|
... Hypothetically this person described below is me. In fact not hypothetically there are a lot of people like this.
I do not break any of gods commandments with regularity. Not even the "thou shalt have no god befor me" one (they are all perfectly side by side in the trash bin). I am a good person. ...
But... I still get eternal damnation.Meanwhile Joe d~~@~ead the wife beating child molester gets in to heaven because he found Jesus and earnestly repented just before he kicked it.
I'm sorry but your complaint seems completely illogical to me so I'm unsure whether you sincerely are seeking a response or if you're just on this thread to "stir the pot".
You've stated quite clearly and strongly that you don't personally believe a God exists (and therefore, no Jesus, no salvation, no Hell, etc) and that anyone who *does* believe such things is a fool or worse. Therefore, why do you complain about a possible future (eternal damnation of your soul) which you do not even believe is capable of happening (for numerous reasons!)? If there's no God then there's no reason for you to worry about what some "deluded" individuals who *do* believe in such a ridiculous character also believe is going to be your fate.
On a related note, you said that even if you were willing to believe that God does exist, you think he's a complete jerk (and worse) and would certainly refuse to acknowledge or submit to His authority. So again, we're back to the "why do you care about something you insist you don't care about" question. If you are saying that even if God exists, you defy Him then there's your choice - you made it! You should also accept whatever possible consequences that choice brings with it.
You seem to indicate that Christians are stupid. Stupid for believing in the afterlife; stupid for believing in eternal reward/punishment; stupid for trusting that they will be spared that punishment; stupid to believe the God sent His Son to save us; stupid for even believing a loving & perfect God exists and we're part of his plan. So you've established that you want absolutely nothing to do with such wierdos and their ridiculous beliefs. Then why are you acting jealous over the rewards they believe they will receive but you may be denied? Why do you care where you would "rank" in an organization that you hold in nothing short of complete disdain? This makes no sense.
Bottom line: if there's no Hell then there's no reason to be angry that some people (who you have no respect for anyway) think you're going there.
With respect, I think to be fair to Sexi, he is trying to obtain an answer from a believer as to why, if he lives a life which is reasonably virtuous but happens not to believe in God, whether and why he would go to Hell (you know, eternal damnation, the flames and suffering, presumably a big deal). Your answer completely fails to engage with his query. And you don't seem to care, either. Which seems a little odd for a religion which preaches compassion.
Assuming Sexi and millions of people like us are condemned to hell while living worthy, though godless, lives, is this just? Is this infinite love, withdrawn on a technicality? I'm surprised the subject doesn't interest you. Certainly, a self-righteous rant instead of a clear answer to a fairly important (frankly, critically important point in a religiously pluralistic world - there are billions of non-Christians out there) issue will not make non-believers feel any more positively towards their Christian brethren, nor will it engender too much respect for your intellectual position.
Now, I appreciate that you are not a theologian and may simply not know the canonical answer. But I would be curious to know what you and other Christians (or other denominations) think on this subject, even if it is just an opinion. How do you reconcile a God which is supposed to be just and all-loving with an afterlife which condemns those in religious error to eternal damnation, irrespective of their virtue?
I'm sorry but your complaint seems completely illogical to me so I'm unsure whether you sincerely are seeking a response or if you're just on this thread to "stir the pot".... Hypothetically this person described below is me. In fact not hypothetically there are a lot of people like this.
I do not break any of gods commandments with regularity. Not even the "thou shalt have no god befor me" one (they are all perfectly side by side in the trash bin). I am a good person. ...
But... I still get eternal damnation.Meanwhile Joe d~~@~ead the wife beating child molester gets in to heaven because he found Jesus and earnestly repented just before he kicked it.
I think that (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) what Sexi Golem is saying is that this is one of the reasons he rejects religion and that this is something to think about.
Though a question for Sexi--if the guy repented and, theoretically, if he had not been just about to "kick it" he would have reformed and become a good person, then what's the problem? I honestly don't understand why a human being cannot turn over another leaf and expect to be forgiven and welcomed by his fellow man; we have institutions just for that purpose. I understand you don't like the guy, but after repenting, why could he not be considered someone new? I personally feel that being honestly sorry for one's actions is as good as not performing those actions entirely. Just a thought.
Edit-the above was not to address why the first man wasn't going to heaven, but a question as to why Sexi thought the second one didn't deserve to. I reread my post and felt it could be misinterpreted.
|
|
I'm sorry but your complaint seems completely illogical to me so I'm unsure whether you sincerely are seeking a response or if you're just on this thread to "stir the pot".... Hypothetically this person described below is me. In fact not hypothetically there are a lot of people like this.
I do not break any of gods commandments with regularity. Not even the "thou shalt have no god befor me" one (they are all perfectly side by side in the trash bin). I am a good person. ...
But... I still get eternal damnation.Meanwhile Joe d~~@~ead the wife beating child molester gets in to heaven because he found Jesus and earnestly repented just before he kicked it.
I think that (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) what Sexi Golem is saying is that this is one of the reasons he rejects religion and that this is something to think about.
Though a question for Sexi--if the guy repented and, theoretically, if he had not been just about to "kick it" he would have reformed and become a good person, then what's the problem? I honestly don't understand why a human being cannot turn over another leaf and expect to be forgiven and welcomed by his fellow man; we have institutions just for that purpose. I understand you don't like the guy, but after repenting, why could he not be considered someone new? I personally feel that being honestly sorry for one's actions is as good as not performing those actions entirely. Just a thought.
Edit-the above was not to address why the first man wasn't going to heaven, but a question as to why Sexi thought the second one didn't deserve to. I reread my post and felt it could be misinterpreted.
Well, is the point that chap 1 was a terrible sinner and inflicted great suffering, but chap 2 hadn't, but was condemned instead of chap 1 because he happened not to be a repentant believer? Is that right and is it just?
|
How good is good enough? What criteria should be used to gain entrance into heaven? What if you were 51% good (technically failing in most schools)? Should that be enough?
The problem implied with the example is that people's good deeds in their life should weigh in the decision for admittance into heaven. How should this be weighted? Who should make that decision?
I think that it was Erian_7 that pointed out that the Bible implies that we will be fairly surprised who ends up in heaven and who doesn't. I don't know that the wifebeater in the example will truly make it to heaven.
People talk about repentence and forgiveness without really thinking about what that really means. If we do something wrong to someone else and we are truly sorry and want to make up for it we apologize and perhaps offer to make it better/right. The person we are apologizing to has the option to forgive us or not. If they forgive the "debt", then it is gone. It is as if it never happened. That is at least the idea of how it should be. Why do you feel that God should forgive some sins but not others? If the person is truly repentent (something rather difficult for us to determine) shouldn't they be forgiven?
As far as the good deeds thing goes -- how many times will you allow a relatively "good" person to hurt you and still remain close to them? What if they did 87 "good" deeds but really hurt 5 times? Would you still stay close to them giving them the chance to hurt you again? My point here is how do you determine if a person is generally "good"?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How good is good enough? What criteria should be used to gain entrance into heaven? What if you were 51% good (technically failing in most schools)? Should that be enough?
I don't think that's the issue Sexi/Aubrey are raising. Determining who is "good enough" is definitely a task for a being of divine capacity. Their concern is why worshipping Christ/believing in the bible is a pre-requisite to even having one's goodness determined. Why is it that the most important criteria for obtaining admission to heaven is belief in Christ/the Bible?
To boil it down, can you get into heaven as an atheist? Period. If it helps, assume that we have two alternate universes. In one, Sexi is an athesist. In the other, he is a Christian. Otherwise, they perform exactly the same deeds. Which one gets into heaven?
