Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[Skankboy]

 

It sounds as if Antlerman is presuming that he knows anything about me.

 

 

Even so, not answering won't resolve anything.  I'm interested as well since you seem to have a unique take on theism/christianity.

 

[Ravenstar]

I agree... and am also curious  ^^^   we haven't really received a clear idea of your take on theism/christianity.

[Badger]

So without me taking the time out of my life to read through all of this, what exactly is the point in thinking we need Jesus as you understand him? Have you seen something that we seem to be missing in living our lives that you feel you compelled to tell us your way as the way to all happiness for all souls everywhere? Were you given some actual individual insight into these people where you feel you have the Answers with a capital A, and are somehow not on the same path of trying to figure things out for yourself equally with the rest of us?

 

O.K. Perhaps my first reaction was bit exaggerated. Frankly, I have not thought about that you need Jesus. But now that you mentioned it, I think we do need Jesus (at least in some sense) if we want to be saved. To your other questions: I do not feel that I have all the answers (with a capital A). I do not know where did you get that idea.

[Antlerman]

 

So without me taking the time out of my life to read through all of this, what exactly is the point in thinking we need Jesus as you understand him? Have you seen something that we seem to be missing in living our lives that you feel you compelled to tell us your way as the way to all happiness for all souls everywhere? Were you given some actual individual insight into these people where you feel you have the Answers with a capital A, and are somehow not on the same path of trying to figure things out for yourself equally with the rest of us?

All that you say about me is unjustified and not based on anything I have actually said or even implied.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not presuming anything at all, and haven't said anything about you in this post. I'm asking for clarification as the others just pointed out. As I said, I haven't read through all 11 pages of this, so I thought I'd just ask rather than have to try to put puzzle pieces together.

 

That you appear defensive about it says to me you don't see yourself as the other apologists who presume things about non-Christians, such as them living lost and unhappy lives without their religion. That's a positive if you see yourself as not like them, in my opinion. I have no issue with many Christians in their faith at all, so don't presume I have some axe to grind with you.

[Antlerman]

 

So without me taking the time out of my life to read through all of this, what exactly is the point in thinking we need Jesus as you understand him? Have you seen something that we seem to be missing in living our lives that you feel you compelled to tell us your way as the way to all happiness for all souls everywhere? Were you given some actual individual insight into these people where you feel you have the Answers with a capital A, and are somehow not on the same path of trying to figure things out for yourself equally with the rest of us?

 

O.K. Perhaps my first reaction was bit exaggerated. Frankly, I have not thought about that you need Jesus. But now that you mentioned it, I think we do need Jesus (at least in some sense) if we want to be saved. To your other questions: I do not feel that I have all the answers (with a capital A). I do not know where did you get that idea.

 

 

 

 

 

We over-posted. I love when that happens.

 

An interesting way you put this, that you think we need Jesus "at least in some sense". Do you mean a spiritual life that doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming a Christian? In other words, God is God no matter what religion?

 

Again, I don't have the idea about you believing you have Answers with a capital A. I was asking in essence if you thought like your typical apologist who does, wielding the Bible about as if their opinion about it was Absolute, judging others as though they were God. I'm happy to hear you are open to examining your own views in the same light as others.

[falemon]

 

 

It sounds as if Antlerman is presuming that he knows anything about me.

 

 

Even so, not answering won't resolve anything.  I'm interested as well since you seem to have a unique take on theism/christianity.

 

 

Yes, from what I gather he is embarking on a similar journey I took. It's the best way to practice Christianity because its about finding things out for yourself, gaining understanding incrementally from the position of what you currently hold to be true.

 

I imagine he's decided not to blindly follow a denomination and actually investigate what the bible speaks about.

 

It's something I do encourage Christians to do because few if any Christians actually study the Bible objectively to understand what the writers actually meant and just to understand things for themselves.

 

Too many pastors want you to omit thinking, making it out to be a dirty deed that only the foolish take part in and pretty much telling you to just blindly believe their conclusions at the expense of actually gaining truth.

