Infidel

[Dave McReynolds]

There are all sorts of them. Start with Jakob Arminius, with a huge following. It's the opposite end of the spectrum from John Calvin.

 

No fair! You know what you're talking about. (Ahem) Anybody care to discuss the Internal Revenue Code now?

[doc47]

...the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

 

Or everyone except for one is wrong.

 

 

And I know who it is an' I'm not tellin'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, Leslie. Shut 'er down!

[Twisties]

On one hand, I believe that the vast majority of members of the major religions have evolved beyond the bad old days, but on the other hand, I see it only as a "circumstantial" evolution What I mean is that let the social, political and economic context change and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another inquisition arise.

 

I find this very hard to swallow, the first part, not the second, I'm not sure that we aren't living the second part right now. I see the current state of affairs as very much "the bad old days". When you listen to the rhetoric of our day it is clear that leadership claims a christian mandate. I note that we are over there (and have been throughout the last 60 years, and if you broaden that to the christian west even much longer than that), not the other way around.

 

As to your second point, certainly we are in the last 30 years in the midst of rather dramatic move towards intolerance, totalitarianism and isolationism.

[beemerman2k]

It's strange; I'm not a religious person, yet I love to discuss/debate the topic. I could talk about this stuff all day and all night. And although Pilgrim caught flak for his perspective, I like and mostly agree with what he had to say, I just haven't had time to put together my response in all I had to do today.

 

Anyhow, to sorta tie all this back to the original point of this thread, Ayann Hirsi Ali and her people aren't free to openly discuss and to question the issues we can freely raise in our societies. I just thank something or somebody out there somewhere for all our freedoms and blessings -- I mean gifts and fortunes

[Couchrocket]

Can you cite any recognized Christian religious philosophers who don't believe that the bible supports pre-election?

What David said, and tons of others which merely illustrates my original point.

[Dave McReynolds]

What David said, and tons of others which merely illustrates my original point.

 

I seem to have stumbled into an argument that has been raging among intellects much greater than my own for hundreds of years. My own religious education obviously reflected the Calvinistic views, which was really the only side of the argument I was exposed to up to the time I excused myself from organized religion and devoted myself to the Internal Revenue Code.

 

After looking at the bios of those mentioned by David, and having already been aware of the ones I mentioned on the other side of the argument, my questions are these:

 

1. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation was pre-ordained from before the foundations of the earth?

 

2. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Jakob Arminius or John Wesley, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation is dependent on your voluntarily accepting Christ as your savior?

[doc47]

Am I missing something?

How can one voluntarily accept Christ if everything is pre-ordained?

Or is that just the point?

 

Bartender, two more, please.

[beemerman2k]

After looking at the bios of those mentioned by David, and having already been aware of the ones I mentioned on the other side of the argument, my questions are these:

 

1. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation was pre-ordained from before the foundations of the earth?

 

2. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Jakob Arminius or John Wesley, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation is dependent on your voluntarily accepting Christ as your savior?

 

 

In my opinion, we really shipwreck our chances of learning the minute we assume the Bible is the infallible "word of God". I don't believe it is, and there are too many contradictions, problems, and otherwise irreconcilable viewpoints in there to convince me it is anything but some very deep and thoughtful writings by some very learned men.

 

There are many more writings than the x number of books one considers to compose "holy writ" (different subset depending upon whether your Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc). So we have to realize that we're only reading a subset of the total body of work that the ancients wrote. Of course, we not only have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God, but also that our particular subset of books consists of the total sum works of "God's word". Problematic assumptions at best in my view.

 

I often pose questions such as those posed on this forum just to get some reactions to these absolutely puzzling contractions in theology. But the truth is, I have long ago concluded that if there is truth out there, it's not so neatly wrapped up on a package from which we can read about it. No, we have to do some serious thinking of things on our own, and then we have to have the faith and courage to take a stand for what we have concluded. In other words, my faith cannot be based upon the convictions of others, but it must be based upon my own convictions. And if my convictions tell me that the "jury is still out on this one", then so be it. But if it doesn't make sense to me, then I will risk all the lighting bolts organized religion says may come my way and I will stand up and quote the words of that great theologian, Doc47, and say:

 

Am I missing something?

How can one voluntarily accept Christ if everything is pre-ordained?

Or is that just the point?

 

Bartender, two more, please.

[David]

1. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation was pre-ordained from before the foundations of the earth?

 

2. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Jakob Arminius or John Wesley, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation is dependent on your voluntarily accepting Christ as your savior?

 

In simplistic terms, it points to the fact that both of these perspectives cannot be correct. In fact, both might be wrong.

 

I think it's the latter, and my disgust for theology is deep. Even deeper than my disgust for the internal revenue code.

 

Our human history is chock full of idiots who wanted desperately to find the truth--that's not a bad little drive in itself, but they wanted "the truth" for a mix of bad reasons:

 

--so they could amass power

 

--so they could make quick judgments, preferring black/white over gray

 

The Christian faith has been no different than the Muslim faith in that regard. We're just catching them at different points in the cycle.

[Ken H.]