...(pretty much that my response to SexiGolem was snarky when his question was legitimate and deserving of a respectable response)
Fair enough. I admit my response was snarky and that probably wasn't the best representation of the proper Christian attitude. I apologize for that. I'm a moody person by nature and I don't always succeed at surpressing my tendency to mouth-off especially when I'm irritated by other factors. I am sorry and my attitude was wrong. For that I apologize. In my own defense though, I'd like to say that I would've been less likely to respond as I did if I truly believed Sexi was seeking an honest answer (which I did not). There are over 450 posts on this thread and though I'm not asking for everyone to read every single one, Sexi's posts on this thread have consistently had two things in common - 1) what I preceive as antagonistic and offensive language and 2) pretty much asking the same question regardless of past "answers".
Bottom line - my opinion on this matter, as I'm pretty sure I've posted numerous times, is Yes, God is fair and just.As far as the despicable actions of the man in the example, God does not quantify sin. Jesus speaks of disrespect in the same terms as murder, looking lustfully at someone in the same terms as adultery, etc. We humans have what we consider big versus little sins but God does not. All sin is equally offensive to God and therefore carries the same punishment and is "removed" through the same process.
As far as the terrible man in the example repenting on his deathbed and receiving heaven - well, that shows the gracious mercy of God. It's not too late as long as you're alive to turn back, even down to your last breath. Why is this not fair?
Jesus told a parable to illustrate this fact when He said "the Kingdom of Heaven" is like a man who needs workers for his vineyard and he goes out at the first hour of the morning and hires some men to work. The agreed upon price is one denarii (a Roman day's wage). Then several hours later the man goes out and hires more men. The agreed upon price is the same - one denarii. This continues over and over throughout the day until the last hour of daylight when still more men are hired. They barely get out in the vineyard to do anything before it's quittin' time and everyone lines up to get paid. The poor shlubs who've been slaving in the hot sun for 12 full hours are expecting more than the one denarii that these guys who lazed about all day and only hired on in the last minutes earned and they get pretty angry at only receiving the one denarii. The "master" says "Isn't that what you agreed to work for? What gives you the right to be angry if I show generousity to others?"
Same principle at work here. If you repent as a preschooler and live to 120 before you die, you get the same basic reward (Heaven) as the evil pathetic creature who repents after a full life of wickedness while he's on his deathbed. Of course, living the Christian life earns you perks here on earth as well as "added" rewards in heaven but the eternal destination is the same.
As to why a godless but good person (which is an oxymoron but I won't get into that debate) still gets punished is pretty simple. God said quite clearly this is what you must do to be saved. You didn't do it. The Bible is clear that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is none righteous. No, not one.". So, in other words, God is not impressed with what you think is a good life. The only way He will accept you is if He recognizes you as a son; and the only way to become a son is through The Son - Jesus.
The Bible also says that many people will come before the throne of judgement and say - didn't we do this and that in your name? and God is going to cast them out, saying "I never knew you". Thus demonstrating that good works, even good works in God's name, aren't enough to earn your way to Heaven. Bottom line - it's impossible to "earn" Heaven. Jesus did that for us. We have to accept His gift by repenting and submitting to God's will for our lives.
I hope that I have clearly shown my views on this issue. Sorry if my wordiness gets in the way of my point sometimes!
To boil it down, can you get into heaven as an atheist? Period. If it helps, assume that we have two alternate universes. In one, Sexi is an athesist. In the other, he is a Christian. Otherwise, they perform exactly the same deeds. Which one gets into heaven?
No. period.
In the twin universes, Sexi the Christian goes to heaven. Sexi the atheist does not. I'm not sure why an atheist would want to anyway since it's basically an eternity spent worshipping and glorifying a God he rejects; but regardless, ... nope, you don't get to go.
Okay...I think I understand. The only thing left sorta unresolved in my mind is prayer. I guess if we all co-exist or inter-exist or whatever, then there's no need to pray, right? You just meditate as a way to further your own journey of enlightment? What do you do when you have a problem that's beyond your capability to handle? Or when you *need* something (be it physical, emotional, psychological, whatever)?
Need is a symptom of clinging to an illusory view of "self." We try to gently push it away, if it's beyond our control. And, yes, meditation is a way of stopping in the midst of things and just experiencing existence. It's quite useful. Also good is "working meditation," in which one concentrates on perceiving reality by focusing completely on whatever common chores on is about. Sweeping the walk, if your mind is REALLY on it, is a spiritual experience rather than an annoying chore. That's why I take the stairs instead of the elevator, and don't talk on the phone while driving. It's refreshing to live in the present moment, instead of constantly trying to escape from it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No. period.
In the twin universes, Sexi the Christian goes to heaven. Sexi the atheist does not. I'm not sure why an atheist would want to anyway since it's basically an eternity spent worshipping and glorifying a God he rejects; but regardless, ... nope, you don't get to go.
Does Sexi go to hell and burn then?
I must say, that idea is so offensive to me its hard not to type something really nasty. The idea that 3/4 of the world's population is condemned for failing to believe in one particular book or the words of on particular man makes me want to puke. If god were so great, you think he'd give a damn about the rest of the world, particularly those who died after Christ was born but before the bible was available to them, but I guess not.
|
|
I don't think that's the issue Sexi/Aubrey are raising. Determining who is "good enough" is definitely a task for a being of divine capacity. Their concern is why worshipping Christ/believing in the bible is a pre-requisite to even having one's goodness determined. Why is it that the most important criteria for obtaining admission to heaven is belief in Christ/the Bible?
To boil it down, can you get into heaven as an atheist? Period. If it helps, assume that we have two alternate universes. In one, Sexi is an athesist. In the other, he is a Christian. Otherwise, they perform exactly the same deeds. Which one gets into heaven?
This is my thought and there are probably those that will disagree with me.
If you are perfect, you get into heaven. Christ/God makes that a little more attainable for the majority of people through forgiveness (since I think that the majority of people probably need to be forgiven). If you are forgiven then the sins are wiped out -- it's as if it was never done and it doesn't "count" against you.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is my thought and there are probably those that will disagree with me.If you are perfect, you get into heaven. Christ/God makes that a little more attainable for the majority of people through forgiveness (since I think that the majority of people probably need to be forgiven). If you are forgiven then the sins are wiped out -- it's as if it was never done and it doesn't "count" against you.
Are you saying that only perfect people go to heaven or that, if Sexi was on the line between being admitted into Heaven or not, being a Christian would push him over that line? Or, are you saying that a person cannot be truly good because they cannot be forgiven without Christ and therefore inadmissible into heaven?
What criteria should Their concern is why worshipping Christ/believing in the bible is a pre-requisite to even having one's goodness determined. Why is it that the most important criteria for obtaining admission to heaven is belief in Christ/the Bible?
I'm not sure you'll consider this a decent answer but all I can really say is "Because dem's da rules". God has an orderly, precise way of doing things. He makes plans and processes. This is what He ordained as the process to enter His paradise. We as His creation don't really have the right to question His devices. His ways are far beyond our understanding.
To use a lame example (and probably not a very good metaphor but all I could come up with right now), is it fair that you have to be an American citizen in order to vote in elections? I think so. But since it was "Americans" themselves who came up with this rule, some might perceive it as elitist and exclusionary. Doesn't the rest of the world have legitimate concerns on how we run our country? Still, you have to go through the prescribed process before you're allowed the priviledge to vote. God made a plan to save humans from the eternal punishment they earned through their fall from grace in the garden of Eden. Jesus was a major part of that plan. Those who accept and follow God's plan have a chance to be redeemed (rescued, whatever you want to call it). Those who don't, don't get rescued and suffer instead.
As to why a godless but good person (which is an oxymoron but I won't get into that debate) still gets punished is pretty simple. God said quite clearly this is what you must do to be saved. You didn't do it. The Bible is clear that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is none righteous. No, not one.". So, in other words, God is not impressed with what you think is a good life. The only way He will accept you is if He recognizes you as a son; and the only way to become a son is through The Son - Jesus.
