the christ peg

 

I do not doubt your statement about trust requirements one iota.  Your comment about how Christ did not fit into our self-correcting, multidimensional universe is intriguiing, so I hope you will expand on it.

 

RH

 

cheers,

cho

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[rhuntermt]

Welcome to Ex-C.  Your first post was interesting....and as so many before I have stated, you seem well on the path to a similar place to where many of us are now.

But, the questions posed are good:  Why do you feel a need to refer to yourself as a Christian?  You stated the God in Christ saves people...as a belief you hold....but you need not be "saved" at all.  You have nver been condemned.  That's the insanity of Christianity right there--they give you the illness (sin) and offer a cure (salvation)...but the premise is false.  You need be "saved" from nothing.  There is no such thing as "sin."  We're human beings...we make mistakes...mistakes are only for correction.

 

As for your deep feeling that a part of you continues after this existence...that is your feeling...you can ponder that feeling and reject Christianity.  The one thing you know you have is this moment--right now.  Time spent thinking about an "after-life" (existent or non-existent) is time wasted from what you have now--this life...if there is contiued existence you'll find out then...if not, then you will lived this to the fullest free from false concepts of sin and punishment.

 

I wish you well....and, again, welcome to the ex-C....and I invite you to my website (below) go to articles page to read my reasons for rejecting Christianity.  Your intelligence (as evidenced in your first and subsequent posts) is high...you are willing to question...so invite you to my testimonial of rejecting that religion as perhaps you may relate... Perhaps you feel that to have a spiritual life you need to still call yourself a Christian...that is a false assumption.

 

Best wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Truthseeker:

 

Great name. I appreciate the welcome and well wishes.

 

You are the second person who has asked about why I feel a need to call myself Christian. I certainly have no objections to being called something else. As a visitor to a web site for Ex-Christians, however, it seems fair to me to present myself to you within that definition. IOW, it's out of respect for all of you that I am up front with my statement of belief that God in Christ saves us.

 

You indicate that we do not need to be saved, as we are not condemned. But it seems that we are, doesn't it, because we all die. And that is what my statement means: God in Christ saves us from death. I wholeheartedly agree, however, that Christianity has taken the concept of judgment as truth-telling for correction, and turned it into condemnation/damnation by translation and repetition.

 

You object to the Christian conception of sin, but agree that humans are imperfect (we make mistakes). Except to the extent tradition has poisoned my mind beyond my knowledge, I do not perceive sin as anything other than what you believe it to be: imperfection. If we were all perfect we wouldn't murder/deceive/hate each other. I suspect we agree that overcoming this imiperfection is central to a life well lived. Overcoming imperfection is like solving a problem: you first have to know/define what the imperfection (problem) is. To do so perfectly requires not just good but perfect judgment.

 

I further suspect we may agree that whether or not one intends to follow Christ, if one loves his or her neighbor then one is in practice following Christ's teaching, and thus experiencing "salvation" from the imperfections that otherwise make this life less than abundant.

 

Afterlife held no interest for me whatsoever until the day I realized how many people were unnecessarily living in fear of it. So, the attention I give it now is similar to your reasons for actively disavowing it: to relieve people of their fear so they can live this day to its fullest (which again follows the teaching of Christ, i.e., "Do not worry about tomorrow").

 

I'm bookmarking your site to visit as soon a time permits. My first obligation is to finish reading responses to my self-introduction here.

 

RH

[rhuntermt]

hello Rh, I've been gone for awhile, but I see you still haven't addressed my first question.  If you did, then I'm sorry I must have missed it, for I just skimmed through seeing if you addressed me directly.  I am also a Christian if you did not already catch on to that so I'm sure we hold on to a lot of similar beliefs.  Now I realize that many Christians have different interpretations and different beliefs when it comes to Christianity.  So I was wondering, going back to your list in the beginning, what makes you believe that there is no such thing as a hell?  And in saying hell, I am meaning a place of eternal torture after you die.  And if you have the time, could you also explain the reason for the other things you don't believe in that you listed?  If you already explained this then just let me know and I will read the rest of this thread.  Thanks again.

 

Brian

P.S. I most likely will not be able to check this thread tomorrow since I will be at a church that is hosting the players from the Browns team.  (Even if church wasn't good for anything, at least they have this)  GO BROWNS!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dario:

 

You may be the first Browns fan I've met! Except for a friend I played ball with whose older brother played O-line for them back in the 70s. Next to the Packers, the Browns were the biggest nemesis of my boyhood team, the Cowboys (back in the late 60s/early 70s).

