You can't please God the way Enoch did without some faith, because those who come to God must (minimally) believe that:
A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him.
That's it. The "good news" is so simple that a child can understand it, and so deep that a philosopher can't.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
With all due respect, the initial question was "How can you believe in God?" and not "Which of the huge litany of Christian, Catholic, and pseudo-Christian ethical laws do you think actually apply, and how do you reconcile the ones that seem to conflict with scientific evidence?"
Larry really was right-- a lot of people's perceptions make the question more complicated than it needs to be.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
I guess I'm a bit confused... Since when was the whole point of Christianity getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell? If your view of religion is just about what happens "after death", then I submit that perhaps you're missing the point. Do you really think God made this whole world just to throw it away in a few thousand years after it starts getting interesting?
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
Christianity is about a life change -- not a fire insurance policy.
Oh I get it now. That explains why so many Christians are unrepentant, selfish bastards who would no sooner help their fellow man than drink their own urine. They're waiting for Jesus to change them.
That's a pretty cool philosophy. Ignore all the teachings of your savior, live an evil life and wait for him to change it all for you. No need to put any effort in yourself (apart from giving money to that nice man on Sundays because Jesus wants you to).
Assuming that you're actually asking a question here and not just being a troll, I think the answer to the first part would be "yeah, in a sense". It says specifically in the Bible that we are "working out our faith", i.e., working towards a more perfect understanding of what our faith means and how to use it day to day. Would you expect a kid in kindergarten to be able to do the job of an engineer just because you gave them a textbook on differential equations? I doubt it. The kid would have to work to understand what's being taught, learn how to apply it, and gain some experience using it in the real world before he finally gets it right.
To continue the analogy, engineers still make mistakes, even after they've been on the job for 30 years. Christians are still humans. They make mistakes, too. And as far as unrepentant Christians go, I don't think you can actually call them Christians, in the real sense of the word. One of the cornerstones of Christian doctrine is repentance. Someone who rejects the concept of repentance is by definition, not a Christian.
A little cynicism goes a long way. Sometimes, a little too far, if you ask me.
However, I think you have a different idea of what Christianity is from this other joker. He says that Jesus will change your life, and makes no mention of you having to put in any kind of effort yourself. Apparently if you don't change then it's because you didn't believe in Jesus enough.
Kinda reminds me of that bit in Peter Pan where Tinkerbell will die if all the little children in the audience don't say that they believe in fairies.
I'm not trying to belittle Christians, but those kinds of arguments are just too weak to pass up.
joshki wrote:
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
- - - - That's YOUR sect's interpretation of scripture.
I guess I'm a bit confused... Since when was the whole point of Christianity getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell? If your view of religion is just about what happens "after death", then I submit that perhaps you're missing the point. Do you really think God made this whole world just to throw it away in a few thousand years after it starts getting interesting?
No that was just the point I decided to discuss. Christianity is an entire package. That is why I said elsewhere on thsi topic that if you believe in the Lord and accept the holy spirit then He will slowly change you from the inside out. Thus its not that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but rather you do not desire to do stuff (ie immoral stuff).
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
Yes it is about both but more importantly what happens in the next world/life. This is why being a martyr in Christianity is not such a bad thing. Jesus spends a great deal of time talking about such things such as he is preparing a mansion for us and he will return and make all things new, etc. Of course being a Christian is all about living a livestyle pleasing to God. So you don't just sit around twidling your thumbs waiting to die...you live life to its fullest, but more importantly, live it as God intended (morally and spiritually).
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
This is very true. God always answers prayers, but sometime his answer is "no" or "not yet" and thats something that is hard for some Christians to accept. God is looking out for what is in our best interests, not our desires.
Since when was the whole point of Christianity getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell?
I used to be disconcerted that many Christians viewed their faith as nothing more than "death insurance." They would act as though they'd gotten a "ticket to Heaven" and were free to do their own thing without consquence. You can imagine (or I guess you can't) how your post blew me away! No afterlife in Christianity??
Jesus' whole life is about Heaven and Hell. In fact, His name is about them! Jesus actual Hebrew name, Yeshua, means "the Lord saves." Saves from what? Boredom? He saves from Hell by allowing us into Heaven in spite of our sin. Lots of prophecy throughout the OT is tied up in all of this. Heaven and Hell are integral parts of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and especially the Gospels. The relevance of sin, salvation, the "Great Commission," the crucifixion, resurrection, sacrifices, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' second coming, election, grace, and prophecies are practically dependent upon the premise that Heaven and Hell exist. Not to mention the beloved 23rd Psalm and John 3:16. (I'm starting to wonder if I've been trolled.) What is all that talk in the Bible about eternal life for? There are hundreds of references to both eternal life and eternal death in the Bible. I did a search on my computer.:-) Jesus concludes a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 25 by saying, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
That's because you get only one earthly life to put your faith in Christ. When you die, your eternal fate is set forever.
The Bible talks more about this life than the afterlife because the Bible is our:
Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
God tells us things on a need-to-know basis, and right now we don't need to know very much about the details of Heaven or Hell. We'll find out soon enough.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen... due to the fact that we are given free will
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
"Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Most religious people tend to define evil as opposing the will of God. God doesn't want us to murder, so murdering is evil, etc. So, IMHO, it is impossible for God to do evil since evil is defined by what God does not want to be done.
Most religious people tend to define evil as opposing the will of God.
But then you run smack into the Euthyphro Problem. Is something good just because God says so, or does God say so because it's good?
If the former, then we just have the ultimate case of "might makes right"; if there was anything other then the arbitrary whim of God driving the choices, then we'd be in the latter case.
So God just happens to be the biggest bully around. Doing what It wants may be wise, but not inherently moral. You're 'just following orders', like lots of perpetrators of war crimes. They just picked the wrong bully to pander to, assuming God didn't want them to do that.
And if it is the latter case, then you can't use this as a defense for the free will problem, because God conforms to good, and doesn't define it; so if God is perfectly good and has free will, then It could create beings that would do so as well... and didn't.
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
The normal anser to this question is, "because they wouldn't have free will". But you yourself just said that God could choose to do evil, but doesn't want to. So either:
A: God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
or B: God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
Well apparently that comes with the territory and is just part of the nature of a free will free thinking being is that they could choose to do what God considers moral or they may do something God considers immoral. But if you create a being with a blank slate, then it could go either way could it not?
God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
Well this is hard to answer since we know little about God. But I would say if God has always existed and always will (out of time) then he came with both free will and goodness. He didn't have to choose it. He didn't have to develop like we have to. He came as the final end package. But...
God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
God is omnipotent and anything is possible if he desired it. I've heard people say "Well God could never do this as he is Love, etc.". Nope...that's putting a chain around God. The correct answer is "God WOULD never do this as jhe is Love".
This whole conversation is missing something that might be of interest.
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.:)
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.:)
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
...
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other.
I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.
Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.
"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
>I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.:) I was being unneccessarily facetious leading into the next paragraph, and didn't tie it in very well.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.:)
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.:)
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
They didn't want to break the rules; they wanted to make their own rules.
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
...the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
I don't think that's phrased well. The notion of God "making" the rules runs smack into the Euthyphro Problem [friesian.com] I alluded to in another post. If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control (otherwise we'd be smack dab in the middle of the former case). God recognizes what's good, It doesn't make the good good.
So, which is it? The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold [power] makes the rules"); or, the rules are just out there, independent of God, and "soverignty" doesn't enter into it?
Now, there's still the possibility that God acts as an oracle, perfectly recognizing what's good and relaying it to us, but as I said, "soverignty" isn't relevant. And in the case of your experiment hypothesis, why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control.
I think you miss the point. By definition, God's rules would be good, not arbitrary. There are two reasons: First, since he made the universe, he clearly knows the best way for it to work. Second, since God is an all-wise being (okay, some may diagree, but that's pretty much a given if you believe in a God with the ability to create the universe as we know it) then any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.
Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
By definition, God's rules would be good, not arbitrary. There are two reasons: First, since he made the universe, he clearly knows the best way for it to work.
What about a God that creates a universe and then perversely gives rules to the inhabitants that are ill-suited for that universe, for Its own amusement? I don't think you can get away with that "by definition".