That's exactly the message that so enrages and/or drives away the non-Christians here: the underlying insistence that everyone is useless and evil, but by joining a club you get eternal reward anyway. There seems to be, for an outsider, little incentive to do good deeds. For insiders, there seems to be little to guard against repeated evil acts, followed each time by genuine (but temporary) regret and begging for forgiveness. Obviously, some would argue that good deeds ARE an attempt to go through Christ (even if not by name), and that those who commit evil, knowing they can later beg forgiveness, have not in any way found Christ. But the perception of the whole deal being a "club" with a "We're better than you!" message can be very strong among non-Christians.
If I were a Christian, I'd argue that Sexi the atheist is following Christ just as much as Sexi the lip-service guy. But most Christians disagree with me, and so I don't feel to bad at all about not joining up.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
To use a lame example (and probably not a very good metaphor but all I could come up with right now), is it fair that you have to be an American citizen in order to vote in elections? I think so. But since it was "Americans" themselves who came up with this rule, some might perceive it as elitist and exclusionary. Doesn't the rest of the world have legitimate concerns on how we run our country? Still, you have to go through the prescribed process before you're allowed the priviledge to vote. God made a plan to save humans from the eternal punishment they earned through their fall from grace in the garden of Eden. Jesus was a major part of that plan. Those who accept and follow God's plan have a chance to be redeemed (rescued, whatever you want to call it). Those who don't, don't get rescued and suffer instead.
*shrug* Whatever floats your boat. To me, your God sounds like a dick. If he really cared about the salvation of humans he'd provide all of them with a route to receive his love that is independent of being born into a particular culture with a certain education level. A better example would be giving everyone on earth poison, and then distributing the antidote to only a handful. It would be one thing if this was just a pass to Disneyland that only goes to good old Americans, it's another if it's the only way to avoid copious amounts of agony and pain.
Like I've said, I'd much rather be wrong than right given a god like that. Such a being does not deserve my respect much less my worship.
|
|
Are you saying that only perfect people go to heaven or that, if Sexi was on the line between being admitted into Heaven or not, being a Christian would push him over that line? Or, are you saying that a person cannot be truly good because they cannot be forgiven without Christ and therefore inadmissible into heaven?
I don't know.
As I understand it -- Nobody is perfect. I haven't known anyone that hasn't done at least one thing wrong/bad.
Assuming that is the case -- Both people are destined to go to Hell. The only real difference is that Sexi the Christian has someone that can/will/does forgive the (few) "bad" things that he has done. I don't know who Sexi the Atheist is hoping to go to in order to get this accomplished.
So, assuming that there is a very real heaven and hell, Sexi the Atheist is going to hell and Sexi the Christian is going to heaven. One is truly repentent of their "sins" and has someone to go to to take care of them. The other may or may not be repentent but doesn't really have anyone to take care of it.
They both had an equal shot at it. They knew the potential consequences.
This, again, leads to your question that I am still working on to answer.
I accept that my views are offensive to many but I'm not sure what you want me to say about it. I'm sorry? I didn't come up with this scheme, God did (or at least, *I* believe God did). If it makes a person "outside the club" angry at God for His membership requirements, I guess that God's problem (and the angry person's).
I'm truly and sincerely trying to be compassionate and soothing here but I'm kinda at a loss for words (or at least words to express some kind of kindred spirit here).
Can I sympathize with such angry/offended feelings? Yes. But do I understand them? I guess not, because it still leaves me wondering why someone who doesn't even believe the gospel (and therefore the salvation plan) could possibly be concerned with an eternal punishment they don't believe exists.
Bottom line (in the kindest tone possible on a post)- you asked my opinion on this matter. I've provided it for you. I'm sorry if that enrages you. I'm not asking you to substitute my beliefs for your own. I'm just expressing my opinion.
Do I think SexiGolem is a terrible person, deserving to burn for eternity? No, but I don't get to make that decision. He's responsible for his own beliefs/actions. I'm responsible for mine. I work to ensure my own salvation and encourage others to do the same. You certainly don't need to work under my requirements, even if I believe they are the only "right" ones. Everyone's free to do their own thing. I believe we'll be held accountable to that. Maybe some others out there do too. Maybe Sexi (and I apologize, man, that you are the constant example in these cases) thinks he's "good enough" and that his actions/beliefs/whatever earn him paradise over punishment. What *he* believes is true is the only thing that is important. What I believe is moot. He won't get to go to heaven because I (or any number of other people) judge him to be worthy nor will he suffer damnation because I (or any number of other people) judge him deserving of that fate either. God is the judge in such matters. The only thing that matters is what Sexi believes *God* is going to judge him on. But, again, since Sexi seems to have indicated that he doesn't even believe God exists, the argument quickly disintegrates into pointless debate.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Bottom line (in the kindest tone possible on a post)- you asked my opinion on this matter. I've provided it for you. I'm sorry if that enrages you. I'm not asking you to substitute my beliefs for your own. I'm just expressing my opinion.
You're right, I apologize. Like I said, the very idea makes me sick and it's hard not to react emotionally to something so wrong.
If I were a Christian, I'd argue that Sexi the atheist is following Christ just as much as Sexi the lip-service guy. But most Christians disagree with me, and so I don't feel to bad at all about not joining up.
Wait a minute! I was working under the assumption that when Sebastian offered the parallel universe example with Sexi the atheist and Sexi the christian that he was NOT implying that Sexi the "christian" was only paying lip-service. I assumed he meant that Sexi the christian was truly repentent and submitted his life to God's will. I was working under the further assumption that in the example Sexi the atheist was able to lead a "good" life without (Godly) influence or motivation (unlikely but not impossible); therefore, both the atheist's and the christian's outward behavior was comparable ("good" with only rare instances of questionable behavior). Thus, their final judgement was clearly not based on their behavior/lifestyle but on their thoughts/attitudes. God requires repentence. In the example, Sexi the atheist never asks for forgiveness, Sexi the Christian does and is therefore rewarded for it.
You're right, I apologize. Like I said, the very idea makes me sick and it's hard not to react emotionally to something so wrong.
Thanks for your restraint! (sincerely, I'm not trying to be glib).
Now might be a good time to insert a further disclaimer to my comments on the hypothetical Sexi the atheist/christian argument. What exactly are Sexi the atheist's motivations/reasons for his "good" living? Is it love of virtue or is it just convenient, practical, and self-serving (if I'm good then people will like me or I'll take pride in my goodness, etc)? Now, this is completely hypothetical. I'm not truly asking Sexi to answer this question - you're not on trial here, dude! It is just my belief that God judges based on our thoughts and attitudes. Since a person's "heart and mind" are complex and convoluted, God is really the only one who can sort it out and judge it fairly. I gratefully leave the task to Him!|
|
That's exactly the message that so enrages and/or drives away the non-Christians here: the underlying insistence that everyone is useless and evil, but by joining a club you get eternal reward anyway. There seems to be, for an outsider, little incentive to do good deeds. For insiders, there seems to be little to guard against repeated evil acts, followed each time by genuine (but temporary) regret and begging for forgiveness. Obviously, some would argue that good deeds ARE an attempt to go through Christ (even if not by name), and that those who commit evil, knowing they can later beg forgiveness, have not in any way found Christ. But the perception of the whole deal being a "club" with a "We're better than you!" message can be very strong among non-Christians.
There is so much here and overall, I agree with you.
I personally think that there are a lot of people who are claiming to be Christian that are going to be very disappointed when their time comes. I also think that it is pointless trying to compare non-Christians with poor example Christians.
While it may be looked at as a "club", I don't think that I am any better than Sexi (or anyone else). And most Christians that I know don't feel that they are better than anyone else either.
Sebastian brought up a good example with the poison. I would argue that (at this point) everyone (or at least the vast majority of people) have access to the antidote, but he's not going to force people to take it. (Again, I am still working on the between then and now.)
There is so much here and overall, I agree with you.
