|
There is a huge difference between spending eternity in an afterlife without God, and being damned to Hell.
Why? There are quite a number of Christians that I know that believe eternity without God is hell. There really isn't that much description of hell. There are allusions to fire, but that could simply be because getting burned/pain is a concept that people can easily relate to.
But I'll be damned by no mortal church or it's representative.
Good.
If someone's religion works for them, I'm totally cool with that.
Ok.
Presenting a specific religion as the only way to God is wrong.
Not sure that I'm with you there. However...
Attempting to force or coerce that religion on others is wrong.
Correct.
This isn't a game. It's not a contest. If you wish to believe that there are multiple paths to the same conclusion, fine. But that is really a matter of faith -- as is the belief that there is only one way. Believing that is not wrong. What you do with it could be.
Yeah, but the Muslims say you've chosen to deny God's most important prophet, so you're going to hell. And the Hindus are telling all of us that we're choosing to deny Brahma. That's the problem: almost every theistic religion (except maybe Bahai) claims to have a monopoly on God.Kind of. Muslims -- for the most part that is correct. Islam is still more of a works oriented religion. Hindu's -- I don't think that is entirely true. Especially since they believe in reincarnation. To my knowledge they don't believe much in the concept of "hell".
But what you are saying is correct -- if I am wrong and Islam is right, then I have chosen my destiny.
Assume for a second that another you, Mr. Rimmer Jr., live somewhere with no exposure to your denomination of Christianity. Or assume that this other you lives in an area where you have limited exposure to your denomination of Christianity, so that message "doesn't get through." Nobody's fault; that's just they way it is.
Having no real knowledge of Christ the Savior and no chance to understand and accept him, are you automatically damned to Hell? Does this not seem completely unjust of a mortal religion? How anyone be damned for a choice they never had the opportunity to make?
|
|
Assume for a second that another you, Mr. Rimmer Jr., live somewhere with no exposure to your denomination of Christianity. Or assume that this other you lives in an area where you have limited exposure to your denomination of Christianity, so that message "doesn't get through." Nobody's fault; that's just they way it is.
Having no real knowledge of Christ the Savior and no chance to understand and accept him, are you automatically damned to Hell? Does this not seem completely unjust of a mortal religion? How anyone be damned for a choice they never had the opportunity to make?
Ok, but we're not talking about that scenario.
I did a lot of "soul-searching" and research into what you are describing for Sebastian quite a while ago. Here's the ultimate answer --
I don't know.
There really isn't anything in the Bible that talks about that. At least not directly. And anyone that says that they know for certain probably doesn't have a clue. Having said that, all of my research pointed to the same conclusion -- although possibly in different forms. God wants everyone to make a choice. Not sure how or when that choice happens and it's probably different for everyone. A number of options include -- seeing the divine force in nature/creation/etc., having a literal vision/dream and literally seeing God, there is evidence in 1st Peter where Jesus went to (basically) Purgatory to preach to all those who had died before and after, and so on.
I believe that Christianity is a relationship religion. If there was a passage in the Bible that said "don't worry about those others who believe differently or who haven't heard about me -- I've got that covered" many of us would probably be selfish bastards (and some probably are). Instead the Bible says to go out into the world and be Christ to others. But at the same time, believeing that God didn't have something in mind for those others seems a little short-sighted for an omnipotent being.
Presenting a specific religion as the only way to God is wrong.Not sure that I'm with you there. However...
I guess we'll agree to disagree on that.
Attempting to force or coerce that religion on others is wrong.
This isn't a game. It's not a contest. If you wish to believe that there are multiple paths to the same conclusion, fine. But that is really a matter of faith -- as is the belief that there is only one way. Believing that is not wrong. What you do with it could be.
I consider myself a reasoning critter (at least most of the time). I have neither seen nor experienced anything that "disproves" the existence of God. I consider it reasonable for me to assume that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence."
I really don't feel my issue at this point is with God.