 

I just found your original message this evening. Could be I skipped it perceiving that you were commenting to others rather than specifically asking me anything.

 

I don't have the list of beliefs in front of me here and don't know how to jump out and back in to this reply, but I'll address your first question re: hell. Time only permits a very brief response here.

 

I do believe in hell in the sense of sheol: the state of unknowing death. Between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT pagan beliefs about Hades and Tartarus began seeping into Judaism. Most modern translations do not even use the word "hell" any more. Still, most Christians understand Jesus' reference to Gehenna and Hades as descriptive of conscious suffering abodes of disembodied souls after death. The most famous of these proof texts is his parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

 

We do well to recognize that this is a parable - a spiritual teaching that uses figures of speech. For example, why would a disembodied spirit (the rich man) thirst for water molecules? Why would the two fgures in this story be experiencing afterlives of such differing qualities when they had not yet been resurrected and therefore, in the belief of Christian tradition, had not yet been through Judgment Day to determine their state of salvation and eternal destiny?

 

Now go the other direction and attempt to explain this figurative teaching literally. Exactly how do disembodied spirits fit into Abraham's chest, particularly since it is long since decayed? Or should we believe Abraham was resurrected, but Lazarus was not?

 

This parable is rich with meaning and I can suggest a good web site or two to visit if you'd like for detailed analysis. For now consider just these few facts: the rich man is wearing the robe of the Jewish priests, right down to the color. He has done nothing visibly wrong, and in fact is depicted as a person who is living a life richly blessed up until his "death". Why then is he sent to hell? For not sharing enough with Lazarus? Oh-oh, lot of modern day American Christians may be in trouble, eh? How much giving is enought, right?

 

How many brothers did this rich man have, and what might the significance of that be - has anyone preached on that point, or was Jesus just wasting words? And why should we expect a "wicked" man suffering in hell be concerned about brothers back on earth anyway? That's pretty remarkable compassion considering that even good people tend to become more inwardly drawn the more harshly they suffer.

 

Next consider the other figure: Lazarus. This is the Greek name for for Eleazier (sp?), Abraham's gentile servant who would have inherited all that Abraham owned but for the birth of Isaac and his subsequent paternity, all of which Eleazier helped to bring about to his own detriment - or not? This Lazarus has not noticeably done anything to deserve being in "Abraham's bosom." Jesus is telling a parable. The figures therefore represent/symbolize something other than the literal "facts" shared. What do you think Jesus might have meant?

 

If you have a concordance, electronic or otherwise, you might want to find every occurence of a word or description that you think might mean "hell": e.g., Gehenna, Tartarus, Hades, Sheol, the pit and the grave. Absent traditional "literal" understanding of this parable, ask yourself if it is necessary or even reasonable to understand any of them as descriptive o conscious places of post-mortem suffering. For example, Jesus points over this shoulder while talking to his listeners and tells them that if they live life a certain way, they could wind up in Gehenna. This is where Jesus would have ended up but for the actions of Joseph o Arimethea, who provided a tomb for his dead body. Gehenna, the city waste dump that was "eternally" burning with fire and filled with worms and oher parasites that consumed the dead flesh of corpses animals and human, was the "shameful" non-burial destination of criminals and "sinners" rejected by the nation of Israel.

 

Once you have completed your research, I'd be happy to discuss you remaining concerns. Oh, and to keep this in proper tension, always remembers that if any scriptures teach endless conscious suffering in a post-mortem existence, then those passages contradict dozens and possibly hundreds o passages that teach God saves all. They also contradict a handful of scriptures that teach there is no conscious existence of the dead. Finally, if we attain eternal life or heaven upon death, then of what meaning ior value is resurrection? And since Christ's death is meaningless absent his and our resurrection, of what meaning is Christ?

 

Good luck in your research - look forward to talking with you more.

 

RH

[rhuntermt]

So, what you're saying is that you believe because it makes you feel comfortable?  Content? 

 

I'm not sure I'm crazy about the concept of being caput when my heart stops beating.  I'd lots rather believe in an afterlife of some kind, where all the wrongs are made right, and there is nothing but love and kindness and all that.