God is an all-wise being... any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
A theist friend of mine wants to write an evolutionary ethics simulator that he thinks would arrive at things like the Golden Rule and such. Why couldn't a creator of our universe have similar goals in mind - for us to derive our own ethics? More generally, why would a creator necessarily be perfectly wise? Why not just finitely but greatly wise?
Moreover, if such a creator is so greatly superior to us, how could we know anything about It? I mean, even if It told us about Itself, how could we trust that information? It could be fooling us, or not giving us a complete picture. I'm sure a lot of sheep have a pretty worshipful view of their shepherd, and lots of evidence that they are well cared for... until they get to the slaughterhouse.
God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him
Creations surpass their creators in specific capacities all the time. That's why we make the class of creations called "tools". None of the creators of Deep Blue could have beat Kasparov at chess, but their creation did. Again I think you'll need to justfity that "by definition".
God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Now this is interesting - I haven't run into too many theists who've realized this way of deriving ethics. Like a chessboard has certain rules of operation, and our desire to win means that certain strategies are better than others. Sacrificing your queen early on is almost never a wise move, for example.
There are physical rules that govern how our universe operates, and from our desires we can derive what strategies are best for achieving them.
Of course, this means that we don't need God as a law-giver (soverignty and authority don't matter to what's ethical or not), only perhaps as a law-relayer. And that has yet to be established.
...to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future.
Why couldn't we be created so that we could see the full four-dimensional structure of space-time? Again, justification is needed.
I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why...that brings us back again to the subject of faith
Well, as C.S. Lewis said, faith is having the courage of your convictions, being able to stick to what you've determined is right in the face of adversity (like not panicking when the anaesthesiologist drops the mask on your face; you've already decided that the surgery is the best course of action).
Faith is not believing in something depsite what your judgement tells you. And my best judgement is that no theist point of view that I've come across holds up.
> then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
You're assuming that there is only ever one choice which is good. Doing good is a creative act, and creativity has infinite possibilities.
I am not assuming it. There are many situations which have multiple "evil/bad" choices, and only one good choice. I need only provide a counter-example to disprove the assertion that God has free will and is all-good.
Providing a counterexample would only demonstrate that in one particular situation God is constrained (by His all-good nature) to act in a particular way. But remember that God's all-good nature is itself a choice.
God is real. Hell is very real and you REALLY DO NOT want to go there (There is a book called the "Divine Revelation of Hell" by Mary K. Baxter that speaks to this). I can personally testify to God's presence in my life since I accepted Him. Years ago, I did not know who God was nor could I understand this "church stuff." I had picked up the Bible a few times at the age of 12 and read the book of Matthew, within my heart, I knew there was something powerful and special going on, but I just didn't get it. 8 years ago, I began attending this church... as soon as I entered... I felt something different... I was MOVED. From that point on my life change, I sort of ignored the church a little and just began to seek God on my own, reading diligently, praying, etc... well I finally struck something better than GOLD!!!! I connected with God!!!!! From that time forward my life has changed. Because of my sincere heart, God comes to me and warns me of things that are going to happen. This happens maybe 2 times a week. He even warned me that something bad was going to happen before the World Trade Center tragedy... In dreams He was showing me foreigners and guns.... and lots of deaths... but I just didn't get it. Thru dreams at night, He comes in and shows me the technical operations of the computer to help me keep my job. He forewarns me who to be careful of before I even get a job... down to the the very color of the person's hair... he corrects me when I'm living wrong... and He comforts me... HIS NAME IS GOD. Because I obey, and believe, He comes to me. If you believe, and accept, He will come to you also. If you chose not to believe, you will burn in eternal fires, lakes of fire, with demons tormenting you for the rest of your eternal life. Sadly, you will feel the fire. Hell is in the center of the earth, and there are souls there that are tormented day and night because they too did not believe or would not live according to God's Word ('The Bible'). The devil's very purpose is for you not to believe, then He can have you with him. He will turn on you. Disbelief, is the perfect setup.
God loves everyone. Every breath that you take is because of God. However, there is is a bad spirit out there also. God has given us "freedom of choice." He wants us to come freely, He will not twist your arm. Every command that He has given is for our own good. If you obey,your soul will have peace and love forever. The peace that surpasses all understanding. Do not try to rely on your 5-senses. If you don't understand, it's okay... take a step of faith and SEEK HIM, chase him more diligently than you chased science.
If a church has disappointed you in the past, find another one. Do not set your standards by man, because man will fail you. Set your standards by JESUS, he is the measuring stick... HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN.
There will be a day, when the very words from this letter will revisit you. I hope and pray that you CHANGE before it is too late.
I do not frequent this list often, and I will never be on this list again. If you need further guidance, read the Bible and have a talk with God, He can direct you better than I.
Ya know, I was sitting here nodding my head at what you were saying . . . all until this last sentence.
I've known some excellent christians in my life, and many of them have tried to convert me over the years. In the end, when their logic fails to persuade me, they all seem to offer this Pascal's Wager argument as a last-ditch effort.
Well I wouldn't call it a last ditch effort, bur rather a sincere concern for your eternal well being and one to get you to think about something other than the immediate and present.
If the only way to convert someone is through fear, then the rest of your message must not be terribly compelling to the person with whom you're speaking. Now, maybe fear wasn't necessary to win your faith, but that's just an example of how religion and faith in God is such a personal decision.
Well perhaps some mean it in fear but I do not. I simply mean, look at what you could be missing out on! If Christianity is right, then the afterlife will be super. But you'll be missing the party.
All I'm saying is that I would be much happier if Christians would just admit that it's possible for someone to read the Bible and honestly not believe it, to think that maybe all the answers don't lie in their holy book.
I think many already feel this way. The Bible is great for believers and helps to strengten the faith, but for non-believers its just another book...albeit a book that may shed some light on Christian beliefs but not really something that will instantly convert someone. Really those life-changing experiences come from God and you'll have to be receptive to them in order to feel them. Statistically, most conversions come from conversations with Christians or attending a Christian event, not from reading literature.
When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just...
It may not be a hard theology to grasp, but it's hard to grasp how people can find that anything but absurd and contradictory. I don't belive in God. Yet I'm pragmatically moral, considerably moreso than many of those that do "believe and trust" in him. Yet, according to this doctrine, I'm going to hell.
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Yet I'm pragmatically moral, considerably moreso than many of those that do "believe and trust" in him. Yet, according to this doctrine, I'm going to hell.
Being pragmatically moral is not the issue. The issue is how God who is pure can possibly interract with someone who is not pure. When you mix pure water with pure water, the result is still pure water. But when you mix contaminated water, no matter how small, with pure water, the result is contaminated water.
So the question is this: are you pure? It doesn't matter if you're a little or a lot contaminated. When you mix with the pure, the result is contamination. And above all things God will not allow himself to be contaminated. He will remain pure.
And the heart of your contamination, in this case, is not whether you lied to your parents, or participated in pre-marital sex (although those are not insignificant). The heart of your contamination is that you reject God, which allows you to... (list violations of 10 commandments here).
Your eternal death is not as a consequence of God's sending you to hell. It's as a consequence of God accepting your decision to reject Him. It's up to you. You're allowed to choose, and God will not interfere with that choice. That may look to you like God is standing at a distance. It's more that he's not interested in forcing your hand.
Rejecting God is entirely your choice. The consequence of rejecting God is that existance w/out God is horrible. It's awful. It's the worst possible thing that can be imagined. You've never experienced it because the world is filled, from head to toe, with God. The classic image of hell is only a description of what the consequence of that rejecting God is like. For another description try reading "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.
Being pragmatically moral is not the issue. The issue is how God who is pure can possibly interract with someone who is not pure. When you mix pure water with pure water, the result is still pure water. But when you mix contaminated water, no matter how small, with pure water, the result is contaminated water
Okay, this has officially gone from amusing to sad and scary.
That you can perceive someone as being "unpure" based not on their thoughts or deeds but based whether they happen to believe in a particular deity, is simply absurd. So raping, murdering, downright evil folk can get to eternal salvation, but helpful, polite me is damned to eternal suffering. Gotcha. And this is the religion you've chosen to believe? Blows my mind.
So...what about all those folks before Christianity existed...what about them? They in hell too? Or did they get grandfathered in?
No you missed my point. I was not trying to say that someone is unpure independant of their deeds. Your deeds and thoughts do make you unpure. However, the heart of that impurity is an unspoken belief. The belief that we can do things on our own, apart from God. The belief that we can be self sufficient. This is essentially the act of making yourself into your own god.