My issues are with those mortals & institutions who presume to speak for Him/Her. I understand that no mortal endeavor can hope to achieve perfection. But all of these individuals and institutions that would seek to judge me & others like me are filled with glaring corruption and obvious illogic & contradictions. How is one to take their teachings on "the Way" as gospel when they refuse to address their own problems (or even acknowledge them)?
Edit: If this comes across as a attack on your beliefs, it isn't meant to be. Nearly all of what you've said to me tonight, I've heard before from others; that is no judgement on you, merely that I didn't come my beliefs without serious thought and a lot of searching.
Edit 2: Sideways. If you enjoy the movie, the DVD commentary between the two male leads is much funnier.
What's Sideways.
A lot of folks got a lot out of this film. I didn't, but I never tire of watching Thomas Hayden Church, a guy who usually dominates from a supporting character role. He was so very good as the brother in Smart People.
|
|
My issues are with those mortals & institutions who presume to speak for Him/Her. I understand that no mortal endeavor can hope to achieve perfection. But all of these individuals and institutions that would seek to judge me & others like me are filled with glaring corruption and obvious illogic & contradictions. How is one to take their teachings on "the Way" as gospel when they refuse to address their own problems (or even acknowledge them)?
You are not alone with that.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm sure that if you look hard enough you will find problems no matter where you go. I currently belong to the Evangelical Covenant Church. Not having any idea where you are, I challenge you to look up one in your area -- hopefully there is one -- go make an appointment with the pastor there and ask your questions. I have found far less judgement and corruption with the Covenant denomination than I have seen elsewhere. Not saying it doesn't exist there. We pretty much fired our last pastor because he (basically) felt he spoke for God. We had a problem -- and we dealt with it. There will be problems where ever you go. When I ask questions of Covenant people, the responses are often well thought out or "that's a good question, let me do some research and get back to you next week."
Also, there are probably more good individuals and institutions than bad ones -- it's just that the good ones don't get in the press much.
|
|
Edit: If this comes across as a attack on your beliefs, it isn't meant to be. Nearly all of what you've said to me tonight, I've heard before from others; that is no judgement on you, merely that I didn't come my beliefs without serious thought and a lot of searching.
Hmmm. Except that a lot of what you've said seems to differ from what I believe.
I feel that Christians are probably the biggest deterent from Christianity.
I think that most people here (at least on this thread) have done some serious thought and a lot of searching to come to where they are. It's still a good exercise to know what I believe.
I have not felt judged by you and hopefully you have not felt judged by me. Feel free to join Kirth, Sebastian and myself in that promised beer.
Hmmm. Except that a lot of what you've said seems to differ from what I believe.
Well, even by my own reckoning, I'm a little odd. And I try never to claim I'm actually right. :)
I have not felt judged by you and hopefully you have not felt judged by me. Feel free to join Kirth, Sebastian and myself in that promised beer.
Nah, I'm getting older and crankier, but I rarely take most things personally. You seem reasonable and mean well even if we disagree.
And if you thought that religious discussions could get heated, start one on beer. :)
For what it's worth, I do.I think he was agreeing that Carlin turned into a bitterman at the end there. I loved George Carlin, thought he was insanely poignant and hilarious, but it was painful to watch him towards the end, as bile and acid replaced wit and sarcasm.
Yes! What Derek said. Sorry for the confusion.
As for merlot, rent Sideways. :)
I saw that movie and immediately wanted to kill the bastard who'd overheard me ranting and made a movie out of it. Merlot is meant to be mixed with Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Frank, to mellow the mix. Why anyone would make a wine out of all merlot grapes is entirely beyond me.
And I'd been giving his same pinot noir speech for years, until the movie came out and I had to stop -- because the stuff got so popular after that that the market was glutted with crap, and some of the really beautiful ones gave up in the face of all the new competition.