I personally think that there are a lot of people who are claiming to be Christian that are going to be very disappointed when their time comes. I also think that it is pointless trying to compare non-Christians with poor example Christians.
While it may be looked at as a "club", I don't think that I am any better than Sexi (or anyone else). And most Christians that I know don't feel that they are better than anyone else either.
Sebastian brought up a good example with the poison. I would argue that (at this point) everyone (or at least the vast majority of people) have access to the antidote, but he's not going to force people to take it. (Again, I am still working on the between then and now.)
Agreed (many will be disappointed). Agreed (it's pointless to compare non-Christians with lip-service Christians), who aren't really Christians at all and therefore there is no comparison. Agreed (I don't think I'm any better than Sexi or anyone else). and Agreed (the vast majority have access to the antidote but God's not going to force them).
While it may be looked at as a "club", I don't think that I am any better than Sexi (or anyone else). And most Christians that I know don't feel that they are better than anyone else either.
Assuredly. Bear in mind, I'm talking now about the perception of many non-Christians, not necessarily the reality among Christians.
|
|
Assuredly. Bear in mind, I'm talking now about the perception of many non-Christians, not necessarily the reality among Christians.
I guess that I hope I am doing my little part in changing this perception.
Thank you Paizo for allowing this exchange to happen.
I would also like to thank the people participating in this exchange -- Sexi Golem, Sebastian, Grimcleaver, Aubrey, Kirth, and others. I have really appreciated a lot of the insight that many of you have provided.
Sebastian, if I may, I'd like to use your poison metaphor as a basis for my own questions.
Let me first add to the scenario by imagining that there is no scientific way to detect the poison (it's presence or absence), that everyone is equally affected, that the results of the poison are hideous painful death (which no one has actually witnessed because of some fantastic factor), that only one pharmacist has developed the true antidote (others mimic but don't really cure), that there is no visible evidence of a cured person, and that the result of being poison-free is that the person gets to live forever. Also, our pharmacist, though refusing to charge money for his cure, does require anyone asking to acknowledge that he created/is responsible for the antidote and to thank him accordingly before he hands it over.
Okay. There's the set-up. Here's your situation. You discovered one day that you were in fact poisoned. You learned there was an antidote. You went to The pharmacist, asked politely for the cure, acknowledging his name/work in processing the cure, and were given the antidote. You drank it and are now confident that you will live forever (this poisoning is a relatively recent world epidemic so you can't point to any examples of cured persons who have lived "forever", you just believe it). You're very excited and happy with your situation when you are confronted by your six closest friends. Believing their lives are in terrible danger you might share your experiences or suggest they visit your pharmacist; alternately, you might say nothing and wait for them to bring up the subject. Some time passes and suddenly one day you find yourself surrounded by these dear loved ones and they're all furious with you! "What did I do?" you wonder. All your friends start spewing venom at you and you're trying desperately to respond.
Friend A says he doesn't believe in any such thing as poison. It doesn't even exist so how could he possibly be infected? He is angry and offended that you would suggest such a thing. How dare you imply that he isn't going to live forever just like you! How dare you suggest he's going to die a hideous death!
Friend B says that he admits the possibility of poison existing, he just doesn't believe that he himself is poisoned and/or going to die. He has evidence to back up his stance - first, he sees/feels no symptoms of poisoning; second, some people he's seen who've claimed to be cured still died; and third, he's alive right now so who's to say he won't be alive tomorrow/forever? He's angry and offended that you're suggesting his life is in danger just because you've chosen to believe some poppycock about poisons/antidotes.
Friend C admits poisons generally exist and he himself is possibly infected but denies that the poison causes death and/or that said pharmacist has created a cure. He's angry and offended that you think he needs any pharmacist at all or that you are going to live longer than he is. He is living a perfectly wonderful life! How dare you suggest it is going to end, let alone that it's going to be a painful end!
Friend D admits poisons exist and that he himself is likely infected; he acknowledges that the pharmacist is probably smart enough to have created a antidote but Friend D would rather try to puzzle out a solution of his own. He is also angry and offended that you seem to think you and your elitist "healed" neighbors have the only cure. Why are you pressuring him to see your pharmacist ASAP? How dare you suggest he can't find his own antidote!
Friend E admits poisons exist and that he's infected but he thinks your pharmacist is a fruitcake! He's gone to his own pharmacist and been given a different antidote which Friend E believes has cured the poison. He's angry and offended if, after asking you directly about it, you had the nerve to suggest his antidote was ineffective. Why are you so elitist? Why can't you acknowledge someone else's antidote? How dare you suggest that Friend E should use "your" pharmacist and "your" cure!
And finally, you're confronted with angry Friend F. Friend F believes all the above except that he also believes that The pharmacist has the only real cure for the poison. The problem Friend F has is that he's not willing to acknowledge the true pharmacist by name or sincerely thank him for the antidote. He might even suggest to others that Friend F himself was responsible for his *own* acquisition of the antidote and that the pharmacist had nothing to do with it. He's angry that he can't receive the antidote without acknowledging the pharmacist. Friend F thinks your pharmacist is a jerk! I mean, if he really cared about curing people he would give over the antidote no questions asked! What difference does it make who ultimately takes credit for the antidote? Just hand it over! Friend F is angry and offended at you because you would support the pharmacist's right to require acknowledgement.
There are your six angry friends.
Now, FINALLY, the question. I'm curious, Sebastian, what you think the loving, non-offensive response should be to all your angry friends that you have thus far only tried to encourage to save their own lives.
|
|
I accept that my views are offensive to many but I'm not sure what you want me to say about it. I'm sorry? I didn't come up with this scheme, God did (or at least, *I* believe God did). If it makes a person "outside the club" angry at God for His membership requirements, I guess that God's problem (and the angry person's).
I'm truly and sincerely trying to be compassionate and soothing here but I'm kinda at a loss for words (or at least words to express some kind of kindred spirit here).
Can I sympathize with such angry/offended feelings? Yes. But do I understand them? I guess not, because it still leaves me wondering why someone who doesn't even believe the gospel (and therefore the salvation plan) could possibly be concerned with an eternal punishment they don't believe exists.
Bottom line (in the kindest tone possible on a post)- you asked my opinion on this matter. I've provided it for you. I'm sorry if that enrages you. I'm not asking you to substitute my beliefs for your own. I'm just expressing my opinion.
Do I think SexiGolem is a terrible person, deserving to burn for eternity? No, but I don't get to make that decision. He's responsible for his own beliefs/actions. I'm responsible for mine. I work to ensure my own salvation and encourage others to do the same. You certainly don't need to work under my requirements, even if I believe they are the only "right" ones. Everyone's free to do their own thing. I believe we'll be held accountable to that. Maybe some others out there do too. Maybe Sexi (and I apologize, man, that you are the constant example in these cases) thinks he's "good enough" and that his actions/beliefs/whatever earn him paradise over punishment. What *he* believes is true is the only thing that is important. What I believe is moot. He won't get to go to heaven because I (or any number of other people) judge him to be worthy nor will he suffer damnation because I (or any number of other people) judge him deserving of that fate either. God is the judge in such matters. The only thing that matters is what Sexi believes *God* is going to judge him on. But, again, since Sexi seems to have indicated that he doesn't even believe God exists, the argument quickly disintegrates into pointless debate.
You completely miss the point. The issue isn't that we (me, Sex, Seb and so on) believe in this stuff, we want to test the assumptions to see if the make any sense. You know, God is supposed to be rational, I thought, not a raving lunatic or a mindless bureaucrat. How can you revere something as capricious as that. The idea is nauseating. It is offensive, and deserved no apology just because it is your opinion (if I said I think it's OK to tar and feather n+$!+$s, but it's just my opinion, I would not get or deserve an apology).