In my opinion, we really shipwreck our chances of learning the minute we assume the Bible is the infallible "word of God".

Or the Qur'an, Talmud, Book of Hebrews, Body of Hindu Scriptures, Buddhist Texts, Book of Mormons, and a long list of other "authoritative works."

 

One of the most dangerous humans there is, regardless of where and when over the centuries (including now) is the human that believes (s)he has the inside track on what God thinks.

[Ken H.]

...the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

 

Or everyone except for one is wrong.

Ah, yes ... and there's the rub.

There in lies the fundamental problem with the battles for dominance, sometimes bloody battles, among the various religions of the world throughout history, everybody believes their particular 'one' is the one. The whole concept is irreconcilable.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

One of the most dangerous humans there is, regardless of where and when over the centuries (including now) is the human that believes (s)he has the inside track on what God thinks.

 

I've always felt that if there were such a thing as 'Original Sin' (and personally, I don't think there is), claiming to "Know" the the mind of God would be it.

 

The hubris, arrogance, willful self delusion, and purposeful and strategic ignorance of various religious 'truths' at one time, but then not at another, required for a person to feel, with confidence, that they, a mere human, can know with clarity, what passes through the mind of "The Creator of All Things", nearly boggles my mind.

[smiller]

So be careful... pick the wrong 'one' and they'll be room for you at the Unrally in Hell, and the heat can't be good for your final drive.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

In my opinion, we really shipwreck our chances of learning the minute we assume the Bible is the infallible "word of God". I don't believe it is, and there are too many contradictions, problems, and otherwise irreconcilable viewpoints in there to convince me it is anything but some very deep and thoughtful writings by some very learned men.

 

I agree.

 

For one to say that they believe the bible (or any other religious tome) is the literal, and unaltered word of "God", any god, and not be spiritually and intellectually lazy, they first have to educate themselves with knowledge of the history of the religion (not merely the 'history' found in the book it's self), the history and chronology of how the text was passed down to us, and written/rewritten, redacted and amended over the centuries, and also become somewhat aware of the difficulties in translating and interpreting words and passages originally put down in languages which have been dead now for a very long time. And beyond that, they also have to have more than a 'nodding' aquaintence with the culture, mind and world view of the people who wrote the passages in question because meaning and context change enourmously over time even when words don't.

 

And once the person has accomplished all of this, they must then believe that all of these changes, effects, amendments and deletions were each by "Holy Design", such that at each moment in history, the book as a whole transmitted exactly, without error, or the corruption of human input, what it was intended to transmit, and that message was also the same at each moment in history.

 

My credulity just can't stretch quite that far.

[Couchrocket]

I seem to have stumbled into an argument that has been raging among intellects much greater than my own for hundreds of years.

This is true. It is much like the arguments for "young earth vs. old earth," which also crack me up. Both sides of the argument seem to forget, that since Einstein, this notion of time being a fixed quantity and rate, is out the window, and that "apparent time" and how much of it "there has been" depends on a lot of factors.

 

In the same way, "old theologians" were stuck in a paradigm of "time as infinite and always in existence" (with God "inside of it") and so naturally their struggle to understand scripture reflected what the scientists of the day told them was "true."

 

We have known better for quite a while now.

 

The ignorance rampant in this thread is discouraging.

 

Certainly thinking people should "beware" anyone who claims to know it "all" (and that would include the mind of God of course), but because this is true doesn't mean that we don't know "anything" about anything (a popular idea) and that would also include the mind of God.

 

You'll all have to excuse my irritation, please. I've spent a life time in the study of epistemology, and how it relates to various truth-claims in history. I certainly don't have a corner on "all truth" and am suspicious of those who do. But having said that, it doesn't mean that we cannot know anything about truth, or, that the various truth-claims cannot be evaluated on many many levels and weighed against what we observe in human history and quotidian behavior. So, it is discouraging to see the "pop culture" notions spewed in this thread with such alacrity, assurance, and macaw-like profundity. I generally give us higher marks than that.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Certainly thinking people should "beware" anyone who claims to know it "all" (and that would include the mind of God of course), but because this is true doesn't mean that we don't know "anything" about anything (a popular idea) and that would also include the mind of God.

 

I'd agree with that as well.

 

However, (unless I'm forgeting, or misremembering) I don't think any of the posts tried to make the claim that truth, or what a 'God' might want, is completely 'unknowable'. Though related, I think that is a completely different debate/discussion.

[Agent_Orange]

"notions spewed in this thread with such alacrity, assurance, and macaw-like profundity."

Damn. I really like that . Don't know why, just do.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

So be careful... pick the wrong 'one' and they'll be room for you at the Unrally in Hell, and the heat can't be good for your final drive.

 

Shoot Seth, I can't even pick the quickest line at the grocery

so I sure don't trust myself to pick an 'absolute' when is comes to "ultimate truth"

 

If there's a hell, they probably already have a room at that 'Unholy Unrally' warmed up for me

[Pilgrim]

Mr. Baker said:

In simplistic terms, it points to the fact that both of these perspectives cannot be correct. In fact, both might be wrong.