 

But I refuse to believe something just because it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.  I believe that when the physical body expires, so does consciousness.  Forever.  Being content or freaked out about the concept has nothing to do with anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Myrtha:

 

Must we never believe things that give warm, fuzzy feelings? Must we instead only believe undesirable things about matters for which we have no certainty? For example, you believe that the death of consciousness is forever. What evidence, what experiential context, warrants your conclusion?

 

RH

[rhuntermt]

Based on how you say trust develops, you have experience that tells you whether or not to trust what you have been told regarding how people should live, but you do not have experience from which to derive trust in the promise of resurrection.

 

Spamandhand:

 

You appear to repeat me here - we are in agreement.  I assume we further agree that neither the reality nor nonexistence of resurrection is proveable.  If it proves real, then my belief holds only positive consequence for you.  If it proves not real, well, that'll never happen - we won't "be" there to realize it! 

 

Consider that "Christian morality is not uniquely Christian.  It is possible for parts of a belief system (aka meme) to be true while others are false. 

 

Agreed on both counts.  In fact, I believe in only one perfectly true belief system, and that is the belief that no belief system other than this single, small exception is perfectly true!

 

FYI, in Paul's extant writings, he never claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. 

 

Agreed, and don't believe I claimed or believed otherwise.

 

 

His claim is that he was taken to heaven.  The only thing Paul has to say about Jesus that even implies he is talking about an actual human is that he was crucified on a cross and was resurrected.  However, he says this happened before the beginning of time.  Paul is clearly referring to a spiritual sacrifice in eternal time, not a Roman crucifixion and bodily resurrection in the recent past.

 

Are you referring here to representation of Jesus as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? If so, we do well to keep in mind that Semitic thought tended to not separate purpose from fact as does ours. In any case, what warrants your assumption that spiritual realities should be void of physical facts?  Nearly everything about the Judaism of Paul's day involved physical representations of spiritual truths - that was the theological and cosmological lens of his time.  You may yet be able to prove your argument, but you've got a ways to go, and I'm not sure you're going to get far by attempting to reconcile what was/is in eternity versus what is or yet to be in time/space.  If you can, you have a rewarding career waiting in either sci-fi, real sci or both. ;-)

 

 

If you read the introduction to Acts, you will see that the author clearly states his information had been handed down to him.  The author of Acts is said to be the same author of Luke according to Christians.  So we have an explicit admission that Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the events it records.  This puts Matthew and Mark under great suspicion as well since they share plagarism with Luke.  The texts are historical only in the sense that they are genuinely old and historically important.  But, they are genuinely old records of mythology, not history.

 

Your first several remarks here reveal knowledge, but your last is merely supposition rather than a conclusion that can be found at the end of the facts you cite.  Perhaps you have other facts that do lead us there, however, and if so I'm listening.  Understand, I am not hostile to the idea that the pirmary purpose of the Bible is conveyance of spiritual meaning, and that much of this is accomplished with myth.  Separating historical fact from myth is no easy task, however.  You are no doubt aware that up until a few decades ago many scholars used to think that Luke contrived much of his gospel, whereas he is now considered to be a pretty good historian on many points previously doubted.  I'm afraid the general direction of physical fact-finding does not favor the presupposition of mythology, at least as regards much of the NT.

 

Now THAT felt like real debate. :-)

 

RH

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

(edited by HS for readability)

[Mythra]

Must we never believe things that give warm, fuzzy feelings?  Must we instead only believe undesirable things about matters for which we have no certainty?  For example, you believe that the death of consciousness is forever.  What evidence, what experiential context, warrants your conclusion? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Our personalities, emotions, memories, and personal identities are all stored within the physical organ contained within the cranium. Even a propensity to believe in God can be traced to a certain area of the brain (the left temporal lobe)

 

It is only wishful thinking and religious hocus-pocus to believe that somehow, when the brain dies, all of it's information is magically transferred to an immortal soul. "All things are possible with God" doesn't get it. Might as well say it's magic.

 

The burden of proof is not on the person who believes that when the brain dies, you cease to exist. It's on the one who claims that your personal identity and memories carry on after the brain is no more.

 

If you want to start talking about NDE's or ghosts, (which is normally where the conversation goes from here) we'll be happy to oblige ya.