IMHO, the belief that we can be self sufficient just does not jibe with reality. I don't regulate the beat of my own heart, or the release of hormones into my own blood stream. Much less do I control the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, or the sun that provides almost all of the energy that fuels all of the life on our planet. Simply put, I can't possibly be self sufficient and live.
And setting ourselves up as our own god is something, so far as I've encoutered, that we are all guilty of. We all seem to believe that we are capable of depending on no one but ourselves. It is this unbelievable worship of ourselves that allows us to justify murdering someone who is getting in the way of our plans. It is the thing that causes us to think that it's ok for us to exert power through rape. It's the thing that justifies lieing, and cheating, and stealing. We think we're owed something by virtue of who we are.
If we stop and recognize that we're not all that, and that we simply are NOT self sufficient and that we absolutely and completely depend on something outside ourselves, then it becomes very difficult to murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc.
As far as all those people before Christ being in hell, all I can say is that it is not for me to judge anyone. CS Lewis describes this very problem in "Mere Christianity". He suggests that the deal is this: acknowledge that you're screwed up, and accept God's plan for your life. For you and me today, that means accepting the realities of Christ's life. For someone who was born before Christ, it may have meant something different. But the whole deal comes down to recognizing that you are not god and that you depend completely on something outside of yourself.
This process, by the way, is called "repenting". That word tends to generate a lot of negative reactions, but it simply means acknowledging yourself as screwed up, and relying on God's plan for your life. The problem is this: I can't ever know whether or not you (or anyone) has repented. I can't ever know if anyone has really done the job of acknowledging their own screwed up selves and accepted God's plan instead. The reason is that it may be much harder for one person, due to his genetics, upbringing, etc, to show one single other person an act of kindness than it is for me to give away all of my money to the poor. Only God knows whether or not anyone has repented, so only God can judge the value of anyone's actions.
God judges justly whether or not those who came before Christ have repented. Just has he judges justly whether or not those who came after have repented. The good news for you is that you don't have to worry about anyone other than yourself and your relationship with God. It's not until you have made yourself right with God that it matters if someone else has.
But, of course, you're completely free to totally reject this if you like. And you're free to consign this to nonsense. My hope is that you might at least be somewhat interested in understanding the Christian point of view, whether or not you decide to agree with it.
"If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows...then we must starve eternally."
--The Problem of Pain
I think the Church does itself and it's message a disservice by presenting Hell wrong. Hell is the inevitable result of denying God. If you refuse to accept God then you cannot happily be with Him for eternity. I don't pretend to know exactly what Hell is, but from my study of the Bible I do know that it's not somewhere God wants people, and I know that it's not tourture for the sake of tourture.
It may not be a hard theology to grasp, but it's hard to grasp how people can find that anything but absurd and contradictory. I don't belive in God. Yet I'm pragmatically moral, considerably moreso than many of those that do "believe and trust" in him. Yet, according to this doctrine, I'm going to hell.
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Exactly! Its not contradictory. Look, you're saying this "I'm a good person, I do good things, why would I go to hell?"
The answer is...because you did not believe. Christianity is not a "good works" religion. You can't earn your way to heaven. It doesn't matter what you do. The only way to get into heaven is to believe in God. You don't have to do anything else. You can help little old ladies across the street all day long but its not going to earn you a ticket to heaven. But if you pray and believe in him, that will.
This particular heresy was invented by Martin Luther; and developed by American fundamentalists. It was, in many ways, a step up from the belif system we had at the time (as I explain in another post in this thread).
I know that you believe in solo scripture. Even so, the Bible does not support your argument:
Matthew 25:31-46
James 2:19, 26
Christianity is a relgigion that believes in the importance of good works.
A lot of fundamentalists based their beliefs on a flawed translation of John 3:16, which really should be translated as:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belives in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
Christianity is not a clique, and it annoys me that the agnostics/atheists here are receiving a gospel that becoming a Christian makes one an arrogant prick.
Well, I guess Matthew 7:13-14,21 come in to play here.
When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell.
As a Christian, this is the part of Fundamentalism that I find most objectionable. This idea of eternal damnation comes from the Greek mythos (the ancient Isreleis did not belive in an afterlife per se). This can be seen in the gospel of Luke, where the only time the Greek word hades is used is in the parable of the rich man and Lazardus (5 cent summary: Selfish rich man is tortured by fire in Hades, poor suffering man is in heaven).
Over the years, this idea developed in to a place to punish the sinners. Of course, we are all sinners. In the dark ages, people belived that everyone was going to go to hell, except for a few saints. In fact, Fundamentalism was a step up from this, because it revised the theolgy from "Jesus forgives all sins, but any sin done after accepting Jesus is a black mark on your record" to "Jesus forgives all sins you do for the rest of your life". It is still a flawed theology, because it still has the baggage that we are so sinful that we all deserve to be tortured in the most horrible way for ever and ever.
People like to feel that they are somehow special, that they are part of the inside clique. Fundamentalism, which tells the people that they are very special with God, and that everyone else is not, meets this human desire very nicely. And, it goes with the writings of Saint John, who was trying to strengthen Christianity in a time when the church was undergoing some very difficult struggles, right after the Christians were expelled from the synagogues, which made them lose the right to not worship the emperor as a god under Roman law. And so they started feeding Christians to the lions.
This is why a number of Christians, such as the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists, do not belive in eternal punishment for all non-believers (they still belive only they are going to heaven, but it is still a step upward).
To say "you are going to hell because you belive differently than me" is the ultimate arrogance; I belive in a God which brings out the good things in myself, not the bad things like my arrogance.
As a Christian, this is the part of Fundamentalism that I find most objectionable. This idea of eternal damnation comes from the Greek mythos (the ancient Isreleis did not belive in an afterlife per se). This can be seen in the gospel of Luke, where the only time the Greek word hades is used is in the parable of the rich man and Lazardus (5 cent summary: Selfish rich man is tortured by fire in Hades, poor suffering man is in heaven).
No that is what you read into my sentence. I said if you don't believe you're going to hell. I didn't add "for everlasting punishment due to your sins". As I've stated elsewhere on this board, nobody will go to hell who did not choose it. The Lord doesn't want anyone to go there or be punished, but the fact is many will reject him and thus will end up there. I don't know what it will be like but I suspect their own misery and separation from God will worse than any flames and heat. But the fact remains that someone who does not believe in God surely cannot (maybe even would not want to) spent eternity in the Lord's presence. And someone who is not pure cannot either (remember when Christ forgives us he cleanses us).
It's not free will if you will be punished for choosing wrong.
Of course it is. I have free will right now. I could go out and murder someone, and I'll be punished. I might get life in prison, or maybe execution. Free will is simply defined as the ability to choose...free choice. Or by the ability to make free choices without them being constrained by external circumstances (like fate).
First of all you are not being punished for doing something only thinking a particular way or simply because you choose not to believe something. TO top it all off there is no evidence for the xistance of god.
So this is not like a murder but more like a contract. God says "if you believe that I exist then I will reward you for eternity but if you don't believe that I exist then I will burn you in hell for eternity.
This is like signing a contract under duress or confessing to murder under torture. It's coerced and the terms are dictated by god.
whoa. Please read this article [layhands.com], which is the most comprehensive Bible study I've seen on whether sinners will actually suffer forever. Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of evidence that they will.
Thank you for the article link. The thing which I found the most interesting with the article was the three references in Isaiah; the other references still support my assertion that the first-century Christians got their notions of eternal torment from the Greek ideas about Hades. All of the references in Isaiah are essentially identical, they simply refer to an "everlasting" fire. My translation says that it is the corpses of the people that are burning, and notes that "Just as in the past, corpses, filth, and refuse lay in the Valley of Hinnom just outside of the city, where huge fires were constantly burning", and then refers to Jos 15:8, 2 Chr 28:3, and Mark 9:45-48.
I also wonder how scripture literalists handle the "vaporware" problem of Christianity; people have been believing since the days when Jesus walked on this earth that their generation was the one that would see Jesus come back in glory. 2000 years (approximately 100 generations) has passed and it still hasn't happened yet.
Not that there has been a lack of faith among belivers; 1844 [prodigy.net] comes to mind.