 

I think it's the latter, and my disgust for theology is deep. Even deeper than my disgust for the internal revenue code.

 

Our human history is chock full of idiots who wanted desperately to find the truth--that's not a bad little drive in itself, but they wanted "the truth" for a mix of bad reasons:

 

--so they could amass power

 

--so they could make quick judgments, preferring black/white over gray

 

The Christian faith has been no different than the Muslim faith in that regard. We're just catching them at different points in the cycle.

 

Ain't no apostate like a missionary's kid!

 

I first got a glimpse of that as youth when the preacher's daughter took me up in the belfry to show me the Holy Ghost. Life hasn't been the same since.

 

Pilgrim

[Couchrocket]

I don't think any of the posts tried to make the claim that truth, or what a 'God' might want, is completely 'unknowable'.

Inference, my friend... inference. This sort of indirect inference (unwitting in most cases -- so hear me correctly, please) is one of the scary things about the lack of critical thinking that is a hallmark of our culture today.

[David]

Ain't no apostate like a missionary's kid!

 

Remember, I was talking about religion, not belief.

 

I first got a glimpse of that as youth when the preacher's daughter took me up in the belfry to show me the Holy Ghost. Life hasn't been the same since.

 

Darn. I went to the wrong church as a kid. Did you speak in tongues, so to speak?

[Pilgrim]

You have a very dirty mind, Mr. Baker. It's one of your more engaging characteristics.

 

Moving on, it was good that you mentioned "belief," for it opens this door . . .

 

Theology is man's attempt to clarify, to rationalize, something he can only hear echos of the footsteps of the shadows of. He doesn't understand, but it is his nature to try - that may be one of God's several jokes on man. Being a human undertaking, theology is doomed to confusion and failure, and confusion and failure give rise to a search for absolutes. There are none - ever, anywhere in the universe man knows. But that doesn't stop us from fighting over our versions of The Absolute Truth.

 

I decided long ago that a human trying to figure out God is like an ant trying to write a treatise on nuclear physics. Even assuming the ant had fingers, he still couldn't do it; he just doesn't have the frame of reference. And no more can we come up with answers about God - not only do we not have answers, we don't even have enough brainpower to create meaningful questions. No, theology is just what we do to fill idle time, like kids playing in a sandbox, pretending it's the desert. The view brought to them by their imagination bears no relationship to the reality of a desert, and so it is for mankind considering God.

 

Which is why it ultimately must boil down to faith. Over time, humans have been given little glimpses of the infinite and sometimes they or other people have troubled themselves to write it down. Some have undoubtedly gotten it wrong and others will continue to do so. Others have gotten it right. We, here and now, are confronted with the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff and never mind about trying to put some logical overlay on everything that's been reported. Faith lies, not in believing each and every tale from whatever source, but in accepting the total picture that all those glimpses paint.

 

I know that someday the ashes and dust that are the "me, now" will be sucked into a star and ejected as radiation. And I [/i]believe[/i] that God will be watching then, as He always has.

 

Pilgrim

[doc47]

1. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation was pre-ordained from before the foundations of the earth?

 

2. How can you ignore the persuasive arguments of Jakob Arminius or John Wesley, backed by authoritative bible verses, that your salvation is dependent on your voluntarily accepting Christ as your savior?

 

In simplistic terms, it points to the fact that both of these perspectives cannot be correct. In fact, both might be wrong.

 

I think it's the latter, and my disgust for theology is deep. Even deeper than my disgust for the internal revenue code.

 

Our human history is chock full of idiots who wanted desperately to find the truth--that's not a bad little drive in itself, but they wanted "the truth" for a mix of bad reasons:

 

--so they could amass power

 

--so they could make quick judgments, preferring black/white over gray

 

The Christian faith has been no different than the Muslim faith in that regard. We're just catching them at different points in the cycle.

_________________________________________________________

 

Holy Discourse, Batman!

 

David, I always assumed you were coming from a Christian viewpoint. I'm floored.

 

As Hippocrates said to his first med student:

1. Never assume anything

2. Never say never.

3. Never say always.

[Couchrocket]

but they wanted "the truth" for a mix of bad reasons

Now we're getting to it!

 

In times past, when the consensus was "religious" (of some flavor or another) those with evil intent used abuse of religion to amass power and control.

 

In more modern times (Islamic extremism, and Christian "right-wing" extremism notwithstanding -- both radical reactions to secularism and its horrors in the last century), the shift in consensus (by the philosophers at least, until VERY recently) toward one flavor of secularism or another (right and left) ushered in a more enlightened form of abuse of the consensus to give us totalitarianism and its abuse of the consensus to amass power and control. They managed a bang-up job of it last century, torturing and killing on a scale never seen in all of previous human history "added up" - and managed to do so without invoking God at all. Quite an accomplishment!

 

So, it isn't the consensus "itself" that is the root of the problem (though that is another very large subject in itself) it is "the evil that men do" that is the root of the problem. They just hop on whatever bus happens to be passing by in each age. Some would posit that "we're getting better and better" as we go along, but frankly I'd take the rather limited abuse of the consensus during the crusades over the Holocaust, and Stalin's doings... pretty much any day. Evil intent and action get more efficient with progress in technology. It wasn't all that long ago, you may recall. The fact that we're all fat, dumb, and happy in America doesn't make it any less real, or "immediate" in history.