[SkepticOfBible]

Pritish:

 

1. The "what" object of being "saved from" depends on context.  There are two contexts that I care about.  One is the condition of being dead.  We all eventually obtain that condition, and the hope I see in scripture is that God in Christ saves us all from that condition through resurrection to life.  The second condition is the experience of dying that we undergo from birth, intermixed with our experience of life.  We experience this almost continuously through physical infirmities, emotional traumas large and small, angst, economic deprivation, social ostracism and various other unpleasantries. 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not sure what exactly is one being saved from

 

I doubt you want me to list and exegete OT passages as proof texts, but assume you will agree that the Hebrew scriptures provided ancient Israel with an expectation of Messiah. Their vision of Messiah anticipated a ruler in the Davidic line who would establish Israel as a wealthy, powerful, incorruptible and unconquerable nation

.

 

And this anticipation is confirmed by the OT. The hebrew scriptures show that he was supposed to be mortal human, not some god in human form

 

This hope had risen to a fever pitch under the thumb of Rome. Jesus appears on the scene in the midst of a huge internal conlict: the zealots are pushing for overt rebellion, while the Jewish leadership is attempting to maintain calm accommodation to ride things out.

 

Who exactly were these zealots and what were they planning to do the rebellion? I am sorry my biblical history is not that good.

 

All are hoping for Messiah, and many begin to proclaim that Jesus is the one. Jesus, however, refuses to satisfy the desire for physical kingdom. He keeps talking about "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you". emphasizes the sacrificial, servant-king teaching of Messiahnic scriptures and tells the Jewish religious leader as well as the Roman governor that his kingdom is spiritual and not of this physical world, to the dissatisfaction of both.

 

At this point Jesus it is not proved to me that Jesus was the messiah or god. People still proclaim a lot of things in the name of god(including christianity). That doesn't mean that the proclaimation makes it true.

 

There were many conditions that the messiah was supposed to fulfill.

 

And besides there were a lot of things that didn't take place after the coming of the messiah.

 

Far from failing to fulfill the OT prophecies, he actually goes and does what a messaiah should not do.

 

Please direct me to verses from the OT, which says that the kingdom was a spritual one and not a physical one. Christians still hope today that christ would come again and establish a new "physical" kingdom(Book of Revelation).

 

It isn't surprising the reason why Jesus was killed cause he turned out to be false prophet and was blaspmising the god of the OT, and punishment was not was death. The god of the OT gave precise instructions how to recognise false prophets and messiah.

 

A proper messiah doesn't go about changing god's eternal and perfect law nor he says that you may keep some law while other you can choose to ignore the others.

 

And again I repeat my request about showing me scriptures from the OT which says that the messiah would be god himself. God repeated states he is not a man

 

Num 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

the sacrificial, servant-king teaching of Messiahnic scriptures

 

According to christian theology, the Sacrificial servant-king is god himself. So god is a servant of himself. Mmmmmmmm. how does that work out again?

 

The NT may claim that it is supported by the OT, but it is only after reading the bible it doesn't turn out so. The NT has just hijacked the theology of the OT and refashioned it into something else

[rhuntermt]

One more thing before I leave.

 

RH, are you a Jevoha's Witness??

 

Just curious because the little that I read of your posts seems some what familiar to what I know of what they believe.

 

Dario

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dario:

 

After going to bed I recalled somebody here asking this - sorry you were overlooked twice! No, not a JW, never been, not evenfamiliar with their belief system. Content aside, I couldn't be one just based on their exclusion of windows from their buildings - gotta see the sun and sky.

 

RH

[Skankboy]

If I had no impulse to afterlife - if I was merely content to remain dead - then I would agree that not just Christianity, but Jesus himself serves no essential purpose. But since I am not so content, and since I define Chistianity as God in Christ saving people from the state of being dead, then Christianity remains essential.

 

I'm sorry RT, but this just looks like a variation on Pascal's Wager to me. Replace "content" w/"fear" and it's exactly the same thing. The desire for the continuation of the "I" (is that better than "ego"? ) is natural in a being that is aware of it's own mortality. Nobody really wants to die. To desire so would be a sign of sickness. The "impulse to life", as you describe it, doesn't require a supernatural basis, so why do you ascribe it one?

 

For me, Christianity tends to mistake the goal for the journey. Which is more selfless: being "good" according to a set of beliefs for the promise of a future reward or trying to be a "good" person for sake of being a good person?

 

Sometimes it seems the entire paradigm of salvation is just like Santa, only instead of presents/coal there's heaven/hell (or life/death in your interpretation).

 

IMOHO,

[spamandham]

I assume we further agree that neither the reality nor nonexistence of resurrection is proveable.