 

And of course I encourage self study of the Bible for Christians because in my opinion it is just one step in the walk of truth for someone coming from that background, and leads to much nicer Christians who don't just go round parroting the contents of their pastor's most charismatic exhortations

 

In fact when I first de-converted I considered still practicing Christianity as a way of life, so I wouldn't pretend to believe or pray, but I would practice some of the traditions and in fact maybe pray or replace prayer with meditation or something, but still I could enjoy the routines and traditions without having to be trapped into 1-dimensional thinking. So I salut you.

[Badger]

We over-posted. I love when that happens.

 

An interesting way you put this, that you think we need Jesus "at least in some sense". Do you mean a spiritual life that doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming a Christian? In other words, God is God no matter what religion?

 

Earlier I said that faith in Jesus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. I do no think that people are damned just because they have failed to live in the right time and place, having no even chance to hear about Jesus. But I do think that Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, is fundamental for salvation. So my answer to your question is yes. That is what think.

[Ravenstar]

Thank you for clarifying.

 

So we come back to the question... saved from what, exactly?

[Antlerman]

 

We over-posted. I love when that happens.

 

An interesting way you put this, that you think we need Jesus "at least in some sense". Do you mean a spiritual life that doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming a Christian? In other words, God is God no matter what religion?

 

Earlier I said that faith in Jesus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. I do no think that people are damned just because they have failed to live in the right time and place, having no even chance to hear about Jesus. But I do think that Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, is fundamental for salvation. So my answer to your question is yes. That is what think.

 

 

 

 

This is Christian Universalism. Everyone is saved by Christ, even if they never become a Christian. So would you identify yourself as a Christian Universalist?

[falemon]

What exactly is this salvation you speak of? On Earth I see no difference in the lives of Christians to non Christians, apart from perhaps ones attitudes towards uncertain outcomes. Christianity didn't save me from any consequences so it did nothing in my life here on Earth, and I don't believe the account of the selected works that claim there are afterlives that depend on our actions, or in fact anything they have to say about the unobservable.

 

It's wrong on even the observable things so I can't trust its judgement. Though I am still interested in the theology as people do occasionally ask me questions so I welcome expanding my perspectives to some degree (well, to a minor degree as I'm researched more than enough this year)

[Badger]

This is Christian Universalism. Everyone is saved by Christ, even if they never become a Christian. So would you identify yourself as a Christian Universalist?

 

Universalism does not necessarily follow from what I said. You see, it is possible that some people do not want to be saved.

[Antlerman]

 

This is Christian Universalism. Everyone is saved by Christ, even if they never become a Christian. So would you identify yourself as a Christian Universalist?

 

Universalism does not necessarily follow from what I said. You see, it is possible that some people do not want to be saved.

 

 

 

 

There are actually many flavors of Universalism in Christianity, some of which say what you are espousing, more or less. How someone in the face of the Infinite bliss should choose to not enter, of course would not be possible. It assumes an afterlife where your human ego is still in full operation. I can't image that would be true since we die to this body and the ego is tied to it. Right?

 

Also, will you define "saved" for me, preferably as an experiential reality as opposed to a theological doctrine?

[falemon]

 

This is Christian Universalism. Everyone is saved by Christ, even if they never become a Christian. So would you identify yourself as a Christian Universalist?

 

Universalism does not necessarily follow from what I said. You see, it is possible that some people do not want to be saved.

 

How can someone knowingly not want to be saved? Surely it is because they don't believe in the premise laid before them. That's nothing to do with wanting and everything to do with how convinced they were.

 

Given that God does not personally present himself to people, and does not give Christians any special ability to demonstrate they are the officers of God then what reason should a human being believe a Christian over a Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist?

 

If that were a fair judgement there would be a definite sign that is inarguably from God. There would be no need for any disguise at all.

 

For any just person to conclude they do not want to be saved, that person must actually believe that what is presented will save them, and you will see that nobody who doesn't believe that will take the step towards the alleged salvation.

 

The Bible says a sign was given, but those signs do not appear today, and every sign you see today such as speaking in tongues, and what is referred to as the anointing also can be seen in any church, including clear cults, and other religions that have absolutely no relation to Jesus.

 

Well that's how I've seen it. You have to consider what exactly the question of salvation means to someone who has not been convinced, and also consider why they should be convinced beyond reasonable doubt and also why it should be believed over other belief systems.

[Badger]

What exactly is this salvation you speak of?