And you simply don't get the irony. How do you think this makes God look, or those who worship him? "I don't make the rules"? So you could be a buddhist who helps the poor, sick and needy, surrender all your worldly possessions for the betterment of mankind, and so on, and so on - sorry mate, you don't have "Christian" tattooed on your arse so its toasting time for you. How incredibly petty and small-minded. Did you stop for a moment and ever consider that, if these rules actually really applied, what the ultimate source of them might be? What sort of person/being/thing would have such a mindset? Surely we should be considered for our virtues and sins, not on what we do on a Sunday.
Now, this is intended to be a "civil" debate, and it has got heated on occasion. I used some fairly blunt language back there because sometimes it is useful to get to the nub. But I think you and those who believe as you do don't understand the offensiveness of the basic premise. We hear all this stuff about love, compassion and wisdom - but the big payoff for all this worship actually seems to depend upon arbitrary rules, and has got very little to do with your innate goodness.
You are right - we don't believe so you can ask legitimately ask why we care. In a sense, it is hard to clearly articulate, but it seems mind-boggling, I suppose, to support such a blatantly unfair idea of divinity. It smacks of deep prejudice and to shrug and say "Well, I didn't make those rules" seems either the condone a prejudiced mindset generally (it doesn't matter who you are, but what you are) or a complete abandonment of any thought at all. You know, a bit like in Germany under the Nazis. So anyone who isn't caught up in their "faith" could be quite creeped out by this.
EDIT: Actually, I'd like to step back from the personal invective in my post above. I'd normally just edit it out, but I felt quite passionate about the above, so have left it in with this amendment as a sort of indicator of the heat raised by the issue.
I actually think it is quite brave of Lady Aurora to share her thoughts on this subject with us, even when they are controversial and possibly unpalatable. Only by having an open debate can we truly get to understand about each other, and anger should not get in the way. As such, I apologise for the personal attack in the above post, which was totally unwarranted on my behalf.
But....
I have worked out why the issue bothers me quite so much. I think most atheists consider belief in God, or whatever, to be a choice. But because the choice of a somewhat exclusivist God seems, to someone who questions the "rules", unjust, there is the issue of why you would chose that. Maybe a believing Christian (or whatever) doesn't consider it a choice but an inevitable calling, but I find morally disturbing that, if one accepts the choice analogy, why someone would chose to accept an unjust system like that. As such, it suggests a high toloerance for injustice, which seems hard to square with the "God is love" stuff.
Or, to use the poison analogy, you go to The Pharmacist for the antidote, and he says, "Sorry mate, you can't have it, you are Jewish/Buddhist/Moslem."
Pharmacists and Friends Parable
Heh, heh. Sometimes, competing pharmacists murder one another, too. These other pharmacists muddy the issue considerably, I think.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Let me first add to the scenario by imagining that there is no scientific way to detect the poison (it's presence or absence), that everyone is equally affected, that the results of the poison are hideous painful death (which no one has actually witnessed because of some fantastic factor), that only one pharmacist has developed the true antidote (others mimic but don't really cure), that there is no visible evidence of a cured person, and that the result of being poison-free is that the person gets to live forever. Also, our pharmacist, though refusing to charge money for his cure, does require anyone asking to acknowledge that he created/is responsible for the antidote and to thank him accordingly before he hands it over.
Okay. There's the set-up. Here's your situation. You discovered one day that you were in fact poisoned. You learned there was an antidote. You went to The pharmacist, asked politely for the cure, acknowledging his name/work in processing the cure, and were given the antidote. You drank it and are now confident that you will live forever (this poisoning is a relatively recent world epidemic so you can't point to any examples of cured persons who have lived "forever", you just believe it).
I don't think this analogy is correct. The problems are:
1. There are many pharmacist's offering the cure, and each cure is mutually exclusive. That is, if I choose to consume from the wrong pharmacist, not only do I die, it counteracts the antidote I took from the right pharmacist.
2. It doesn't account for Friend Z, who lives on the island of Bugga-Bugga where the only pharmacist available is the local witch doctor. Friend Z doesn't even realize he's poisoned or that his local pharmacist cannot cure all his ills.
3. The real pharmacist at any time could make it obvious to all persons that his cure is the one that works. Not only that, he could communicate to every person on the earth how to assemble the cure or even how to find him so that he can give them the cure. Rather than just distributing such information, he sends out complicated medical brochures informing them that he has the cure, but only to people with mailboxes.
Friend A says he doesn't believe in any such thing as poison. It doesn't even exist so how could he possibly be infected? He is angry and offended that you would suggest such a thing. How dare you imply that he isn't going to live forever just like you! How dare you suggest he's going to die a hideous death!
Friend A is right to doubt me. I can't prove that he is poisoned, I can't prove that I have been cured, I can't prove that the pharmacist I went to is the real pharmacist. He has as good of a chance of getting a fake antidote from any pharmacist as he does of actually getting the cure.
Friend B says that he admits the possibility of poison existing, he just doesn't believe that he himself is poisoned and/or going to die. He has evidence to back up his stance - first, he sees/feels no symptoms of poisoning; second, some people he's seen who've claimed to be cured still died; and third, he's alive right now so who's to say he won't be alive tomorrow/forever? He's angry and offended that you're suggesting his life is in danger just because you've chosen to believe some poppycock about poisons/antidotes.
He's right. I don't have evidence that he is poisoned or the cure. The fact that I believe I have been cured is not evidence that I have been cured.
Friend C admits poisons generally exist and he himself is possibly infected but denies that the poison causes death and/or that said pharmacist has created a cure. He's angry and offended that you think he needs any pharmacist at all or that you are going to live longer than he is. He is living a perfectly wonderful life! How dare you suggest it is going to end, let alone that it's going to be a painful end!
He's right to be angry. I'm an a#*!+@$ for telling him that I'm going to live forever when I have the exact same set of objective evidence as does he regarding the abilities of my pharmacist.
Friend D admits poisons exist and that he himself is likely infected; he acknowledges that the pharmacist is probably smart enough to have created a antidote but Friend D would rather try to puzzle out a solution of his own. He is also angry and offended that you seem to think you and your elitist "healed" neighbors have the only cure. Why are you pressuring him to see your pharmacist ASAP? How dare you suggest he can't find his own antidote!
Again, lacking any ability to determine whether I've received the antidote, he's got as good of a shot of coming up with at as any. Particularly if Friend D believes that the antidote is something that anyone can uncover and that a pharmacist is not required.
Friend E admits poisons exist and that he's infected but he thinks your pharmacist is a fruitcake! He's gone to his own pharmacist and been given a different antidote which Friend E believes has cured the poison. He's angry and offended if, after asking you directly about it, you had the nerve to suggest his antidote was ineffective. Why are you so elitist? Why can't you acknowledge someone else's antidote? How dare you suggest that Friend E should use "your" pharmacist and "your" cure!
He's right. I am an a$%@%+*. His pharmacist could be right.
And finally, you're confronted with angry Friend F. Friend F believes all the above except that he also believes that The pharmacist has the only real cure for the poison. The problem Friend F has is that he's not willing to acknowledge the true pharmacist by name or sincerely thank him for the antidote. He might even suggest to others that Friend F himself was responsible for his *own* acquisition of the antidote and that the pharmacist had nothing to do with it. He's angry that he can't receive the antidote without acknowledging the pharmacist. Friend F thinks your pharmacist is a jerk! I mean, if he really cared about curing people he would give over the antidote no questions asked! What difference does it make who ultimately takes credit for the antidote? Just hand it over! Friend F is angry and offended at you because you would support the pharmacist's right to require acknowledgement.
Friend F is right, the pharmacist is an immorale egotist. He could save everyone on the planet by letting them know definitively that he has the antidote, something that is easily within his capacity to do. He could send out something simpler than his complicated medial brochure. He could submit his antidote to testing. Not only that, the pharmacist is the guy who poisoned everyone in the first place and hid the antidote. Now he wants us to say thank you? The pharmacist should be arrested, thrown in jail, and the antidote should be distributed to everyone.