 

If it is real, it is possibly provable, as the bible claims that many dead were resurrected when Jesus died, and were seen by many walking around the holy city (Jarusalem). Don't you agree that zombies walking around Jarusalem would be an incredible event that should have found its way into numerous historical records had it actually happened?

 

However, if it isn't real, then it's falseness is not provable. But the question isn't whether it can be proven false or not, but rather, why believe it at all if it can't be shown to be true? I seriously doubt your standard is "I believe it if it can't be disproven" in other aspects of your life.

 

Are you referring here to representation of Jesus as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? If so, we do well to keep in mind that Semitic thought tended to not separate purpose from fact as does ours.

 

What is your basis for this claim? The Old Testament is filled with examples of god's relationship with men changing as the result of actions of men.

 

Consider 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

 

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"

 

What scriptures was Paul referring to? Keep in mind that his writings are the earliest writings in the New Testament. He is referring to the Jewish scriptures. So the obvious question is, which scriptures? The concept of the Messiah dying for sins and rising on the third day is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

 

Was Paul uninformed? Was he just making stuff up? No, he was reading between the lines in the Old Testament and moved by visions to come up with a new Revelation. This is the revealed mystery Paul referrs to over and over.

 

Romans 16

"25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen."

 

Notice that in Galatians, Paul explains his role in all this is to preach the revelation:

Galatians 1:16

"God chose to reveal his Son in me, and through me to preach him to the gentiles."

 

This makes no sense at all if Paul viewed Jesus as a historical person. Paul's view is that Paul plays a special role in revealing the Son. How can that be if Jesus himself had an earthly ministry just a few years earlier?

 

Earl Doherty has put together an excellent analysis of Paul's perspective of Jesus, which I'm using:

 

Was there a historical Jesus?

 

In any case, what warrants your assumption that spiritual realities should be void of physical facts?

 

I don't recall assuming that. My position is positivism. Unless there is positive reason (not to be confused with motivation) to believe something, it is summarily dismissed.

 

Your first several remarks here reveal knowledge, but your last is merely supposition rather than a conclusion that can be found at the end of the facts you cite.

 

True. These texts are assumed false (mythology) until proven true. The standard is higher than for other historical writings because the Bible makes fantastic claims. To paraphrase Sagan, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. This is the same standard we all use in our daily lives.

 

Separating historical fact from myth is no easy task, however.

 

It isn't hard at all. When fantastic claims are made and are supported by crap evidence, myth is the conclusion. Myth is the default assumption for such claims, and I'm sure you apply that assumption to other such fantastic claims that are outside your belief system.

 

You are no doubt aware that up until a few decades ago many scholars used to think that Luke contrived much of his gospel, whereas he is now considered to be a pretty good historian on many points previously doubted.  I'm afraid the general direction of physical fact-finding does not favor the presupposition of mythology, at least as regards much of the NT.

 

Should we be surprised that the Gospels contain some accurate history? They are legitimately old. Even writers of fiction usually interweave real history and real places.

[All Gods Fail]

Was Paul uninformed? Was he just making stuff up? No, he was reading between the lines in the Old Testament and moved by visions to come up with a new Revelation. This is the revealed mystery Paul referrs to over and over.

 

Romans 16

"25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen."

 

Notice that in Galatians, Paul explains his role in all this is to preach the revelation:

Galatians 1:16

"God chose to reveal his Son in me, and through me to preach him to the gentiles."

 

This makes no sense at all if Paul viewed Jesus as a historical person. Paul's view is that Paul plays a special role in revealing the Son. How can that be if Jesus himself had an earthly ministry just a few years earlier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excellent summation, spamandham! I've been struggling to understand the whole Paul conundrum, and you just made it click for me! Thanx!

[TruthSeeker]

RH:

 

Yes, we (you andI) do agree that the highrest aim then is to endeavor to live expressing love....for me, that's my guiding principle....to love all as my brother and sister. No one is excluded from that love (in fact, my pursuit of understanding love was a significant factor in my rejection of Christianity as well--Christianity-its dogma--teaches sin--and that there are distinctions between people--and there was just no way I could look at the "Christian" family as my family and not the whole of the human race). I do believe in the love Jesus taught...but view Jesus as a man who was a teacher--a teacher as others--and as each of us can be. Christianity divides people...and I believe love cannot be divided.