Yes, I'm a for-real wine snob.
|
As for merlot, rent Sideways. :)I saw that movie and immediately wanted to kill the bastard who'd overheard me ranting and made a movie out of it. Merlot is meant to be mixed with Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Frank, to mellow the mix. Why anyone would make a wine out of all merlot grapes is entirely beyond me.
And I'd been giving his same pinot noir speech for years, until the movie came out and I had to stop -- because the stuff got so popular after that that the market was glutted with crap, and some of the really beautiful ones gave up in the face of all the new competition.
Yes, I'm a for-real wine snob.
I believe the bottle he was comforting himself with at the end of the movie was, in fact, a mostly merlot blend, if not a straight merlot.
First time I saw that movie was in the halfway house, on cable. The movie really bored me, basically because it was about people whom I wouldn't hit the brakes for if they were crossing the street in front of me, but whatever. Thought it was funny they mentioned "A Confederacy of Dunces" in it, though. Good book.
As to agendas -- I understand what Samnell was saying -- at the same time, the NIV got a team together from a large number of denominations as well as a number of different countries to get their translation. I feel that this is a better way to go about it -- get people together with different opinions, yet still have an interest in getting it done.
So far as it goes, sure. But evangelicalism is a movement that goes across denomionational lines. Getting a bunch of evangelicals from different denominations together to do a translation isn't really doing a lot to ensure a diversity of opinion. It's certainly not the case in today's Christendom where the distinctions between most Protestant denominations are more or less historical vestiges.
If I were king of the Bible Translation World, I'd pick the A-List of scholars of Biblical languages and literature, give them the finest and earliest texts available for each passage, even if they're only fragments, and stock the committee with equal parts liberal and conservative scholars irrespective of denomination. I suspect I'd end up with a fair gathering of Protestants, Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, Jews, and a few atheists. The committee working on the Hebrew Bible would probably be heavy on Jews, the Christian Bible bits less so. Then they'd arrive at consensus the same way any translation committee does. At least that's what I'd do if I were trying to balance accuracy with representativeness of what believers think the Bible says.
If I just wanted the cutting edge scholarship on what the originals probably said in modern language, I'd just raid the university A-Lists and tell them to ignore tradition and treat the earliest version of each as the most authoritative.
Samnell said that it was written by evangelicals for evangelicals. I'm not sure who else would do a translation. Sure, evangelicals have an interest in getting a translation. Would any other group not have an agenda?
They all would, of course. Catholic groups do translations, Eastern Orthodox groups do translations. Every religious group with the money wants its own translation, not just to advertise its particular points like the NIV did, but also to use for the correction and reproof of the flock. ("It says right here...")
That doesn't mean that all agendas are equally nefarious or innocent, of course. My NIV was full to the brim with comments and cross-references that were obviously written to head off criticism, mostly without being very convincing and some almost laughably desperate. (Where the psalmist says "gods", well who hasn't thought they were really hot stuff before? Look, triceratops!)
Why is it that we want to blame someone else for our choices?
Because I do not find it fair I should be blamed for choosing to not believe in something I have never seen, heard or felt. Am I equally at fault for not believing in Santa Claus?
I believe the bottle he was comforting himself with at the end of the movie was, in fact, a mostly merlot blend, if not a straight merlot.
Chateau Cheval Blanc is typically unusually high in Cabernet Franc, with standard merlot proportion and much less Cabernet Sauvignon than is typical for a Bordeaux (specifically St. Emilion, although the vinyards technically extend into Pomerol and maybe a little into Graves). They often include some Malbec as well.
The '61 he's drinking (One of their best years -- $2000+ for a 1er Cru in good condition) is 66% Cabernet Franc, 33% Merlot, and 1% Malbec. Drinking it out of a paper cup in a fast-food place is exactly depressing enough to suit the useless SOB character -- anyone who would steal from his own mom should just be shot out of hand.