 

In summary... as Pogo has said much more aptly than I could ever do.

 

 

And, what's the cure for that?

[beemerman2k]

And, what's the cure for that?

 

To me, it begins with the realization that we embrace ideas and not reality or truth or facts.

 

In my observation: humans often have a tough time distinguishing ideas from reality. In both religion and politics primarily, but also in other venues, we often confuse an idea with reality. We learned about the ideas behind our religions, and now we view some people as our inherent "brothers" and "sisters", and others as our enemies -- simply because of where they stand with respect to our ideas.

 

We also learned ideas that suggest that some people are inferior because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual preference or because of their gender, economic status, etc. We learned ideas that suggest certain diseases are punishments from God to those who don't follow his commands. Indeed, some have the idea that God will crush our country from within in a way similar to what happened to the Roman Empire because of our "open society". We allow these ideas to drive us to hate some, to kill some, to distain some, and to love some. Religion and politics are full of ideas; indeed, in my view, religion and politics are little more than a collection of ideas! They are both often very weak on objective, provable, and replicatable data.

 

Once we get an idea into our heads, it literally changes how we see reality. Even facts become invisible when compared with our ideas. All the evidence in the world can point to something (age of the planet, existence of dinosaurs, prehistoric human civilizations, etc), yet if our ideas say they never exsited, then to hell with reality, we will see the facts (or, rather, not see them) through the lens of our ideas. We will go to war and kill other people and believe in the rightness of hating them simply because of a clash between our respective ideas.

 

Funny how when it really matters, though, we manage to chuck ideas and stand firmly on facts and reality, like with our bank accounts and our medical procedures! No one wants a banker or a doctor to base their decisions on ideas, we want them to work with facts, data, and reality!

 

This human phenomenon of internalizing ideas and turning them into reality -- no, and turning them into truth, is why I tend to keep my distance from organized religion. When it comes to my life and my soul, no one has more authority than I do in determining what the ultimate ideas are for me to embrace and which are not. I love the writings of scholars and leaders of just about all faiths, but they are little more than tools; they exist to assist, not to govern!

 

As long as we can be aware of the fact that we embrace ideas, I think we have a shot of not confusing them with reality. Then we can start asking the tough questions as to where our ideas are taking us. Most of us seem not aware of this distinction, and therefore we live in a world full of conflics and confusion inspired by religious and political ideas.

[Pilgrim]

When you think back on the millions and millions of people that people have killed over the centuries in the name of "God", it seems like the ultimate oxymoron of humanity itself.

A common, but hollow, thought. By comparison, think of the other millions to whom it has brought peace, solace, courage, forbearance, a softening of heart and other things that improve the human condition individually and en masse.

But that makes the presumption that those things; peace, solace, courage, forbearance, softening of the heart, could have only originated from a god, a belief in one, or from the direction of one. It dismisses the possibility, that mankind could have developed, created, grown into those things/characteristics/accomplishments on it's own. It short changes who we are and our abilities as humans to ultimately become those things you list for our own betterment.

 

Ken, your answer is a non sequitur. You pointed out the misery that religion has brought about and in response I pointed out the good things. Never mind that some people find those things without religion: the fact is the millions have found them through religion. Point being, like any other human activity, religion has its upside and its downside. To consider just one of them, then be dismissive of religion, is intellectually sloppy. One may make a case against religion, but if it is to be honest then the good must be balanced against the bad.

 

I'm not trying to say there that one must be religious to be a good person; certainly, that is not so. On the other hand, though, religion has made many people good and made things good for many others.

 

Pilgrim

[Couchrocket]

James,

 

Outside of formulating and embracing ideas... what tools do we have to navigate in this world? It is pretty much self evident that our perception of reality is based on a whole bunch of things from our digestion, to our physical senses, to inherited cultural frames of reference, our environment, and to our volition and creativity (to name just a few). But cogito ergo sum, ipso facto means that "I formulate ideas."

 

I like what you've said in many ways, but it strikes me as insufficient as an avenue to "get anywhere" in terms of "what is the cure for that?"

 

I think you'd appreciate (if you've not already read him) Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" (and other books)... While I don't embrace the philosophy he postulates, (because it too, can't get anywhere) it is a good exploration of some of the tangential issues you raise.

[beemerman2k]

I like what you've said in many ways, but it strikes me as insufficient as an avenue to "get anywhere" in terms of "what is the cure for that?"

 

My point is that we are often unaware of the fact that we are simply dealing with ideas. We speak of finding the Truth or enlightenment, yet we don't acknowledge that these are all relative and subjective, well, ideas! Once we get caught up in an idea, so-called "truth" can knock us over the head and we won't even realize it.

 

If one's idea is that there is a God, all the scientific evidence to the contrary will be useless in changing those ideas. Conversely, if one is an atheist, all the scientific evidence in the world -- that might make another marvel at the work of an apparent Creator -- will mean nothing to the non believer.