 

It is salvation from the consequences of sin. Sin does not affects (negatively) only our relationship with God, but our relationship with each other as well. It is a moral and spiritual disease, as it were. Sin is not, however, just morally wayward actions that violate rules or regulations; it is inherently personal in its subject and its object. As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

[Ouroboros]

It is salvation from the consequences of sin. Sin does not affects (negatively) only our relationship with God, but our relationship with each other as well. It is a moral and spiritual disease, as it were. Sin is not, however, just morally wayward actions that violate rules or regulations; it is inherently personal in its subject and its object. As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

So by being "saved" you get rid of the "consequences of sin"? Do you have examples of this? The consequences of sin is immorality? Broken relationships? Illness? There's no evidence that Christians are rid of any of these "consequences of sin."

 

You're fantasizing about the problems, the solution, and the outcomes. It's a fictitious solution to fictitious problems.

 

Too bad you're too blinded by your faith to see it.

 

 

[mymistake]

 

What exactly is this salvation you speak of?

 

It is salvation from the consequences of sin. Sin does not affects (negatively) only our relationship with God, but our relationship with each other as well. It is a moral and spiritual disease, as it were. Sin is not, however, just morally wayward actions that violate rules or regulations; it is inherently personal in its subject and its object. As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

 

The irony is that belief in sin is the moral disease.  Belief in sin is the poison invented and spread by Christianity.  The cure is to realize that there is no sin.  Leaving behind the concept of sin sets people free.

[Vigile]

 

What exactly is this salvation you speak of?

 

It is salvation from the consequences of sin. Sin does not affects (negatively) only our relationship with God, but our relationship with each other as well. It is a moral and spiritual disease, as it were. Sin is not, however, just morally wayward actions that violate rules or regulations; it is inherently personal in its subject and its object. As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

 

Meh, most of the gays I know bring far more positives to the world than the xians, who more often than not support fascist political policies and consider mind crimes on par with real crimes that cause real harm to people.  Remove the religious arguments and morality becomes much easier to talk about. 

[Badger]

The consequences of sin is immorality? Broken relationships? Illness? There's no evidence that Christians are rid of any of these "consequences of sin."

 

You are right. I did not claim that Christians are free from sin. I said what I think salvation is about.

[Antlerman]

 

What exactly is this salvation you speak of?

 

It is salvation from the consequences of sin. Sin does not affects (negatively) only our relationship with God, but our relationship with each other as well. It is a moral and spiritual disease, as it were. Sin is not, however, just morally wayward actions that violate rules or regulations; it is inherently personal in its subject and its object.

 

 

Sin is an interesting term. It can be understood in many ways, only one of which is displeasing an actual deity and his set of heavenly rules. That's actually a fairly primitive way of talking about the human psyche in its sense of alienation and separation from the world, from others, and consequently from themselves. Today we have psychologists, then they approached these matters in mythological symbolism, which in fact is effective to some degree depending on the individual.

 

The myth of the fall of man from paradise expresses this sense of separation, which if you wish to think about it is a good sign! In recognizing our "sin" so to speak, it is us saying to ourselves we wish for unity, or reconciliation to frame it that way. It's not that humans ever actually had that in our past, but it is a recognition in our waking consciousness of that sense of unity we long to apprehend in ourselves and in the world. Prior to this, we were 'asleep', oblivious to this state of separation experienced in the mind because we were fused in it, undifferentiated from it with the waking mind. The "fall" or 'sin' is when we start to awaken from that slumber and see we are naked. Get it?

 

All the rest is theological ways to talk about human existential experience.

 

Therefore, to 'overcome sin' is to become awake and reconciled with the world, with yourself, and with others. The problem with the religious system is that all this is externalized as something someone else, i.e., Jesus, does for you. On the contrary, if it doesn't happen internally it doesn't happen at all.

 

So then the question is, are you really saved?

[Badger]

Therefore, to 'overcome sin' is to become awake and reconciled with the world, with yourself, and with others. The problem with the religious system is that all this is externalized as something someone else, i.e., Jesus, does for you. On the contrary, if it doesn't happen internally it doesn't happen at all.

 

I do not think that that is the whole truth about religious system. Your view is oversimplified.

[Ravenstar]

I have a pet theory about sin, and the mythology that has arisen around it.