 

As for death, I have no fear. In fact, I live my life with this: there are only two emotions-- love...and fear. I reject fear--just as I reject the concept of sin. Thus, it doesn't bother me to consider that death is the end... what is-is. I need no comfort to protect from some fear that I might not continue to exist. Whatever the reality is ....is....no matter what ways people try and comfort themselves now. I just cannot understand why people feel a need to have a belief about an afterlife....why not spend all your energy living in this moment--you know you have this. I do see how your feeling may comfort those who are inclined toward fear....but for me, I have no such fear. I just want to live while I'm alive. One may speculate about what happens next....but it really is not important....that is if you do not fear it. The fear concept it would seem to me is not relieved by a Christian beleif but strengthened....fear of death...fear of damnation or punishment...fear of whether you're living in "God's will" or not...etc. I have no fear. I just endeavor to live my life in ways that please me...my value, yes, is love...and I try and understand what that means in relation to others. But, I just don't fear death. If it's the end...it's the end of the world for me...and the world goes on for those still living...why would that bother someone?

 

Anyway, interesting thread you've started here...the thing you and I do agree on is that love is a principle to heal and nurture...for me, it does not take any religious dogma to know that. And, I will not choose to belief anything in life just to give me comfort or relieve fear of the unknown...I just reject fear...it is irrational. Actually, it has been my experience that Christians do fear death--that's why they cling to their religious dogma and rituals... Perhaps, well obviously, some may not as you are an example of...due to your decision to believe a Christian doctrine. For me, I have no fear of death. I just live to the fullest now.

 

Yes, you've got lots to read on all our replies...glad you bookmarked my site for another time...and am appreciating the dialogue you've begun here. (Thanks for the compliment on my screen name--it describes me perfectly... seeking truth.)

 

TruthSeeker

 

 

 

 

 

Truthseeker:

 

Great name.  I appreciate the welcome and well wishes. 

 

You are the second person who has asked about why I feel a need to call myself Christian.  I certainly have no objections to being called something else.  As a visitor to a web site for Ex-Christians, however, it seems fair to me to present myself to you within that definition.  IOW, it's out of respect for all of you that I am up front with my statement of belief that God in Christ saves us. 

 

You indicate that we do not need to be saved, as we are not condemned.  But it seems that we are, doesn't it, because we all die.  And that is what my statement means: God in Christ saves us from death.  I wholeheartedly agree, however, that Christianity has taken the concept of judgment as truth-telling for correction, and turned it into condemnation/damnation by translation and repetition.

 

You object to the Christian conception of sin, but agree that humans are imperfect (we make mistakes).  Except to the extent tradition has poisoned my mind beyond my knowledge, I do not perceive sin as anything other than what you believe it to be: imperfection.  If we were all perfect we wouldn't murder/deceive/hate each other.  I suspect we agree that overcoming this imiperfection is central to a life well lived.  Overcoming imperfection is like solving a problem: you first have to know/define what the imperfection (problem) is.  To do so perfectly requires not just good but perfect judgment.

 

I further suspect we may agree that whether or not one intends to follow Christ, if one loves his or her neighbor then one is in practice following Christ's teaching, and thus experiencing "salvation" from the imperfections that otherwise make this life less than abundant.

 

Afterlife held no interest for me whatsoever until the day I realized how many people were unnecessarily living in fear of it.  So, the attention I give it now is similar to your reasons for actively disavowing it: to relieve people of their fear so they can live this day to its fullest (which again follows the teaching of Christ, i.e., "Do not worry about tomorrow").

 

I'm bookmarking your site to visit as soon a time permits.  My first obligation is to finish reading responses to my self-introduction here.

 

RH

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[TruthSeeker]

RH, you said, "You indicate that we do not need to be saved, as we are not condemned. But it seems that we are, doesn't it, because we all die."

 

One extra note here to my post I just made....No, I do not agree with that premise. Death, to me, is not a condemnation. It's just part of nature. I do not relate to the concept that death is something to be viewed negatively. It just is...and it's part of nature...life and death...nothing about judegment there... Look at all the earth's creatures, do you feel all creatures are condemned because they die? I just don't view death in that way....death is not a punishment. So, I do not seek "salvation,"....there is nothing to be saved from. Likewise in your belief system of being "saved" from death...it may give you comnfort but you relate it to "God through Jesus" I think you said, does it follow then that in your belief system those who do not share your belief system and concepts are not privy to being "saved" from death? See, that's something I reject....I believe we're all equals...not one is better than another...we're just human beings making choices...and I feel it is best for me to make those choices free from any religious dogma which is man-made.

 

Best wishes,

TruthSeeker