 

I think we can make tremendous progress and find personal enlightenment simply by consciously acknowledging the ideas we have decided to embrace. Once we acknowledge that all we have are ideas, then maybe we'll stop pretending that we have the "ultimate truth" and are therefore not in a position to judge or to mistreat others.

 

I think you'd appreciate (if you've not already read him) Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" (and other books)... While I don't embrace the philosophy he postulates, (because it too, can't get anywhere) it is a good exploration of some of the tangential issues you raise.

 

"Ishmael" is one of the best, most enjoyable books I've ever read. I read that book every year or so; I like it that much. This book has probably impacted my thinking more than any other -- aside from the writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, that is.

 

Excellent example of a writer who sprinkles facts all over our most dearly held ideas. Great read!

 

BTW: I kinda disagree that the "ideas" presented in "Ishmael" won't get us anywhere. If nothing else, it may change our view of the world and the role we are to play in it, which will therefore result in lifestyles that are more beneficial for all involved than the old, self-centered way of living we're all used to.

[Couchrocket]

disagree that the "ideas" presented in "Ishmael" won't get us anywhere

As a philosophical framework, his ideas can't get us anywhere, because he doesn't take us anywhere with them. Because as a system, it isn't coherent. In fact it isn't a system. If you've ever visited his web site/world you'd find it very interesting.

 

BUT. And a big "but"... I "would" say that the leaver vs. taker analogies in the books are excellent, and are an idea, that postulate a "truth," that we would all benefit from if Incorporated into our thinking as we live in the real world. I find them quite "biblical."

 

On top of that, "Ishmael" is a jolly-good read, to boot.

 

And, MLK Jr.? Well, HERO, character, integrity come to mind very quickly. I never cease to be blessed in hearing his "I Have a Dream" speech. The most powerful blend of beautifully chosen words, prose poetry, cadence, and solid biblical theology I've heard uttered in my lifetime. True inspiration.

[Couchrocket]

by consciously acknowledging the ideas we have decided to embrace

YES! And, their implications. There is wisdom here, IMO.

 

Far too often people come by their presuppositions the same way children get chicken pox.

[Pilgrim]

Dave, what I've turned green above is basic Christian theology; there's nothing "fundamentalist" about it. Taken as a part of the whole Christ-story, it makes sense. In a particularly painful, gruesome fashion, He sacrificed himself for you. Spurn the sacrifice, be ungrateful or deny it, and you're, uh, out of the picture, so to speak. You may not like it, may not accept it, but it's not basically confusing.

Oddly enough, the idea that anyone who does not believe in one particular religion is somehow 'out of the picture' and will spend an eternity in Hell is kind of confusing to me.

 

Seth, there's a logical reason (within the Christ-story) for that. No other religion offers redemption of sins through the self-sacrifice of another. Christians believe that sins lead you to Hell. Since you are incapable of leading a sin-free life, and since God does not want to see you in Hell, the escape mechanism from Hell is forgiveness. However, forgiveness comes at a cost and just as in day-to-day life, forgiveness must be accepted to be effective. The cost is not the sacrifice of your favorite dog or your first-born son. The sacrifice was made by Jesus when he surrendered himself to suffer in your place. He threw himself on that grenade for you. All you have to do to escape Hell is acknowledge that someone did you a favor and that you're sorry you've made it necessary. Every day, you say you are sorry because every day you do bad things again.

 

So it's not a matter of going to Hell because one doesn't belong to a particular religion. The fine distinction is that someone is Hell-bound because he will not avail himself of the forgiveness that has been offered for the bad things he's done.

 

Hell? What is it? Well, this here is the first personal glimpse I've given of what I believe, as opposed to explaining how I understand things. First of all, I think Hell may be tailored to the individual; it's not flame and stinking pits.

 

The worst Hell I can imagine, the one that I fear, is being strapped into a chair, so to speak, and made to watch big-screen, surround-sound reruns of all the bad things I've ever done, all the people I've ever hurt enhanced by a full, deep, down-to-the core understanding, of what I did and what the effects were. To feel myself the pain I caused and the shame it brings - forever more.

 

Pilgrim

[lawnchairboy]

The worst Hell I can imagine, the one that I fear, is being strapped into a chair, so to speak, and made to watch big-screen, surround-sound reruns of all the bad things I've ever done, all the people I've ever hurt enhanced by a full, deep, down-to-the core understanding, of what I did and what the effects were. To feel myself the pain I caused and the shame it brings - forever more.

 

 

A recovering catholic in baltimore shivers...

[smiller]

So it's not a matter of going to Hell because one doesn't belong to a particular religion. The fine distinction is that someone is Hell-bound because he will not avail himself of the forgiveness that has been offered for the bad things he's done.

OK, I was under the impression that one was required to believe in the divinity of Christ in order to be forgiven. If that's not the case I misunderstood.

 

First of all, I think Hell may be tailored to the individual;

In which case in Hell I will be surrounded by people trying to justify the validity of faith as a belief system.