Not only that, the pharmacist is the guy who poisoned everyone in the first place and hid the antidote. Now he wants us to say thank you? The pharmacist should be arrested, thrown in jail, and the antidote should be distributed to everyone.
And that sums up the objections beautifully. Of course, there are two possibilities: (1) it's real, and the evil pharmacist controls all our lives, or (2) it's not real to begin with. Some people believe the pharmacist, and adore him. Some don't know what to believe, but pay lip service to him. For those that rationally deduce his actions to be evil, they deny their praise. If it's a hoax, no harm done. If not, they've exercised their only option in combatting the tyranny they perceive: they withhold worship from him, the only thing they have that he has any interest in. In that light, it almost sounds like the Boston Tea Party to me.
Don't get me wrong; the Gospel has some great messages in it. But I am forced to truly admire the people who deny the pharmacist his demands on the basis of their own moral dignity.
|
|
Friend F is right, the pharmacist is an immorale egotist. He could save everyone on the planet by letting them know definitively that he has the antidote, something that is easily within his capacity to do. He could send out something simpler than his complicated medial brochure. He could submit his antidote to testing. Not only that, the pharmacist is the guy who poisoned everyone in the first place and hid the antidote. Now he wants us to say thank you? The pharmacist should be arrested, thrown in jail, and the antidote should be distributed to everyone.
There are so many problems with this analogy. I could take it apart, but not sure what that would accomplish.
Doing my best to stay within the analogy, however...
The pharmacist did not poison the waterhole.
Everyone has the antidote. (I will deal with the island of bugga bugga at some point.)
The "instruction manual" says "drink it and know that you are cured and stay away from more poison". It seems to me that other phamacists are saying "I have A cure, but you have to stand on your head, recite the national anthem fifteen times and then drink it at the right moment on the summer solstice -- if none of these is satisfactory, you may have to do it over."
However, I really don't like this analogy to begin with.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The "instruction manual" says "drink it and know that you are cured and stay away from more poison". It seems to me that other phamacists are saying "I have A cure, but you have to stand on your head, recite the national anthem fifteen times and then drink it at the right moment on the summer solstice -- if none of these is satisfactory, you may have to do it over."
What?! How can you say that one instruction manual is more clear than the other? The Bible is at least as cryptic as, and subject to the same number of interpertation as any other holy book. It's not even as if we're dealing with consistent advice. Sometimes, you take the instructions to the doctor and he says "oh yes, drinking the potion will cure you" and other times, you go to the doctor and he says "oh yes, drinking the potion will cure you, but you'll also need to participate in various ceremonies and such." Sometimes people just read the descriptions themself and say "ah, I get it, the cure is taken rectally." It's not as if there is a consistent message even among Christians regarding salvation.
How do you have any sort of certainy that (a) your flavor of Christianity is correct or (b) that Christianity is correct vis a vis any other religion. At core, what bothers me is not so much the belief in God, it's the belief in a particular God since they're pretty fungible. Do what they say, you get an eternal reward. Do not do what they say, you get the eternal boot in the ass. How do you determine which God is the true God? They all rely on faith, require that you deny logic and objective evidence, and claim the exclusive path to salvation. Assuming there is one true religion, the chances that you have chosen the right one are ridiculously low, particularly in the absence of any meaningful way to compare the effectiveness of a particular religion against another religion.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The pharmacist did not poison the waterhole.
Considering the pharmacist created the waterhole, I find that difficult to believe, but even assuming the pharmacist did not poison the waterhole, he sure the heck could provide a better guide to finding the antidote than a 2,000+ year old book full of arcane stories.
Under common law, there's no legal duty to save someone in peril unless you caused the peril or have a special relationship with such person (e.g., parent/child, which, arguably applies also). That being said, it's generally considered morally repugnant to allow someone to die (much less be tortured) when you could easily save them. That's the situation we're talking about here - the pharmacist can prove his antidote works, can provide a better and more relevant guide, and can deliver that guide to everyone on the planet. The fact that he choses not to or continues the practice of making us find Waldo to be cured of being poisoned is abominable.
Lady Aurora,
I just came across this thread and wanted to thank you for expressing Christ in such an engaging and lovable light. As a fellow believer, I know that all that you share is blessed and your efforts and wisdom inspired.
Keep up the good work!
Matthew 5:14
|
|
What?! How can you say that one instruction manual is more clear than the other? The Bible is at least as cryptic as, and subject to the same number of interpertation as any other holy book. It's not even as if we're dealing with consistent advice. Sometimes, you take the instructions to the doctor and he says "oh yes, drinking the potion will cure you" and other times, you go to the doctor and he says "oh yes, drinking the potion will cure you, but you'll also need to participate in various ceremonies and such." Sometimes people just read the descriptions themself and say "ah, I get it, the cure is taken rectally." It's not as if there is a consistent message even among Christians regarding salvation.
How do you have any sort of certainy that (a) your flavor of Christianity is correct or (b) that Christianity is correct vis a vis any other religion. At core, what bothers me is not so much the belief in God, it's the belief in a particular God since they're pretty fungible. Do what they say, you get an eternal reward. Do not do what they say, you get the eternal boot in the ass. How do you determine which God is the true God? They all rely on faith, require that you deny logic and objective evidence, and claim the exclusive path to salvation. Assuming there is one true religion, the chances that you have chosen the right one are ridiculously low, particularly in the absence of any meaningful way to compare the effectiveness of a particular religion against another religion.
I said that I didn't like the analogy...
I don't know about what other Christians you have come into contact have told you. Nor do I really care. I am also not necessarily saying that I am right, but this is how I understand things.
Truthfully, what I see in the Bible, you can eliminate 9/10 of the Bible and still come up with the same message. I never said that the Bible is more clear. My point was supposed to be that it is simpler. People (Christians and Non-Christians) argue and debate many non-critical issues. The issue in question -- taking the antidote -- is rather clear. As to whether on not you believe what it says is another matter.
I'm not sure what "pretty fungible" is supposed to mean.
You made a few assumptions about other religions that I don't know are accurate. What other religions have a "hell" as defined by the Bible? You said "eternal boot...", but what is that in other religions? What are their requirements for whatever equates to "eternal glory"? I also thought that most other religions feel that they have a way instead of the way.
As far as "flavor" -- I guess that I don't know, nor do I necessarily feel, that my "flavor" of Christianity is right. I'm also not sure why or how this is relevant.
As far as how I know that Christianity is right as opposed to other religions -- there are a number of reasons for this. However, if one specific thing didn't happen to me the way it did, I would probably believe like you do.
As far as probability is concerned -- if every other religion says that their way is "a" way to get eternal glory, but one of the religions says that their way is "the" way to get eternal glory, then the Venn diagram suggests that my odds are a little better than most others. I call this argument "fire insurance" and I hate to use this argument.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Truthfully, what I see in the Bible, you can eliminate 9/10 of the Bible and still come up with the same message. I never said that the Bible is more clear. My point was supposed to be that it is simpler. People (Christians and Non-Christians) argue and debate many non-critical issues. The issue in question -- taking the antidote -- is rather clear. As to whether on not you believe what it says is another matter.
Except it's obviously not clear because there is a pretty wide range of ways in which people interpret what constitutes the antidote. At the risk of putting words in Lady Aurora's mouth, I doubt she is of the opinion that 9/10 of the Bible can be disregarded. Basically, if two people who nominally are of the same faith can't agree on the tenants of said faith, how can one determine which faith is correct?
I'm not sure what "pretty fungible" is supposed to mean.
They are interchangable. They're mostly about behaving a certain way in order to obtain a specific reward or avoid a specific punishment. The details change as to what is the proper behavior, but it tends to be on the no-killing/being-charitable axis.