Lest anyone think I'm off-topic: wine like that can be like a religion. Personally, I drink the $7/bottle stuff, but I can always dream of one day finding an unknown, abandoned cellar with an old bottle of Chateau Lafite in it...
|
|
Kirth (and others who might be interested), My wife just pointed me to a book that appears up your alley --> The Bible, Rocks, and Time. It looks like something I may need to check out.
Wow -- thanks for the reference. That indeed looks extremely interesting, following up as it does on the work of the late, great Christian geochemist J. Laurence Kulp, who fought tirelessly against YEC in general (and "flood geology" in particular) from the time he joined the ASA in 1945 until his death in 2006. In his view, YEC did an extreme disservice to both the future of science on the one hand, and to the entire faith of Christianity on the other -- a view that your book's authors (Young & Stearly) not only endorse, but apparently convincingly underscore.
It is always telling to me that, overwhelmingly, people with a background in both science and Scripture have no problems whatsoever in reconciling the two. The people who feel the need to reject science, based on a skewed view of their faith, seem to fall into two main groups: laypeople with little or no knowledge or interest in science on the one hand, and engineers & computer people on the other (the latter groups like to think they're scientists, but most often have zero knowledge of geology or paleontology). Indeed, the scientists who are most outspoken against YEC, ID, etc. are often very devout Christians themselves: people like Francis Collins (of the human genome project), Kulp, and now Young and Stearly.
--from genesis-science.blogspot.com:
------------------------------------
By the 1850s Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old (see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science.")
Such men included:
All of these giants of the geological sciences rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record -- except for possibly the topmost superficial sediments, though Adam Sedgewick and Buckland later abandoned even that hypothesis.
Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published.
Which shows an awful lot of class on your part, I think. My rejoinder is likewise deleted, following your example.
|
|
Ok, coming a bit late to the discussion this time, but I hate having to repeat myself.
Science does not equal religion. Science is, by its very definition, limited to natural, observable and testable phenomena. God falls outside all three of these definitions and so cannot be examined by science. To say science has found no evidence for God is as tautological as saying evolution cannot happen because it's not mentioned in the Bible.Usually, the most egregious offenders of muddling up science and faith are religious fundamentalists who insist that the real world conform to what was written two thousand (or 14 hundred, etc) years ago by people who didn't have the modern knowledge about how the world works. In this thread, it's being mostly misused by atheists who wish to prove that there is no God. You can't do that with science because an omnipotent God doesn't act in a scientific way, by definition. If you know there is no God, you're just as delusional as people who know there is one. Which is to say, your certainty is a problem, not your belief one way or the other.
On another point mentioned about science changing, well, that's sort of the point. If science is working properly (and I admit it has problems with this owing to the sheer number of humans involved), science will change when better evidence comes along. Science never knows the "truth", it only knows "what works. So far". There have been many times when a beautiful, elegant, sophisticated theory has been discarded because of an ugly fact that contradicts it.
Finally, Moff, I fundamentally disagree with you about there only being one path to God. Fundamentally. It doesn't matter how wide the road is, and yours seems fairly broad, if there's only one pathway then you condemn a lot of people to punishment for not being equipped to follow it. That does not seem the action of a loving father. My view is more akin to H Jackson Brown, Jr's (which may be unfair as it implies you're trying to tell me I'm on the wrong path, which you've done a very good job of not doing):
People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost.
My view, for what it's worth, is that everyone who seeks God will find him. It's like the Aesop's Fable about blind men and the elephant. No human can ever properly describe God. We don't do infinity, eternity or such concepts very well, so we describe what we can, getting only a part of the whole. But because God cares for his children, all those who honestly follow him, whether they call him Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or the FSM, will find him. Punishment is reserved for those who claim to follow him but defy the rules they claim to follow. But that's the God that makes sense to me. Doesn't mean that's the God that exists.
You can't do that with science because an omnipotent God doesn't act in a scientific way, by definition. If you know there is no God, you're just as delusional as people who know there is one.