[Couchrocket]

No other religion offers redemption of sins through the self-sacrifice of another. Christians believe that sins lead you to Hell. Since you are incapable of leading a sin-free life, and since God does not want to see you in Hell, the escape mechanism from Hell is forgiveness. However, forgiveness comes at a cost and just as in day-to-day life, forgiveness must be accepted to be effective. The cost is not the sacrifice of your favorite dog or your first-born son. The sacrifice was made by Jesus when he surrendered himself to suffer in your place. He threw himself on that grenade for you. All you have to do to escape Hell is acknowledge that someone did you a favor and that you're sorry you've made it necessary. Every day, you say you are sorry because every day you do bad things again.

 

So it's not a matter of going to Hell because one doesn't belong to a particular religion. The fine distinction is that someone is Hell-bound because he will not avail himself of the forgiveness that has been offered for the bad things he's done.

 

Hell? What is it? Well, this here is the first personal glimpse I've given of what I believe, as opposed to explaining how I understand things. First of all, I think Hell may be tailored to the individual; it's not flame and stinking pits.

 

The worst Hell I can imagine, the one that I fear, is being strapped into a chair, so to speak, and made to watch big-screen, surround-sound reruns of all the bad things I've ever done, all the people I've ever hurt enhanced by a full, deep, down-to-the core understanding, of what I did and what the effects were. To feel myself the pain I caused and the shame it brings - forever more.

 

Pilgrim

About as succinctly put as I've ever heard it. Is this the position you hold?

[Pilgrim]

No other religion offers redemption of sins through the self-sacrifice of another. Christians believe that sins lead you to Hell. Since you are incapable of leading a sin-free life, and since God does not want to see you in Hell, the escape mechanism from Hell is forgiveness. However, forgiveness comes at a cost and just as in day-to-day life, forgiveness must be accepted to be effective. The cost is not the sacrifice of your favorite dog or your first-born son. The sacrifice was made by Jesus when he surrendered himself to suffer in your place. He threw himself on that grenade for you. All you have to do to escape Hell is acknowledge that someone did you a favor and that you're sorry you've made it necessary. Every day, you say you are sorry because every day you do bad things again.

 

So it's not a matter of going to Hell because one doesn't belong to a particular religion. The fine distinction is that someone is Hell-bound because he will not avail himself of the forgiveness that has been offered for the bad things he's done.

 

Hell? What is it? Well, this here is the first personal glimpse I've given of what I believe, as opposed to explaining how I understand things. First of all, I think Hell may be tailored to the individual; it's not flame and stinking pits.

 

The worst Hell I can imagine, the one that I fear, is being strapped into a chair, so to speak, and made to watch big-screen, surround-sound reruns of all the bad things I've ever done, all the people I've ever hurt enhanced by a full, deep, down-to-the core understanding, of what I did and what the effects were. To feel myself the pain I caused and the shame it brings - forever more.

 

Pilgrim

About as succinctly put as I've ever heard it. Is this the position you hold?

 

Joyfully, Yes.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

So it's not a matter of going to Hell because one doesn't belong to a particular religion. The fine distinction is that someone is Hell-bound because he will not avail himself of the forgiveness that has been offered for the bad things he's done.

OK, I was under the impression that one was required to believe in the divinity of Christ in order to be forgiven. If that's not the case I misunderstood.

 

That's certainly part of Christian theology. But then, I am a skeptic about theology, which is but man's poor interpretation of an incomplete understanding of an immeasurably complex process. As I said in another post, we aren't smart enough to be able to frame the questions, much less figure out the answers. Was Christ divine? Shoot, I don't know; it's probably a meaningless question for man to consider. Anyway, it doesn't matter in my personal theology - I believe he sacrificed himself for me and that's enough. All I can do is say "Thanks, God" every time it occurs to me, not ask too many dumb questions, and trust He knows I'm doing the best I can.

 

Pilgrim

[Lawman]

Thank you Pilgrim. At the risk of being ridiculed for being overly simplistic I decided long ago that the only explanation that makes sense for creation and life as I know it is that there must be a God. Christianity to me boils down to whether or not Jesus arose from the dead. If he did then that is enough to convince me that He is the savior. If he didn't then Christianity is meaningless to me.. I've studied the evidence and if rising from the dead were a crime I believe there is sufficient evidence to convict Jesus. I believe that man's attempt to answer the questions raised here is folly and God is laughing His you know what off as he reads this..I like your analogy to the ant..For man to try to domesticate God is just a waste of time.. For us to doubt the resurrection because we can't fully understand election and predestination just doesn't make sense..If one believes Jesus was raised from the dead and accepts Him as savior what difference does the fallibilty or infallibility of the Bible make?

I promise to not post again on this thread so no need to lock this thread on my account...

[Couchrocket]

Joyfully, Yes.

 

Pilgrim

Indeed! Joyfully.

[doc47]

Pilgrim, that is a beautiful confession and moving revelation of self. I love you for that, brother.

 

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

d

[russell_bynum]

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

Acts follow faith. You're still going to screw up, because...well...because you're a screwup. But if your faith is true, then you will try to screw up less, and when you do screw up, you'll fess up.