 

I think that maybe the story of 'the fall' (which in literal terms is ludicrous) is the way that humans have described the dawn of sentience... from animal awareness (I use this term lightly) to self-awareness. Becoming conscious of being aware of ourselves as individuals and being able to project our psyche was probably a huge turning point in our evolution... and probably precipitated this idea that we are 'separate from'... our environment, each other, ourselves even on some levels. We aren't - but that's another conversation.

 

Hence the wording of 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. We became aware of our actions(volition) and the ability to choose our actions... whereas most animals still react to their environment instinctually (innocence is only truly possible in an state of ignorance). The entire story is a metaphor for this evolutionary leap in humans and all the anguish, as anyone who has ever had to make a tough decision knows, that goes with it. We are AWARE of the consequences of our choices in a way that other life forms don't seem to be. We anticipate, and to understand this we tell stories to express these awarenesses.

 

We also project our more discomforting emotions and psychological conflicts... we disown them.. and we've done this by labelling that 'sin'... we have also disowned it by scapegoating, first the serpent, the opposite gender and then more anthropomorphized through the 'satan' figure.

 

There's more to my pet hypothesis - but that's the gist of it. I believe we have been struggling with this, as a species for a long time, first through animism, then shamanism, then polytheism.. all the way down to monotheism, philosophy, humanism, universalism, etc... I think we are also on the verge of another facet/stage of this evolutionary struggle as we become a more global society.

 

I do not believe we are inherently flawed though... human.. oh yes. We are evolutionary 'works in progress' and it remains to be seen if we can integrate this and continue to survive... we may be a dead end, who knows?

[Skankboy]

 

As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

 

So if you believe in sin and original sin, do you believe that the bible is historically accurate (i.e. no literal Adam and Eve means no "original sin", etc.)?

[Badger]

As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

 

So if you believe in sin and original sin, do you believe that the bible is historically accurate (i.e. no literal Adam and Eve means no "original sin", etc.)?

 

I do not take stories about the creation and the fall literally. That is not to say, however, that they are therefore entirely fiction. They could be "mythicoliterary representation of actual events of human prehistory" (using the words of Peter van Inwagen). By "original sin" I was referring to a proneness to wrongdoing and debt (but not guild) that we have inherited from our first human ancestor(s). This all is speculative, of course, but something like this could be true.

[Ouroboros]

 

The consequences of sin is immorality? Broken relationships? Illness? There's no evidence that Christians are rid of any of these "consequences of sin."

You are right. I did not claim that Christians are free from sin. I said what I think salvation is about.

 

 

 

In other words, we need to be saved from ourselves and our innate nature. I feel Christianity has failed to do this so many times over. Maybe because the revelations are too hidden behind too many veils of obscurity and symbolism. It's too easy to interpret the message literally, when the real message is "you are God."

 

[Ravenstar]

"Earlier I said that faith in Jesus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. I do no think that people are damned just because they have failed to live in the right time and place, having no even chance to hear about Jesus. But I do think that Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, is fundamental for salvation. So my answer to your question is yes. That is what think."

 

hmm.. maybe I'm thick. The words used here: Damned, resurrection, salvation...

 

I don't know what it means to be 'damned'... I see no evidence that christians (or any religious group really) have any different kind of lives than anyone else.. I see no evidence that their lives are better, or they are 'blessed' or even that they avoid tragedy, illness, disease, accidents, bad relationships, estranged children, divorce, job loss, anything, in any way that differentiates them from any other groups, I don't see them as better people either - I've met many people of all and no religions - they all seem pretty much the same when it comes to the human condition... if anything judeo-christians generally seem a tad more hypocritical. I would think that if christianity were real there would be some difference in christian's lives - some evidence that sets them apart....or are we only talking about an afterlife? (which there is no evidence for)

 

Same thing with 'salvation' - if it repairs relationships as you say.. with others and/or with god, I'm not seeing any results that are tangible.

 

Resurrection.. well that's just a rumor, and there is scant evidence for even the historicity of someone named Jesus who fits the gospel accounts (which are far less than 'eyewitness' anyway), much less any miraculous events.

 

If we don't take the Adam and Eve story literally... how does that work?

 

I'm thick, I don't get it.