I know I handle the problem by saying "It does not matter when He comes or how he comes or what happens when he returns again; what matters is is I am ready for him coming again". What will really happen will be a profound surprise; the first century Jewish people were not expecting Jesus to be the messiah.
> I also wonder how scripture literalists handle the "vaporware" problem of Christianity; people have been believing since the days when Jesus walked on this earth that their generation was the one that would see Jesus come back in glory.
I assume you're talking about Matthew 24:34 -- "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
well the NIV's footnote for 'generation' says 'or race'. I'm not sure whether or not that's accurate.
But it can be argued that the 'this generation' does not refer to the one Jesus was speaking TO. There's some evidence that He was talking about the generation that saw some of the previously mentioned things happen -- like the generation that sees "nation will rise up against nation" (which is probably predicting World War 2).
But yeah, I've kind of wondered the same thing. These are possible answers though.:-)
God is a God of surprises, obviously. When Jesus returns, I know it will surprise a lot of peoeple, including most Christians.
As I just posted in another article, I think it is kinda sad that the internet causes Christians to get in to these nasty flame wars with each other on places like Slashdot.
One place where I have seen some really mature discussions about God and Jesus is on the Orson Scott Card mailing list [timp.net]. I don't know what got in to me to get so passionate about the (relatively minor) points on which we disagree; I think we have a lot more in common with our faiths than what we disagree on.
My main objection when I was an atheist was the creationists. I am a Christian who belives in Evolution and an old universe still; I don't have to be like an ostrich when it comes to modern science to accept Christ in to my life.
> When Jesus returns, I know it will surprise a lot of peoeple, including most Christians.
No doubt...:/ At least if the pre-trib rapture turns out to be the truth. Seems like it is, but I can't say for sure on that one. There is some reasonable evidence for the mid-post-trib position (i.e. after the Mark of the Beast but before the wrath).
> As I just posted in another article, I think it is kinda sad that the internet causes Christians to get in to these nasty flame wars with each other on places like Slashdot.
well I don't think this was a flamewar. I've certainly seen far worse! Agreed, the Bible says that people will know we are Christians by our love for each other. That is SO key. If we can't show some respect for each other on Slashdot, we're screwed!
My favorite place to discuss Christian issues is Crosswalk.com Forums [crosswalk.com]. There's a great bunch of people there and they chat on everything from the silly to the serious. I'm 'yodermk' on that board.
re: evolution
I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain here, but I *do* lean towards the regular 6-day creation account as recorded in Genesis. I think there are a number of reasonable explanations for how that could be possible. One thing I read just this week that really bolstered my faith in the Genesis account is a book called Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson. It talks about how "primitive" folk religions actually point toward Christianity in some amazing ways. There are some tribes that have been isolated and never would have had any contact with Jewish or Christian witness, but they have beliefs that parallel the Fall of Man and the Flood in absolutely astonishing detail! (Not everything in their legend matches the Bible perfectly, but it's surprisingly close.)
But like you implied, this kind of stuff is far less important than the basics of the Gospel. Not to mention getting actively involved in the Great Commission. The more I think about it, the more pumped I am about missions. There is simply no other reason for our existance on this earth!
oh, and a couple other points about the whole hell thing...
Although it's not a salvation issue, I think it's fairly important to know the truth on this. If sinners really will be tortured eternally, that should give us extra motivation to tell people about Jesus. If they will just be annihilated, well, they still miss out on the joys of heaven, but the absolute urgency isn't there. The biggest possible tragedy is if the truth is that they suffer eternally but we believe they will be annihilated and therefore we are not as motivated to witness to them!
There is a book out, called Divine Revelation of Hell [amazon.com]. In it, a lady claims to have been revealed visions of hell for 40 days. Jesus led her in there and showed her around. I haven't read the whole thing, but what I *have* read is FREEEEEAKY. I guess you can possibly write it off as being a hoax, but I *do* believe God can reveal that kind of thing, and why shouldn't He? If this was indeed a revelation from God and it describes the actual hell, and somehow we could make the world sure of that, people would be running to Jesus faster than you can say "First post!"
To say "you are going to hell because you belive differently than me" is the ultimate arrogance; I belive in a God which brings out the good things in myself, not the bad things like my arrogance.
The God I know says that there is no good in ourselves.
Isaiah says that "we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags."
The Lord Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone."
Since it is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than to speak a lie that will comfort and then kill, I will say this...
I believe that the ultimate arrogance is to create a god according to your preferences, and then set it apart from you (as if it were pre-existing) and bogusly superimpose it over the God of the Bible. Now you worship your idol-god as if it were the eternal living God of the Bible. Your idol-god comforts you for now, massaging your personal ideas about morality and home-brewed theories concerning eternal truth, but it leads ultimately to eternal punishment.
Hell is not exclusive to "Fundamentalism" but it is fundamental. It starts way back in Genesis 2. (Btw, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are not Christian. Jesus Christ = God is a core principle.) You may want to read my previous post [slashdot.org] on Heaven and Hell. I don't know why you'd want to jettison the fundamentals (core, foundation) of the body of belief you claim to adhere to.
You appear to be a victim of liberal biblical scholarship. Instead of studying the Bible to apply it to your life, you've basically taken to the Bible with a big, black marker and a pair of scissors (this is a slight exaggeration, but just as dangerous). It's no wonder you're biblically illiterate. I hate to be so blunt, but I want you to realize the gravity of what you're doing. The Bible is to be revered and studied for application and instruction for life. As a self-described Christian, I would expect you to enthusiastically agree with me on this. Any other kind of biblical study is of no real (i.e. eternal) value.
You've basically taken to the Bible with a big, black marker and a pair of scissors
As have you. (Pot calling the kettle black indeed)
Does your church forbid women to speak in it (1 Cor 14:34)?
Do you really think that genocide is acceptable? (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)
Does your church mandate that women wear veils? (1 Cor 11:6)
Do you really think a man should marry a woman who he rapes, instead of going to jail? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
What is your opinion of seeing prostitutes? (Genesis 38:15-16; Joshua 2:1; Judges 16:1) Of having a harem (1 Kings 11:3)?
How do you explain that Jesus has not returned for 2000 years, even though the early Christians thought he would appear in his generation? (For exmaple, 1 Cor 15:51 is stated in the first person plural, which means that St. Paul thought that miracle will happen to the people he was writing to, not some group of Christians in the distant future. All other predictions of the Parousia have the same problem.)
People like you need to read the Bible instead of regurgitating what your Fundamentalist pastor shoves down your throat.
Arrogant, closed-minded Fundamentalists (read: Jerks who don't do anything to make the world better, but instead sit around, thinking they have some monopoly on God, and judge and condemn anyone who doesn't have their particular narrow world-view) annoy me. This person probably also thinks the earth was created in seven days and is 6000 years old.
A saying comes to mind here: Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open. I can't deal with nutcases like superyooser until I meet someone like this face-to-face and find out what it is going on in this person's life that makes them have such hatred in their worldview.
Until then, I will have to satisfy myself with putting superyooser on my list of foes.
For people who are not Christians: You don't have to be a nutcase like superyooser to accept Christ in to your life.
If you had sufficiently studied the ancient culture of the early Messianic Jews and Gentiles, you would understand the context of most of your bulleted objections. You've got to dig deep when you study the Bible to understand the underlying principles of the instructions. I can't adequately fire off rebuttals to your particular objections off the top of my head, but I'll address a similar, albeit, less controversial issue. When the Bible tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss, does this mean that we today should do the same? Not necessarily. A sincere, caring handshake, hug, or pat on the back serves the same purpose in our culture. In fact, if men were to openly kiss one another in public today, it would appear that we were sinning because of the homosexual promiscuity in our society.
Your ejaculation about "genocide" shows that you have not grasped the concept of holiness and its inherent intolerance, or, dare I say it, "bigotry." Yes, God is a Bigot with a capital B. Bigotry has become a loaded word and a political epithet, but it is nothing more than intolerance (another loaded and greatly abused word *sigh*), and even a cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely intolerant of evil. And, of course, God and only God makes the rules about what is evil.