 

If you've got acts without faith, then you're just going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. If you've got faith, then you do the acts because that's what you want to do.

[Pilgrim]

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

Acts follow faith. You're still going to screw up, because...well...because you're a screwup. But if your faith is true, then you will try to screw up less, and when you do screw up, you'll fess up.

 

If you've got acts without faith, then you're just going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. If you've got faith, then you do the acts because that's what you want to do.

 

What he said, every jot and tittle. I couldn't improve on it.

 

Pilgrim

[beemerman2k]

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

Acts follow faith. You're still going to screw up, because...well...because you're a screwup. But if your faith is true, then you will try to screw up less, and when you do screw up, you'll fess up.

 

If you've got acts without faith, then you're just going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. If you've got faith, then you do the acts because that's what you want to do.

 

What he said, every jot and tittle. I couldn't improve on it.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

Hmmm, time to rename this thread, "Fidel"!

[Lineareagle]

It is very interesting how this thread has morphed into its present state.

I do not know if I should try to get it back on track or not.

Probably, not.

She has had an intense life.

Here, maybe she can get us back on track.

An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[smiller]

It is very interesting how this thread has morphed into its present state.

I do not know if I should try to get it back on track or not.

Probably, not.

She has had an intense life.

Here, maybe she can get us back on track.

An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

She is a very courageous woman. It's always difficult to say what others don't want to hear and especially so regarding religious topics. I can't comment on her criticisms of her own faith because it's probably not appropriate for an outsider to do that, other than to agree wholeheartedly with her general premise and say that any faith with dictatorial leaders who believe that they have a line on absolute truth needs to examine itself very closely.

[Ken H.]

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

d

Yes indeed. That's always been a puzzle to me about the tenants of Christianity, unique to Christianity I think; that you can screw up (using Russell's term) as much as you want, and as long as you ask for forgiveness of your screw ups, and that forgiveness/absolution is given to you by someone somewhere (e.g. - a priest) before your moment of death, you're good to go for eternity. Seems like the whole thing is one big giant "get out of jail free card" and a perfect pretense for doing whatever you want, just get to 'the man' in time afterward. In the end you got away with everything you did while you where on earth because Jesus forgave you. What kind of basis is that on which to build a successful humanity that thoughtfully considers its actions prior to them? Not a very good one IMHO.

[Dave McReynolds]

Yes indeed. That's always been a puzzle to me about the tenants of Christianity, unique to Christianity I think; that you can screw up (using Russell's term) as much as you want, and as long as you ask for forgiveness of your screw ups, and that forgiveness/absolution is given to you by someone somewhere (e.g. - a priest) before your moment of death, you're good to go for eternity. Seems like the whole thing is one big giant "get out of jail free card" and a perfect pretense for doing whatever you want, just get to 'the man' in time afterward. In the end you got away with everything you did while you where on earth because Jesus forgave you. What kind of basis is that on which to build a successful humanity that thoughtfully considers its actions prior to them? Not a very good one IMHO.

 

I think Christians would hold that whether your asking to be forgiven is accepted or not depends on its sincerity. Similar to a criminal asking for mercy from a court while the DA responds that the criminal isn't really sorry for doing the act, just for getting caught. God, hopefully being in a better position to judge sincerity than a human judge, will know if you're really sincere or not.

 

As far as the "get out of jail free" card is concerned, if you subscribe to the Calvinistic viewpoint, you're born with one, or not. If you subscribe to the evangelistic viewpoint, you have to ask for one....sincerely.

 

Either way, it raises a number of bothersome questions, some of which have already been addressed, such as the justice in someone who is an equally a good or bad person as a Christian, but because of his faith doesn't ask for, or isn't born with, his "get out of jail free" card being condemned while the Christian walks.

 

Even if you don't subscribe to the Calvinistic view, you must believe that God is sufficiently superior to reasonably predict, with say 99.999999+ percent accuracy, even taking into account "free will," the future course of events. Why would a merciful God create someone who has a 99.999999+ percent chance of being condemned to hell?

 

Of course, none of this really matters, because what is, is, and we will ultimately have to accept that. Whether God is the God of the Christian bible, or any other bible, or if all the bibles that have ever been written are completely off point, all of our debating isn't likely to change God's mind about things, and God is sufficiently capable to reveal to us what he wants us to know in whatever way he chooses to reveal it.

 

My fall from grace in the eyes of the Christian church hasn't lessened my spirituality, but has instead opened me up to spiritual experiences that might not have been possible within organized religion. Everyone needs to find his own way. My own personal belief is that organized religion is an expression of man's generally extroverted nature, which finds comfort and energy in groups, so forms groups for any reason, whether religious, social, or otherwise. Those of us who are more introverted may find more comfort and energy in more solitary pursuits.

[beemerman2k]

Either way, it raises a number of bothersome questions...Why would a merciful God create someone who has a 99.999999+ percent chance of being condemned to hell?