You made a few assumptions about other religions that I don't know are accurate. What other religions have a "hell" as defined by the Bible? You said "eternal boot...", but what is that in other religions? What are their requirements for whatever equates to "eternal glory"? I also thought that most other religions feel that they have a way instead of the way.
I don't have to even go to other religions. Lutherans say that salvation lies along one path, Catholics say it lies along another path, and Evangalicals point to a third path. It's possible that the Catholics don't really mean what they say about those sins that cannot be forgiven (can't remember the technical term), but I'd hazard that they do. So, who do I believe? Which is the one true way? All of them are following the same teachings of the same person in the same book and yet none of them give me the same path to salvation.
I admit, I'm no religious scholar, but my impression of other religions is that they are generally pretty mutually exclusive too.
As far as "flavor" -- I guess that I don't know, nor do I necessarily feel, that my "flavor" of Christianity is right. I'm also not sure why or how this is relevant.
Well, using the fire insurance example, if I'm going to put down all my money on Christ, I want to know what exactly he wants. A thank you and a handshake, rosary beads, or talking in tongues?
As far as how I know that Christianity is right as opposed to other religions -- there are a number of reasons for this. However, if one specific thing didn't happen to me the way it did, I would probably believe like you do.
I'd be interested in hearing the story, but I have the feeling it's in the vein of "I prayed to Jesus and something very important to me occurred." I can appreciate that being a moving spiritual event, but to me it's the equivalent of lucky socks.
As far as probability is concerned -- if every other religion says that their way is "a" way to get eternal glory, but one of the religions says that their way is "the" way to get eternal glory, then the Venn diagram suggests that my odds are a little better than most others. I call this argument "fire insurance" and I hate to use this argument.
I'm skeptical that other religions are so open about their non-exclusivity. That being said, Christianity has multiple paths that are "the" way, so I'd say your insurance policy is pretty worthless.
Lady Aurora, there's something you've mentioned not understanding something several times--and no one has tried to clear it up. Let me try. You've asked why an atheist would be upset about not making it to heaven since he clearly doesn't want to be there. Let me try and tackle this. If it was simply about enjoying the presence of God or not, I don't think there'd be the same amount of ire. It's the idea that the alternitive is eternal suffering. If it was just go be with God, or go be forever without God I really don't think there'd be a problem. It's not that the atheists here are wanting to get into heaven, as much as they want out of hell. Well, and this is a misstatement too. They don't really want "out of hell" because they don't believe in it. They're just scared and mad that there are people out there who think that them going to a place like hell is just a regrettable shame--rather than it making them furious too, rather than making them want to shake their fists at heaven too. It feels as though there's a choice to be made, between folks who really are pretty good folks, and a system that nobody can even say why it was set up that way in any way that makes sense. It's choosing the system over folks you know, friends and family that don't agree but whose crimes don't seem to merit hellfire. I think that's the rub.
EDIT: I guess what I wonder most is why is the suffering part necessary? Why not have a nice sunny place set aside for the nonbelievers where they can do what they want and let the righteous go to heaven and there enjoy their own brand of eternal bliss?
Let me try and reassemble what we've got so far. I want to steer as clear from this poison analogy as possible. The simplicity of a model is often at the cost that you then cannot talk specifics without throwing out the model or making the model horribly overcomplicated.
Here's the Christian cosmology we've been working at. God creates humanity for ambiguous reasons involving wanting to be loved. He gives them free will as a gift to be able to make their own decisions. He puts them in a garden with the devil and a tree capable of killing them. They choose to listen to the devil and eat the fruit, opting to die and reject God's one simple commandment. Now they and all of their offspring are cursed with evil basic natures, to live in a grim world until they die, and from there to be cast into hell because they are inherantly corrupted by the curse upon them--they all sin. From there it's burning and torment for eternity. The one exception to this is Christ, who showed up and for about ten years taught a revised version of Judaism--but beyond that was an actual incarnation of God. Somehow in the killing of God incarnate, beyond the political reasons of Romans wanting to prevent insurrection in one of their most volitile regions, this death constitutes an act of imposed self-sacrifice that helps fix what's wrong in our souls. Thereafter he returns from the dead, no worse for wear, and returns to heaven. In order to really work though, believers must actively accept that it's happened and pray to be healed. Once this happens, you're fine. There's reading the bible and going to church and doing good deeds. They fit in somehow too, but it's unclear how.
That's the model we've got so far. It certainly seems as though if this is really the model that there's no real point to life, but rather that everything is huge a recovery process, desparately trying to fix something that went awry very early. There's a lot about this I'd like to work over, to go in and figure out. I just wanted to get it all out to look over so it isn't a misrepresentation.
The hardest thing I've found in this discussion is scale. I find if I talk too generally people get lost and don't see what I mean or how I arrive at the conclusions I'm going after. If I start small, people wonder what the point is and get frustrated. I like talking about religion but it really is a huge beast to try and discuss in any kind of concise way.
EDIT: I'd love to just dive in and tackle one of these issues, any of the ambiguous stuff, in the hopes of getting deeper understanding of it. Honestly it's pretty easy from the summary to understand where the parts that seem shaky to me are. That's what I'd love to discuss.
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing the story, but I have the feeling it's in the vein of "I prayed to Jesus and something very important to me occurred." I can appreciate that being a moving spiritual event, but to me it's the equivalent of lucky socks.
No, nothing like that. I was part of/performed an exorcism. I don't really want to get into the specifics and I don't know how important that is. What I saw freaked me out. What I did/was able to do should not have happened. But it was something that I experienced (and another person, so I know that I wasn't insane at the time). I was a Christian before that, but after that, I wouldn't even consider anything else.
And as a counter question, what I want to know is what exactly you say to Friend Z. Too bad you didn't live near me, I could've told you about my pharmacist?
I think I need to step away from our little analogy in order to answer this question clearly (or as clearly as I'm able).
Straight to the point - I don't *totally* understand all the details of how this works (I'm merely a follower of Christ, not a theologian or even a lay-pastor) but I'll try to express what I think I *do* know about it.First, and I've said it before but it bears repeating in light of this current discussion, it doesn't say *anywhere* in the Bible that reading/understanding the Bible is a prerequisite to heaven. Believers should *want* to read the Bible so they can better understand the character of God, but nobody is saying you *have* to.
So I hope I've thus far established that I don't believe Friend Z's eternal destination is in any way affected by his lack of access to the Bible.
Second, I know you said you wanted an answer without mentioning the previously debated issue of "natural law" but I can't. God has provided a natural understanding of His existence, visible through His creation.
So Friend Z is responsible (once he comes to an age of moral understanding and assuming he has the wisdom to discern right & wrong, along with its possible consequences - so we're talking about someone with functional intelligence and the inspecific age of "maturity") to at least acknowledge that some Supreme Being exists. He can, at this point, choose to squash those innate philosophies but let's just assume for sake of argument that he does not (reject the existence of a Supreme Being).
The Bible says (right after the part about God revealing Himself through nature) that each person will be judged according to his own understanding.