The nations that God commanded Israel to destroy were nations of people who had rebelled against God for many generations. It was chronic, consistent, unrepentant evil and repudiation of God. So God rightly and justly commanded His chosen people to destroy them. Earlier, God had used the Flood to do the same thing. Also, this "genocide" serves as a great illustration of the eternal condemnation that awaits all people who reject God. There is no contradiction here. As individuals, we are not to murder from a personal agenda except for self-defense (this is explicitly biblical). But government is a human institution established and sanctioned by God. If God-fearing leaders justly wage war, there is nothing wrong with it, even if it wipes out a whole nation. I whole-heartedly agree with Deuteronomy 7:3: "make no treaty" with an evil people. That's why the United Nations is completely ineffectual in making progress towards peace. Treaties with liars and cheaters do not work! Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of evil (i.e., the presence of Christ). Destroying the menacing threats of corrupt nations results in greater peace. Appeasement with evil only helps it to flourish. There's no reason to have guilt when destroying evil. We never celebrate the taking of life, but removing unbridled corruption from the earth is the SOBER DUTY of a moral people. (Moral being defined only by the single living God of the Bible.) This is wholly just and righteous because it is the way of God. It is the reason we destroyed the Taliban, and it is the reason we are going to war with Iraq.
As for your last point, Jesus instructs us to always live as if He were coming back at any moment. This is the proper way to live, regardless of when He actually does return. It is the perfect attitude of a Christian whether it's 35 A.D. or 2035 A.D. or 4000 A.D.
You are ticked that I have a "monopoly" on God. Unlike the capitalist free market system, truth is exclusionary by its nature. It can't help but be monopolistic. If you're not in line with that single, narrow truth, then you believe in a falsehood. (Hold off on the knee-jerk reaction; read on for clarification.) Jesus said,
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
Yes, only a few. Straight from the Savior's mouth. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude.
Since God is Truth, and Truth is exclusive, then God is exclusive. Unholy things cannot be in the presence of His holiness. It's not an issue of fairness or hateful condemnation. Trust me, you don't want fairness. The fair and just thing for God to do is to throw us all into Hell. But He exhibits grace that is available to all people.
The only way in which I consider myself "somehow special" is that God showed me grace, which I do not deserve. I am far from holy and have no worth in myself except that which God gave me. I do not claim to be better than anyone else. The more I grow spiritually, the more I can understand why Paul called himself "chief of sinners." Little by little, God opens my eyes to deeper (hidden) levels of sin in my life.
By nature of being saved by grace, I am indeed part of an exclusive [dictionary.com] group of people. (defs. 1-2 without qualifications; defs. 3-5 with qualifications; def. 7 invalid) However, it is by no means an exclusionary group of people. The church I attend (like most others where the Spirit is not quenched) welcomes all people. We love all people. If you are anywhere near Greenville, SC, I'd be happy to invite you to my church [erbc-sc.org]. Send me an e-mail. We have contemporary music in the late service. I really want you have a chance to see the "hatred" in our church.:-)
The notion that there is no Hell is a lie straight from Hell. Just go here [biblegateway.com] and search for all the references to eternal life and eternal judgment/punishment/death. The acceptance of Christ does cleanse all sin once and for all. I just don't know where to begin in trying to correct you on this. These themes run throughout the entire Bible. I don't see how you miss it.
You accused me of having hatred in my world view. I don't say that someone is going to hell because they don't believe what I believe. It's not about me! I have no inherent authority to say what is true or not. All authority descends from the Father. The writers of the Bible were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" to write God's truth. I'm just reading the words on the pages and "literally" interpreting them in the proper linguistic, cultural, and literary form contexts with great deliberation, reverence, and care. I do not sacrifice core Christian doctrines because they disagree with my politics or personal "logical" reasoning of fairness. Paul wrote that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's "wisdom." I have not imposed my will on the Bible. My values and moral framework have been greatly changed as a result of studying the Bible.
It is arrogant to say that the eternal punishment that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of is hateful just because it turns [fallen, corrupted] man's sense of fairness on its head. No man is capable of giving increase to God's store of logic. It is arrogant to think that you can.
Kiwi, I feel exactly the same way you do. A narrow way of salvation and a broad avenue of damnation does seem hateful at first. It's hard to reconcile it with our feelings about fairness. I think that's because we have no idea how abhorrent our sin is to God. If we had even an inkling of a clue how outrageous and repulsive even our "smallest" sins appear in the eyes of God, I think we would all willingly jump into the lake of fire because of our overwhelming burden of shame. Many people never come to terms with the reality of God's punishment, but it is better to ultimately die with the hard truth than to live with a comforting lie.
Condemnation is not wrong or unfair. In the beginning, God created a perfect world for us, and He lived openly among us. But we rejected His commands and we hid from Him (Genesis 3). Our sin is the veil that separates us from Him, and we continue to hide from Him because of our sinful disposition.
Sin cannot be in the presence of holiness. It's like oil and water; they do not mix! Righteousness and wickedness have nothing in common; light cannot have fellowship with darkness, thus saith the Bible. It's not a matter of fairness. That's just the way it is. It's not hateful on God's part or mine. People end up in Hell because they've broken down the door trying to get in.
Be careful not to believe something just because it appears to be good. "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) That last statement sounds awfully sinister, doesn't it? Wonder what he means by "their end"?
mlong wrote: Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun.
I replied: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Christians, particularly the high-profile ones who are in positions of leadership *DO* believe this as well, and try very hard to make sure everyone else believes this.
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Christians, particularly the high-profile ones who are in positions of leadership *DO* believe this as well, and try very hard to make sure everyone else believes this.
Ah but that doesn't mean its true to Christianity anymore than those september 11th hijackers were being true to Islam. I am a devout Christian but do you think I put any value in what TV evangelists and the like have to say in between their constant pleas for money so they can build theirselves a new mansion?
But I really have no control over whether I believe something or not. I either believe or I don't. I certainly can't choose to believe in God simply because there's a potential reward after dying.
But I really have no control over whether I believe something or not. I either believe or I don't. I certainly can't choose to believe in God simply because there's a potential reward after dying.
Well actually you do. The first thing is to have a desire to believe. Ok so if you have that then you need help actually believing. Well one thing to do is to actually research it and learn about it. You can't believe in something unless you know about it. Secondly, you can try practicing the belief. By this I mean sitting down and praying to God to help reveal himself to you and help you believe. Maybe try that for a month and see what happens. All you got to lose is maybe 5 minutes every day. Also helpful would be to be around Christians, attending a Christian event, etc. If you do all of that then I seriuosly doubt you will walk away empty handed.
If God exists, he will exist regardless of
whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
Everything!
I stand to lose any possibility of appeasing any of the hundreds of other alleged gods with different sets of rules and requirements; I stand to lose my freedom to a system, managed and manipulated by powerful people, that is evolutionarily optimized not for my benefit but only for the continued survival and control of the system; and most of all I stand to reduce my ability to freely make reasoned ethical judgements.
All this for a miniscule chance at turning into an immortal couch potato after I die? Somehow, that just doesn't seem worth it.
My god requires that you not believe in god in order to achieve paradise. He wants you to make decisions on your own, independent of religious influence. He's a tough god, because he wants you to do all the work; you have to figure out the answers yourself. If you believe in god, he sends you to hell for cheating.
Better not believe in god, then. You'd better stop, or you'll be in big trouble!
I stand to lose any possibility of appeasing any of the hundreds of other alleged gods with different sets of rules and requirements; I stand to lose my freedom to a system, managed and manipulated by powerful people, that is evolutionarily optimized not for my benefit but only for the continued survival and control of the system; and most of all I stand to reduce my ability to freely make reasoned ethical judgements.
All this for a miniscule chance at turning into an immortal couch potato after I die? Somehow, that just doesn't seem worth it.
My god requires that you not believe in god in order to achieve paradise. He wants you to make decisions on your own, independent of religious influence. He's a tough god, because he wants you to do all the work; you have to figure out the answers yourself. If you believe in god, he sends you to hell for cheating.
Better not believe in god, then. You'd better stop, or you'll be in big trouble!
Well now this is a challenge people have faced for millenia. How do you know which of the hundreds of religions (if any) are right? Well first off, you have to look at their beliefs. Which seems easier to believe, that there is one God, or 10,000 (and counting every year)? And also, which one makes more sense...a God of love and freedom, or one who will send you to hell if you don't bow down and worship him 5 times a day (and you better face a certain direction while you do it too!). And furthermore, maybe you could look into alledged evidence. The people of the day who were around Jesus never called him a magician or a sham when they saw him doing miracles. They usually used some religious law technicality (he can't heal people on the sabbath...thats a day of rest!). I've read hundreds of books on every religion and I chose Christianity and haven't regretted it. One of the best books out there is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel in which he lays it all out exactly what evidence there is that Jesus was the real thing.