 

This is a question that has plagued my belief in the Christian viewpoint since I was a child. I remember as a 10 year old asking my church pastor this very thing. To take the question further, why create humans at all if the majority of them will end up in hell (Matthew 7:13,14)? I've read the Garden of Eden story many times; it appears to me that God's Garden wasn't so "Eden" after all if the only 2 humans to reside there had to be kicked out. Did God make a mistake here? Somethings not right. Did God create beings who have desires he's not aware of? Did God know about the serpent and his ambitions? If I let my kids play on the freeway, who's fault is it if they get killed by the speeding cars -- theirs or mine?

 

My fall from grace in the eyes of the Christian church hasn't lessened my spirituality, but has instead opened me up to spiritual experiences that might not have been possible within organized religion. Everyone needs to find his own way. My own personal belief is that organized religion is an expression of man's generally extroverted nature, which finds comfort and energy in groups, so forms groups for any reason, whether religious, social, or otherwise. Those of us who are more introverted may find more comfort and energy in more solitary pursuits.

 

Once you break from the "group", you feel an amazing amount of freedom to be a free and independent thinker. You are free to ask the questions the group doesn't seem to want to acknowledge. The group likes to pretend that it all makes sense and if you have a problem with it, then you must be one of those whom Calvin said was predestined for condemnation. That's why I don't congregate to groups anymore either.

[Pilgrim]

What isn't addressed is that out of forgiveness has to come a change in one's behavior. That's been a sore point in Christian theology for ages; a perennial source of debate. What good is belief without acts?

 

d

Yes indeed. That's always been a puzzle to me about the tenants of Christianity, unique to Christianity I think; that you can screw up (using Russell's term) as much as you want, and as long as you ask for forgiveness of your screw ups, and that forgiveness/absolution is given to you by someone somewhere (e.g. - a priest) before your moment of death, you're good to go for eternity. Seems like the whole thing is one big giant "get out of jail free card" and a perfect pretense for doing whatever you want, just get to 'the man' in time afterward. In the end you got away with everything you did while you where on earth because Jesus forgave you. What kind of basis is that on which to build a successful humanity that thoughtfully considers its actions prior to them? Not a very good one IMHO.

 

Ken, Russell's explanation didn't work for you, so despite my saying I couldn't have done it better I'm going to it differently.

 

First, to clarify a side issue. The priest grants absolution, but absolution is not forgiveness - it is formal notice, so to speak, of the forgiveness granted by God. Some people will try to turn that into a semantic quibble but it's not - the distinction is important to recognize. In fact, the concept of man acting as a conduit of God's grace is central to understanding why religions and religious people often fail. People confuse religion and its exercise (which involve imperfect man) with faith and God. David alluded to that earlier when I japed that there's no apostate like a missionary's kid - he told me not to to confuse faith and theology.

 

It is the imperfection of man's overt exercise of his faith (which we call religion and theology) that has kept me out of churches for over forty years - I'm not sure how well my faith would stand up to the fallibility of man's organized beliefs. (There's a whole 'nother tangent to take off on in that, but not here. How are beliefs to be carried forward without some formal process and organized body of knowledge? Which brings us back to churches and theology.)

 

To believe you can lead a heedless life without consequence just by tossing off a casual "I'm sorry" from time to time with no commitment to do better is wrong. But you can lead the most vile, destructive, disgusting life imaginable and still be forgiven if your repentance is sincere, if suddenly your mind explodes, it all dawns on you, and you say, no, you feel, "What have I done!? God, please forgive me." Even if it takes place with your last breath.

 

Look, I'm trying to walk a fine line here between explaining how it works for me, and preaching and proselytizing. Some people, maybe even some here, will take my explanations of how it works for me as criticisms of their beliefs or disbeliefs: they're not. What you believe is for you and Saint Peter to discuss at an appropriate time. I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else (although conventional theology says I should), but it seems to come out that way sometimes.

 

Pilgrim

 

EDIT: I see I could have saved the wear and tear on my keyboard. Dave did an excellent job of explanation.

[russell_bynum]

To take the question further, why create humans at all if the majority of them will end up in hell (Matthew 7:13,14)? I've read the Garden of Eden story many times; it appears to me that God's Garden wasn't so "Eden" after all if the only 2 humans to reside there had to be kicked out. Did God make a mistake here? Somethings not right. Did God create beings who have desires he's not aware of? Did God know about the serpent and his ambitions? If I let my kids play on the freeway, who's fault is it if they get killed by the speeding cars -- theirs or mine?

 

I keep coming back to the analogy of the parent/child relationship.

 

My parents created me, and they hope that I grow up and live my life according to what they believe is right.

 

They could keep me locked up and under constant supervision all the time to make sure I do what I'm supposed to do, but they'd rather give me guidance, help point me in the right direction, and then let me make my own choices.

 

When I do make those choices, they're much more meaningful than if they were made for me and I was just forced to live a certain way.

[beemerman2k]

Yeah, but are your parents going to send you to a place of eternal condemnation if they don't like the choices you've made? Do they consider themselves to be the ultimate authority on truth, life, and wisdom? The analogy breaks down fast when compared to religious doctrine.

 

The question is "with the stakes being eternity in hell why would God create "children" who are very likely to end up there? Not why did God create "children" in and of itself.