Why do we so easily dismiss other magical beings then? Belief in god is revered but belief in fairies lands you in a mental institute. Has science proven fairies do not exist?
|
Finally, Moff, I fundamentally disagree with you about there only being one path to God. Fundamentally. It doesn't matter how wide the road is, and yours seems fairly broad, if there's only one pathway then you condemn a lot of people to punishment for not being equipped to follow it. That does not seem the action of a loving father. My view is more akin to H Jackson Brown, Jr's (which may be unfair as it implies you're trying to tell me I'm on the wrong path, which you've done a very good job of not doing):
People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost.My view, for what it's worth, is that everyone who seeks God will find him. It's like the Aesop's Fable about blind men and the elephant. No human can ever properly describe God. We don't do infinity, eternity or such concepts very well, so we describe what we can, getting only a part of the whole. But because God cares for his children, all those who honestly follow him, whether they call him Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or the FSM, will find him. Punishment is reserved for those who claim to follow him but defy the rules they claim to follow. But that's the God that makes sense to me. Doesn't mean that's the God that exists.
This is some seriously good stuff.
|
|
You can't do that with science because an omnipotent God doesn't act in a scientific way, by definition. If you know there is no God, you're just as delusional as people who know there is one.Why do we so easily dismiss other magical beings then? Belief in god is revered but belief in fairies lands you in a mental institute. Has science proven fairies do not exist?
It's an interesting question. No, science cannot prove or disprove fairies or a fairie realm. (I also don't think that belief in them will land you in a mental institute.) But, why do we easily dismiss other magical beings? It may simply come down to what (is perceived) can be gotten out of the belief in magical beings. If you believe in fairies, what does that get you? For better or worse, people feel that belief in God may get them something more.
(I also don't think that belief in them will land you in a mental institute.)
If people started going door to door trying to preach the word of Tinker Bell, I am sure it would not be long before they were visited by men in white coats.
(I also don't think that belief in them will land you in a mental institute.)If people started going door to door trying to preach the word of Tinker Bell, I am sure it would not be long before they were visited by men in white coats.
Disney lawyers wear white after Labor Day?
Does Sebastian?
|
|
Postmonster gremlins are working overtime. Let me try this again...
My view, for what it's worth, is that everyone who seeks God will find him. It's like the Aesop's Fable about blind men and the elephant. No human can ever properly describe God. We don't do infinity, eternity or such concepts very well, so we describe what we can, getting only a part of the whole. But because God cares for his children, all those who honestly follow him, whether they call him Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or the FSM, will find him. Punishment is reserved for those who claim to follow him but defy the rules they claim to follow. But that's the God that makes sense to me. Doesn't mean that's the God that exists.
You've got some good stuff here. In many ways I agree with you. What you describe here is similar in many ways to how C.S. Lewis describes it in The Last Battle with "Tashlan". In addition, a lot of what you say can be said using some circular reasoning -- The only way to be "saved" is through Jesus, but based on Trinity theology, Jesus is God, so if Jesus is God, then can't we be saved through God alone? After that, who is "God"? The Hebrews gave him the name Yahweh, which (as I understand it) is unknown how to pronounce it as well as they hold the name in such high regard that they won't even say the name or write it down.
So looking at it that way, it's possible -- maybe.
However, here's my problem with what you have here. People who pursue the FSM are most likely pursuing something different than people who pursue Yahweh. Is it possible for them to pursue the same thing? Possibly, but because they stand for different things, it seems unlikely to me. If they do pursue technically different "gods" and hold the same ideals, will they end up in the same place? Don't know. Luckily that's not for me to judge.
|
|
(I also don't think that belief in them will land you in a mental institute.)If people started going door to door trying to preach the word of Tinker Bell, I am sure it would not be long before they were visited by men in white coats.
Belief in something (or not in something) will not land you in a mental institute. What you do with it may. There are crazy "Christians" who belong in a mental institute -- that has little to do with what they believe.
Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?