I'm betting that the folks that you call Christians who call themselves Christians but really aren't, are the folks that don't agree with *your* interpretation of Christs teachings. I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you) and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means? Where do you think it comes from? If we ignore doctrine altogether, then all it means is someone who follows Christ in some fashion. That's it. No more is required. You don't have to believe most of what he said, or even believe that he existed. You just have to follow his teachings in some way. Just because I don't follow your interpretation of things, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian. And saying that I give Christians a bad name because of it is so insulting and rude, as to be a non-Christian act in itself.
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
I'm betting that the folks that you call Christians who call themselves Christians but really aren't, are the folks that don't agree with *your* interpretation of Christs teachings.
Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you) and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible. For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings. They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God. Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Where do you think it comes from? If we ignore doctrine altogether, then all it means is someone who follows Christ in some fashion. That's it. No more is required. You don't have to believe most of what he said, or even believe that he existed. You just have to follow his teachings in some way. Just because I don't follow your interpretation of things, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian.
Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity? I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
And saying that I give Christians a bad name because of it is so insulting and rude, as to be a non-Christian act in itself.
Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said. If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
This is true but if you understand it from a Christian viewpoint then it is this... Christ came to fulfill Judaism and not to abolish it. The laws given to Moses were meant to show man that he can never earn his way to heaven and that if you break even one law you're in trouble. It's supposed to show the need for the messiah and ultimately Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness. Thus Jews aren't necessarily wrong if they follow the law to a T, but they sure are missing the point.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
I'll be replying to both of you at once. It might even help.:)
>Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I hear that. But the ones that really bug me are the ones that don't know their own theology very well.
>I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you)
That's cool. And I don't disagree with you one iota on that. (I'm very familiar with it... even baptised back when I was younger. I still agree mostly on theology issues, too. I consider myself mostly non-denominational at this point, and go mostly to an Episcipal church with my wife.)
> and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
I agree, which is one reason I'm speaking up here.
>Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible.
I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. And pretty familiar with Mormon beliefs. I've never seen any contradiction with the Bible. I've seen contradictions with interpretations of what people read in the Bible, but if you go and read it you can definitely see it's pretty much just a matter of different interpretation. There is also the fact that most churches have a tendency to focus on some parts of scriptures more than others... read the whole Bible, not just highlights that normally get pointed out to you.
> For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
The interesting thing about this is that if you look back into church history, they are far from the first to interpret the relationship between God/Jesus/Holy Spirit differently than what is now the traditional view. Because that relationship is by no means perfectly clear if you read the bible. The trinity is simply an interpretation.
In fact, there used to be many different ideas floating around. Some were pretty far-fetched, but most didn't conflict with what the Bible said. It was at the point the church turned into a political animal that an emperor decided that Christianity needed to be clarified and standardized. (Real history buffs please forgive me... I know I'm oversimplifying this.) Do you know the Niocene and Apostles creeds? Those declarations of belief are the results of decisions made (presumably with divine inspiration) in church councils with the goal of standardization. The concept of the trinity was the winner of the "relationship between God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost" category.
Afterward, many people and even congregations were killed or tortured because they disagreed with some of those conclusions. The church as a political power attempted to eliminate them all as heretics.
> They also believe God was once flesh,
This is a belief, but one of the fuzzier ones. I could say the same for many other brands. The Catholic purgatory (though Mormons have a comparable state), the Trinity, the fundies "flaming hades", etc.
But is there any particular reason God could not have been once flesh, or even still have a form like that. We're supposedly in his image, right? I can't limit the possibilities of God in my own mind, and I can't find them in the Bible either. So I won't. Maybe he was, maybe not. Doesn't matter much to me.
> that Jesus was his literal son,
Jesus did call him "father". And who was he talking to while getting babtized, and while dying on the cross?
Another one of those fuzzy areas, not 100% clear in the Bible, and open to interpretation. I have to admit that I always had a hard time wrapping my head around the trinity concept. (And I even know non-Mormon priests that do too.) The Mormon view one always made some sort of sense to me.
Mormons also believe that we are ALL children of God. Jesus is simply the eldest. (BTW, lucifer being the second.) Get a little deep into classic christian theology, and look at the war in heaven and the falling of lucifer, etc, etc. Lots of it goes hand in hand with the Mormon version, really. Not the subjects typical covered in church because they're mostly pure interpretation and conjecture. But interestingly similar nonetheless.
> and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
> Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings.
Yes. The best way to bash something is to take stuff that is true, pluck it out of context, and get on with a show&tell of misunderstanding.
> I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
I'm a history nut, and find church history fascinating. I believe if most Christians would expand their view of their own church and where certain ideas came from (and how they evolved over time) that they wouldn't give the non-traditional ones (like the Mormons) such a hard time.
> Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity?
Here's my point... they don't contradict the Bible. They contradict certain traditional beliefs. But the degree that those beliefs can be held to be "what the Bible says" varies wildly. They are often taken for granted nowadays, but read it and look for yourself... it might be suprising.
> I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
I definitely think this, and it's probably one of the ways in which I differ from traditional Mormon views. (And lean toward a pretty liberal Episcopal view.)
>Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
No kidding! Amen to that!
>Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yep.
> Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said.
Exaclty. Me too. That's why I skip right over what the preacher tells me in church, and what the various creeds say. And go straight to the Bible to think it out for myself. (This doesn't mean priests are full of it... it just means that they and the church are truly human institutions however inspired, and can make mistakes sometimes.)
> If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And I agree. But just because a certain view was the one agreed upon in a semi-political debate 1500 odd years ago doesn't mean it IS what the Bible says, and any other interpretation is false.
> The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
And much more entertaining, if reading for pleasure. (I reccommend trying it sometime... not a replacement for study, but it helps to see the overall picture, and give context to individual studies. Read the darn thing straight through beginning to end. But skim over the streams begat-begat geneaology, or it'll take forever and kill the pace of the story.:)
> Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
> Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
Go read the entire New Testament beginning to end, (not just snippets) and see if you still have that impression. In particular, pay attention to the book of James. Many protestant churches tend to steer somewhat clear of it, or touch it only lightly.
> True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
OK, now go back and read a particular line in James where he says that "faith without works is dead".
To me this means that if you truly have faith, you will be doing good works. And if you aren't, your faith is just is an empty shell and a facade... a fake. So it might not hold up in court as well as you think.
Remember your heart and soul will be exposed. Including any and all thoughts of "I'll be fine, and get away with whatever. I'll just repent and beg for forgiveness right before I die". I would certainly hope it would be seen as the hypocritical fraud that it is.:)
Anyway, cheers. Hope that clears up any questions you had. Have a good weekend!
wait... doesn't Mormonism teach that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that we will all become gods? That seems to pretty clearly contradict the Bible to me.
Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God. John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were. He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
>wait... doesn't Mormonism teach that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that we will all become gods? That seems to pretty clearly contradict the Bible to me.
But here's the thing... people say it contradicts the Bible, but usually don't say where, or at the very least paraphrase what they are remembering.
The Mormon belief is that we are all (including Jesus, Satan, the Angels, and all of the "demons"... fallen spirits) God's children. Everything does come from God, so it is kind of hard to argue with that. Else, where did Satan come from? And if we are all his children, then we'd all be brothers. As far as becoming "gods" goes, that's pretty fuzzy. But what happens after all this is over, and we're up there hanging out with God & Jesus? No one really knows. I figure this is just another guess at what might be the end result... we become "like him". Whether one should interpret that as "we'll be gods!" is another matter. It's quite sensational and brings to mind notions of blasphemy, so it is always stated in that manner when one wishes to pick on Mormon theology.
>Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
But here we are back to the definition of Christian. They follow Christ, and his teachings. I can't see how one cannot call them Christians. (That's what the word means, right?) On the other hand, they are definitely not orthodox. Or Catholic (the origin of the term catholic being "normal"). And not protestant. (Meaning of direct lineage theologically, but broken away from the official Catholic church.)
>Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one.
Yes. I'm just not sure the other is not just as safe. Only very different.
>Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God.
Yep. So far, no conflict at all.
>John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were.
Still no conflict. The term is "begotten", which is used for a direct father-son relationship. More specifically referring to the act of birth, and physical incarnation.
The Mormans agree with this special difference, but that it is talking about his physical nature. That we are all his children spiritually, but Jesus was the only one incarnate directly from God, while the rest of us got them through normal Mom+Dad heredity.
>He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
And they agree... but that they are separate personages. If you think about it, it isn't all that much different. Pretty much the exact same overall philosophy there, but more explicit with some details.
Think about how marriage is referred to... the "two shall be become one" and all of that. Yet my wife and I are still clearly two diffent people. But one could still say we are "one". That's how the bible says it is, anyway. Chew on that for a bit.:)
We still believe that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are "one" God--but one in purpose, not one in flesh. Jesus is still a God, but he will do nothing but that which is in complete harmony with God the Father. So in that sense, they are one God, but different persons. (As opposed to the gods of Greek mythology or other such gods who were jealous and often rivals.)
Not to mention that this particular question... "doesn't that make things NOT monotheistic?" was one of the big ones back when that was all standardized.
One of the arguments in favor of the Trinity was that anything else would be confusing to the population... that there was one God, but then there are these other guys, too. So are we monotheistic or not?
As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible. For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
It only contradicts the Bible if the Bible really says that (or better yet means that--it does not). Jesus prayed to his Father while here on earth. Stephen the apostle saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. How and why would *one* being do that? (Anyway, you can probably twist anything in the Bible around any way you want to, and it's logical that people would do that to fit their understanding of their religion.)
They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
Yes, sort of: Can become like Him is the belief. Sounds pretty strange to some until you think of what we as parents and families do here on earth: Try to make our children better than we are. Not much different in this Mormoon belief. After all, we've got eternities after this life, don't we? The belief that we sit around playing a harp on a cloud for x^y eons is a bit silly, I think. Do we stop learning or progressing after this life? That sounds more heretical to me. No, God wants nothing more than to give us all that he has.
Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Been there, done that (reading the anti-Mormon literature, that is. Unfortunately, most views on Mormonism are extremely polarized and not helpful. Pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon (an amazing book) and read it. Your perspective on Mormons will change, and it won't be because some anti-Mormon told you to think that way.
Also:
- not all religions believe that judgement happens the moment you die. God's a god of justice AND mercy.
- Not all religions believe that if you're not a member of their religion, you're going to hell (this is certainly not a Mormon belief)
Jesus said "no man cometh unto the Father, but _by_ me" (John 14:6) (that "by" is an important word). In other words, we all can go to the Father, but we cannot do it without Jesus' help. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (paraphrased) I doubt if that portion of Mormon belief is much or at all different than other Christian religions, is it?
As a non-Mormon, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and for the Mormon church. Obviously, it is not for everyone--the church demands a lot from their believers.
The only thing which I disagree with which matters is the idea that "The church will not be led astray". I will be impressed if the Mormon church survives for 2000 years and does not do anything which can not be viewed as "being led astray". If the Mormon church becomes very powerful, and does not abuse that power, that will be a miracle.
You're missing something important that Larry himself said -- Institutions are made up of men, and men are fallable. If you're insinuating that the "ethics" behind religious wars are a good excuse to not believe in God, you need to realize that those wars and ethics were faught by men, not God.
I don't know for sure, of course, but I doubt that God would enjoy seeing a bunch of moronic people kill each other over their own ignorance.
As far as I know, there has never been any reference in any Judeo-Christian literature to a regime or government or institution that God himself ran. We, the people, always took that responsibility and screwed it up.
BTW -- you can look in the bible and see that exact phenomenon documented, and you can see where God got pissed off at the people too.
Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us.
Well, it also depends upon whether you're an Old Testament or New Testament believer. In the New Testament, Jesus created a new meta-rule that supercedes all others: act out of love. Actually, he said it a few times a few ways (do unto others, love your neighbor, the greatest of these is love). But what's great about the one meta-rule is that it allows for malleability. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, talks a lot about slavery and homosexuality. But people who believe in Jesus got over slavery and they'll get over homosexuality. It just takes time for them the understand that love takes precedence over a million little rules and requires them to (gasp!) use their own judgement.
One of my biggest difficulties with faith was the conflict between the commandment "thou shall not kill" and the passage, "there is a time to kill." For the longest time I couldn't reconcile them. Once I learned the meta rule, I realized both can exist. Killing is not normally an act of love. But acting out of love for millions of Jews might include putting a gun to Hitler's head and pulling the trigger. Maybe. In any case, I think Jesus had ethics that were adaptable.
It's not about ethics. If you read the New Testament, you'll see that it says the same things about homosexuality that the Old Testament says (Romans 1). Slavery was a horrible mis-interpretation of the Bible by clergy in the 1700-1800's -- the "slavery" that is discussed in the Old Testament was something completely different from what was practiced in the US in that time, and the clergy who condoned it were just as guilty as the people who did it.
The point is, there is a standard -- "The wages of sin are death." In the Old Testament, that was the way it had to be -- in the New Testament to the present day, Jesus fulfilled that law by dying to pay for the sins of the world. There is no "adaptation of ethics", no change in what is right and what is wrong. The Old Testament says "thou shalt not kill" but the word is murder. It means unjustified killing. God recognizes the right of the people/state to punish some crimes with death, but this certainly does not allow for murder(and never did).
"Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. "
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach?"
Yes, let's have a look: In the 20th century ethical pragmatism tended to dominate. Communism was one of the systems that 'evolved' as a logical conclusion. Now let's see, how many people did Stalin have killed - there are estimate in the range of 6 - 20 million and perhaps more if you include the side effects. How about Mao? It is conservatively estimated that he directly or indirectly (through forced famine) killed 60million people. Then there's Pol Pot...
Oh and of course there's Hitler who's ethics seemed to be simply that the strongest must crush the weakest so as to lead to a super-race that would dominate(how much more pragmatic can you get especially if you plan to be the super-race?) and we know that he killed about 12 million souls.
Seems to me that ethical pragmatism and it's children led to the slaughter of a lot of innocent people....
If you take your marching orders from a metaphysical source, you might as well get a "I hear voices and do what they say" bumper sticker.
Religion inspired and excused colonialism, which lead to the deaths of 90%+ of the indiginous inhabitants of the americas. The Spanish and Portugese brought priests with them, one of whom gave the command to massacre 10,000 incas at a parley.
Then there are the wars around the protestant reformation. The Inquisition. The balkan wars - ethnically identical groups committing genocide based on religious affinity - Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Muslim/secular.
I'm not sure that the scores talley evenly, but the butcher's bill is too high to tout religiously-inspired ethics.
Of course, in Catholic doctrine, there is no literal fire-and-brimstone. Hell is the absence of God. So maybe you're already there!
Of course, that's almost true but not quite [scborromeo.org].
In summary, for those Slashdottian Linkophobes, The Catholic Church presents hell as 'eternal fire', perhaps literal, perhaps not (it leaves itself somewhat agnostic on the matter). Regardless of the literalness of the fire part, Hell is certainly real. "The chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (from the link above, Pgh. 1035.
Based on Larry's faith (and mine) living by the God's moral law has nothing to do with burning in hell or not. Salvation is based on faith alone - thank God!
Okay, just for a second, lets throw out the human aspect and forget about organized religion and look just at the existance of God and any set of ethics by which he/she/it/they exists and enforces. Now, let's start with a couple axioms. Suppose God exists and has this set of ethics. Also suppose that there is some other set of ethics/laws which are defined not by God, but my "pragmatism." For the sake of arguement I'll say these "pragmatic" ethics are universal truths of the same nature as the laws of physics and chemistry. They are self-evidant and any "pragmatic" person using reason and time would be able to discover them. This is what I believe you to mean by "ethics.. based around pragmatism." If I misunderstand, please let me know.
Okay, so we have God and his/her/its/their ethics and we have the pragmatic ethics. Now, it may be possible that these two set of ethics are disjoint, or there could be some overlapping or one could be a subset of the other. Regardless, I think the fundamental question is this: Is something right because God says it is, or does God say something is right because it is right? Think about it.