Friend Z is in some isolated spot so he doesn't know anything about the events of Genesis, how sin came about (or even its "proper" terminology),or that God has a salvation plan (or even that we're naming the specific Supreme Being, God). He doesn't know about Jesus's death on the cross or His Resurrection, etc, etc. And there's not likely going to be anyone coming to inform Friend Z of these details during his lifetime. Are you asking if Friend Z is going to fry in hell because he has no way of knowing who Jesus is? I believe the obvious answer to that is no. Friend Z is going to be judged based on what he *does* know. Through the Holy Spirit, Friend Z is going to feel "bad" about his harsh words to his neighbor or stealing that chicken or whatever. In the early stages the Holy Spirit's conviction and one's conscience can be almost the same thing - though one's conscience can become hardened over time and the Holy Spirit's conviction can not be misinterpreted (that's a different issue though). So, anyway, here's Friend Z's moment of truth. He has a choice to make. Recognizing that he has done something wrong and that he chose to do so, he can humble himself and repent to the Supreme Being about it (an idea that the Holy Spirit can certainly spark once Friend Z feels sorry for his "sin"). So Friend Z can pray; maybe he doesn't know the technical term for his meditations or whatever but he doesn't need to understand anything other than that he's "talking" to the Supreme Being. Friend Z's attitude is key. Is Friend Z aware and take responsibility for his wrong action/choice? Does Friend Z recognize his action as wrong? Is Friend Z sorry for his actions (and not just sorry for whatever consequences they might have brought upon him)? Is Friend Z resolved not to repeat his wrong action because he recognizes this does not please the Supreme Being? Is Friend Z going to live in a manner that he believes is pleasing to the Supreme Being for the rest of his life? If the answer to these questions is yes, then I believe Friend Z will get to go to heaven. Jesus is absent from this equation because Friend Z has no knowledge of Him but that's okay because he only gets judged on what knowledge he *does* have.
So Friend Z, I will pray that no matter where on earth you live - that you will choose to serve God and not yourself!
Sebastian, I hope that this at least gives you my take on the Friend Z situation. It may help you understand who I think God is a little better but since you are clearly not Friend Z (you *do* have knowledge of Jesus) you come under a different standard of judgement.
|
|
I don't have to even go to other religions. Lutherans say that salvation lies along one path, Catholics say it lies along another path, and Evangalicals point to a third path. It's possible that the Catholics don't really mean what they say about those sins that cannot be forgiven (can't remember the technical term), but I'd hazard that they do. So, who do I believe?
I disagree with you here. Denominations seem to have differences of opinions on worship style, baptism, and a few other relatively minor things, but the message of salvation is pretty standard throughout the various denominations. I will see if I can come up with a pretty good comparative study on that. And to me, I don't care if you are a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentacostal, or Catholic -- the actual salvation message is the same.
|
|
I'm skeptical that other religions are so open about their non-exclusivity. That being said, Christianity has multiple paths that are "the" way, so I'd say your insurance policy is pretty worthless.
I, for the life of me, have no idea where this is coming from? Any chance you can be any more specific?
Truthfully, what I see in the Bible, you can eliminate 9/10 of the Bible and still come up with the same message.
Ummm.... I tentatively agree. There's definitely one main message to the Bible and the rest of the bulk just adds detail and enrichment.
I disagree with you here. Denominations seem to have differences of opinions on worship style, baptism, and a few other relatively minor things, but the message of salvation is pretty standard throughout the various denominations. I will see if I can come up with a pretty good comparative study on that.
I agree with Moff. My parents were raised Lutheran (I've attended numerous services, especially when I was young). My mother became a born again believer, my father became an agnostic (or more specifically, got mad at God for allowing his divorce and said F you, God, whataya gonna do about it?). At first my mother took us to the Methodist church. Then we went to the Baptist Church. Finally, we went to a Wesleyan church (which I attended faithfully for about 20 years). My best friend at this time was Catholic. Then I left my church and began to attend an Evangelical Free church. With my husband in the military (he was raised Pilgrim Holiness and has Menonite relatives), we've moved often and attended a variety of churches (of LOTS of different denominations). I think 99.9% preach the same salvation plan. As Moff pointed out, they can vary wildly on the "add-ons" and non-critical issues but they're not really important anyway.
Pretty heady stuff...but here we go!
One: We are created beings.
Two: We control NOTHING. ( and if you don't believe that you can try my life last year)
Three: As created beings we can't see the whole system. We only see our part of the factory.
Four: A loving God has plans for All.
Five: As it's His plan we can't change it.
Six: The principal sin of the human mind is pride, and thinking we can change it.
Seven: He gave us a gift freely given to all.
Eight: Pride says you have to do something for that gift. How else would it be about me?
To sum up. You have no control in the beginning, you have no control at the end, so why would you have any in the middle?? If it was all up to us we would screw it up. The great thing is not what we have to do, but what He did, does, and will do.
So who decides which version and interpretation of the bible is right? If you can talk to the author why would you read the book?
|
|
Except it's obviously not clear because there is a pretty wide range of ways in which people interpret what constitutes the antidote. At the risk of putting words in Lady Aurora's mouth, I doubt she is of the opinion that 9/10 of the Bible can be disregarded. Basically, if two people who nominally are of the same faith can't agree on the tenants of said faith, how can one determine which faith is correct?
I'm not saying that you can or should disregard 9/10 of the Bible. What I am saying is that the ultimate point of the Bible can be summed up in a few verses. And that people seem to get bogged down with all the history and other stuff in the Bible.
Man I get busy with work for a few days and suddenly everyone is charting my path through the great beyond...
Lady A, don't worry about the snarky post. S'all good. But I would like to address a few of your apparent concerns about me.
Why do I care? The same reason anyone asks questions, to get answers. To find a deeper understanding. To know more. You assume that I have conclusions. I do not. I have a LOT of theories. I will never stop trying to understand my fellow man. I do not care about heaven or hell. I DO care about what people think. Religion is, in many ways, the most revealing part about a persons mind and I intend to go exploring whenever I get the chance.
You also assume I think christians are stupid. Not an unfair assumtion at all, I DO use inflammatory words and statements and my religious post center around christians. Allow me to explain.
I use christians in the bulk of my arguments simply because I live in midwestern america. These are the only religions I get personal contact with and thus are the only ones I feel I have a decent understanding of/history with. Do I think they are stupid? No, but you were close, I think that most people are stupid regardless of what, if anything, they worship. In fact I still consider myself fairly stupid but I'm trying to work on it.
Why do I use strong and offensive language? Well because I don't give a f@@$.
Just kidding. I use offensive language for a multitude of reasons. First off if you want to get bees out of a beehive you don't gently poke the side. That'll get you one or two bees that live for the chance to confront an intruder. I don't care about those bees. I want the bees that aren't normally in attack mode. I want bees that are pushed to defending what they hold dear because they are afraid someone is trying to hurt it. So I don't poke. I grab the biggest damn stick I can find and swing for the fences. By this time I'm immune to being stung, but I get to watch the bees and see what they do. It is easy to get the truth out of someone who feels angry or offended. Exhibit A: Post Your Rant Here. All I want is what people truly feel, and I try as well to be completely honest with my posts. But in the process yes I admit to intentionally trying to ruffle a feather or two. I don't believe there is anything to be gained by holding back. For instance Lady A you felt irritated with some of the things I said, understandable, thanks to your post on the subject I am able to give you a little more insight that might clear up a few of your concerns or questions.
I do not see how one can trust in the bible. Which is the foundation of many peoples faith. It's a book, and not a very well written one. There is more evidence that phone phsychics are divine than any bible ever printed. And yet people build their lives around what is inside. I don't think this makes them inherently stupid because of it. They just posses something I don't. I want to understand it better.
Though a question for Sexi--if the guy repented and, theoretically, if he had not been just about to "kick it" he would have reformed and become a good person, then what's the problem? I honestly don't understand why a human being cannot turn over another leaf and expect to be forgiven and welcomed by his fellow man; we have institutions just for that purpose. I understand you don't like the guy, but after repenting, why could he not be considered someone new? I personally feel that being honestly sorry for one's actions is as good as not performing those actions entirely. Just a thought.
A fair question. I couldn't use an example of someone who actually didn't deserve to get in because then my argument would not have made sense. What I tried to present was someone who obtained heaven and yet was not as deserving of his final reward as the just and good non-believer who ends up with the fiery brimstony shaft.
Oh and another question. With the creation story. I understand the whole "Gods seven days could easily have meant millions of years" deal thats all good. But why do the scriptures fail to mention the fact that God created the earth as a teeny tiny speck in a huge universe filled with countless other planets and stars? Seems like something God would have mentioned since earth was such an infentesimal fragment of what he ceated.