You can't do that with science because an omnipotent God doesn't act in a scientific way, by definition. If you know there is no God, you're just as delusional as people who know there is one.Why do we so easily dismiss other magical beings then? Belief in god is revered but belief in fairies lands you in a mental institute. Has science proven fairies do not exist?
It's a simple majority rules thing. There are some people out there who believe there is no god. These people are vastly outnumbered by the people who believe there is a god. It’s rather difficult for the minority atheists to round up all the god fearing people in the world and put them away even if they do think they’re crazy. It’s however much easier to round up the fairy worshipers whom both groups think are crazy or possibly blasphemous.
Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?
Bird?
Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?Bird?
I am quite dissapointed in a fellow canine. The word is poodle.
I am quite dissapointed in a fellow canine. The word is poodle.Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?Bird?
Make an irritatingly catchy song about it and then we’ll talk.
|
|
Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?
We're talking about different ideas here. A mental institute is a pretty extreme thing. You pretty much would end up there if you were perceived to be a threat to yourself or to others. If they believed that fairies were living inside them and the only way to release them was to cut themselves or if they believed that fairies were telling them to bomb construction companies before they destroyed their homes -- that would probably put them into a mental institute. But I would hope that the same would be said for any belief system that said something similar. At the same time, going door to door preaching the good news of Tinker-Bell will get you some odd looks, but doesn't really hurt them or others.
So, spreading the word -- whatever word -- shouldn't land you in a mental institute.
At the same time, "spreading the word" can be done in a number of different ways. But if we're supposed to be more "Christ-like", what did Jesus do? Jesus rarely (ever?) stood on random street corners hitting people on the head with the word. He didn't go door to door. The only thing that I can think of that was close was the Sermon on the Mount -- but even with that, thousands of people were following him hoping he would say something profound. Outside of that, I feel that he "spread the word" through his actions. Which I've found to be more effective anyway.
I concede on the mental institution argument.
I agree. Do you think you could point that out to whomever is responsible for the billboard off of IH35 that asks me if I 'got Jesus'?
|
|
It's a simple majority rules thing. There are some people out there who believe there is no god. These people are vastly outnumbered by the people who believe there is a god. It’s rather difficult for the minority atheists to round up all the god fearing people in the world and put them away even if they do think they’re crazy. It’s however much easier to round up the fairy worshipers whom both groups think are crazy or possibly blasphemous.
Massive Edit:
I'm changing my post since it was probably a little too harsh. At the same time, what was said here was probably a bit outside of "civil". There are worshippers who believe in Jedi teaching. There are a lot of people who probably qualify as "crazy" but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be rounded up and put away. From that point of view, "crazy" is anyone who thinks differently than you do. That's a whole lot of people.
Be careful who you imply is "crazy".
|
|
I agree. Do you think you could point that out to whomever is responsible for the billboard off of IH35 that asks me if I 'got Jesus'?
I've seen a lot of catchy Jesus phrases -- most I've not liked, some I've even been offended by. I'd be curious if any research has been done about those and if they actually accomplish what they were hoping to do.
I'd be curious if any research has been done about those and if they actually accomplish what they were hoping to do.
I imagine it polarizes people much like politics and role playing games. Those that believe in the message feel it is a shining beacon. Those that do not find it insulting. People on the fence? I do not know.
(I also don't think that belief in them will land you in a mental institute.)If people started going door to door trying to preach the word of Tinker Bell, I am sure it would not be long before they were visited by men in white coats.
I would join the church of Tinker Bell. She's cute.
A quote I feel belongs here
“Preach the Gospel always and if necessary use words”
I like that, actually.
What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
I don't celebrate Xmas as a religious holiday despite being Christian so I don't care much either way.
|
|
What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
Meh... The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with. If it's in a stable, it's the Luke version, which has no wise men. If there are wise men, then it's the Matthew version, in which case there was indeed room at the inn.
The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with.
Probably the same reason(s) Christmas is on December 25th.