If the answer is the first, then there is no guarentee that there is any correlation between pragmatic ethics and God's ethics. It would be competely up to God's whim (if there is such a thing).
If the second is true, then by definition, God's ethics are the pragmatic ethics. They would be the same set.
Now, the existance of God is a question one is not going to be able to solve or prove rigoriously. However, it is my feeling that if there were such a being(s) that in order to be such a being(s), that being(s) would have to have an understanding of mathematics and the physical laws of nature (this to me seems reasonable considering the universe we are able to observe. It could be wrong, true, but I think the alternative is significantly less probable). So if this supreme being(s) had such an understanding, then it would be most likely that the set of ethics adopted by that being(s) would be the most "true", ie- pragmatic. Therefore, my feeling is that the existance of such a being(s) would imply that any ethics or judgements passed by such a being would be pragmatic/objective/true.
Now, that doesn't mean that should such a being(s) decide to communicate with the human species that the instructions given would be implemented properly. In fact, human experience would suggest otherwise. So I am willing to "see past" the efforts of most individuals (and religious organizations) in their implementation of such instruction and ethics and recognize that perhaps there is something underlying their actions which is more "correct."
The point of this rant is that in your arguement, like most others, you failed to be properly open minded and look at all the possibilities of the solution set. Should there be a God(s), I seriously doubt that he/she/it/they are contrained by the limits our unenlightened minds place on him/she/it/them. Is is possible that if there is a God(s) that his/her/its/their ethics are competely arbitrary? Yes. However, is it possible such ethics are in fact what you consider pragmatic? Yes. Therefore, one could reasonably believe in God, follow God's ethics, and also live pragmatically without any hypocracy. I just wanted to point this out.
Oh and if you have issues with my he/she/it/they thing, I'm just trying to further point out that we often have preconceved notions and we should learn to consider all alternatives until otherwise agreed upon.
Jeppe wrote: Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God
- - - I don't see why that is so. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of Hell. Some Christian sects - even "Bible-believing" sects, do not believe in Hell or eternal punishment. (it takes a LOT of rationalization and "creative" interpretation of scripture to buy into this though).
These sects believe that when you die, if you've accepted Jesus, and repent your sins - you go to Heaven. Otherwise, your soul is effectively destroyed forever. This has profoundly less impact on the ethics a person demonstrates in one's lifetime than the whole "roasting in the eternal flames of hell getting assraped by demons" deal.
Boiling it down to those two points doesn't necessitate a belief in eternal damnation either. It's almost a moot point.
These sects believe that when you die, if you've accepted Jesus, and repent your sins - you go to Heaven. Otherwise, your soul is effectively destroyed forever. This has profoundly less impact on the ethics a person demonstrates in one's lifetime than the whole "roasting in the eternal flames of hell getting assraped by demons" deal.
Of course true Christian theology states that those who don't believe do go to hell and live eternity apart from God. The reason for this is God values us so much he will not destroy us. You'll either be in heaven or hell but never destroyed. Now what hell is - that is open to interpretation. We know for sure though that it is eternity apart from God. Whether there is flames and brimstone...I doubt it will make much of a difference.
I'm glad you understood that so well, but then you missed one of the points that was central to his explanation. God is an individual, not a set of rules or formulae (that's wrong, isn't it?). Humans, made in the image of God, understand how to make an exception where one is due. The ever present "letter vs. intention of the law" isn't a problem, because he wrote the letter, and enforces it based on the intention. And that's why he's suggesting that the details aren't as important as the center. Because the legalese of the Bible isn't important if you get the theme.
Imagine you're a successful businessman, and you have a son you love very much. The son asks you for his half of your inheritance now, so he can go enjoy life partying. While you may not agree with him, you love him and want him to make his own decisions in life, so you go ahead and give him the money and wish him the best.
He disappears for years. Then, one day he comes back. He's absolutely broke. Not a dime to his name. He humbly asks you for forgiveness for squandering his money and asks you to give him the most humble job you can. So what do you do? You celebrate his return and shower him with love and affection and offer him the very best.
God's the successful businessman, and we're the son who is lost and returns.
It's not that God bends the laws for the universe just because we ask Him to; every prayer is answered, but sometimes the answer is "no". However, He does celebrate when we put all our faith in Him.
So, to answer your remark, it's not arrogance; it's complete trust and faith in a loving God to look out for us and take care of us.
hmmm... you tried to make a stab at explaining god's forgiveness or something, but us non-believers see that story as just deliberately made-up propaganda in favor of the candidate god. it's too contrived of an explanation.
Ah, but therein lies a problem -- no matter what explanation I give, you're all too willing to just write it off as "propoganda". Believe me, it's an enticing argument; I consider myself a Christian, and I still struggle with the cyclical logic of Bible as proof of God's existence as proof of the Bible's validity.
However, I can say that, based on my personal experience, I've felt God move through my life and improve it in qualitative ways, if not quantitative ways. I can't tell you, "My quality of life has improved by 12.513 bogons since I became a Christian," but I can tell you that my faith has been a source of strength when the world has gotten me down. Now, you may chalk that up to coincidence or luck or what-have-you, and that's fine. I can't force you to believe, nor would I want to -- that's not what it's about. All I can do is tell you how He and I have found a relationship; after that, the ball's in your court. If you don't want to believe, all the testimony in the world won't crack your heart open.
And that's fine; it's what free will is all about.
Larry's point, made farther down from your quote, is that the ethics handed to us are handed to us by the church, not by God. Churches, being made up of humans, are inherently falible.
The rules, by and large, come from the church as well and should also be taken with grains of salt and pragmatism. Smarter people than I have stated that the teachings of Jesus boil down to no more or less that "Love your neighbor".
Or to restate that in slashdot terms, "Don't be an asshole".
Well. Think about the well known countries that were godless societies. Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 40's, the former Communist Soviet Union during those times. Nazi Germany was likely the most notorious, not just because they were godless, but for their cruel punishment of Jews and people who belived in God. It crumbled after aboaut 10 years after slaughtering millions of people, Jews, Cathloics, Christians, women, children, and anyone else who stood in the way of Hitler. With the USSR and it's godless Communism. I don't have exact numbers, but I think up to 20 million russian landowners were slaughtered under a state that refused to allow worship of God or ownership of land. In fact, worshipping God was a capital offense (think felony). If society as a whole (the sum of its parts) were to reject God, it'd probably prove fatal to them.
Although it's too late for the rest of the reponders, I have one word for you : Buddhism. For the size, Buddhism is to the best of my knowledge the most peaceful belief system in existence - based on its track record, not theory.
Buddhism can be combined with a belief in God(s), but its basis is rather pantheistic. Look it up.
Nazism is a warning sign about what may happen when an entire people become embittered, and the leaders set up a society to match.
Communism is fatally flawed, but on psychological reasons. No communistic rule will ever get outside of the "tyranny of the proletariat" phase. There are psychopaths, narcissists and paranoids out there. Any leader that exhibits at least those traits are historically proven to be bad leaders. Stalin and Hitler comes to mind.
Also, you must remember that normal people are rumored to be capable of performing atrocities when three criteria are met. Lack of consequence, lack of opposition and motive. Something like that. I could scour the web if you need independent verification.
To blame it all on one evil person is underestimating the power of man.
God is in the details, it is sometimes said. You say: "In the absence [of God], ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible." I can as easily say, ethics based on pragmatism are endlessly subject to abuse. They are adaptable to a fault. The holocaust and every other genocide (including the genocide of native americans and african slaves perpetrated in the first century of the colonization of the Americas) were carried out with pragmatic justifications.
In 99% of the history you refer to, the use of "religion" to justifiy actions had little to do with the actual teachings of spiritual leaders and everything to do with pragamatism - certainly the ethical doctrine of manifest destiny is an above all pragmatic one...for the invading culture, that is... The reality is that political and secular authorities have abused religion (and vice versa) so frequently in recorded civilization that it is easy to say, look - religion is the root of societal evil. All you have to do is look at some of the actions of Communist China or the USSR to see that it is not about religion - it is about the abuse of power, a basic human tendency, and the trappings of religion can be used to pursue this use but so can the rational, pragmatic trappings of "the people's revolution."
Meanwhile, I could argue that my belief in God at the least instills some outside basic standard against which to test my ethical conclusions in any given situation... providing (if that standard has any external reality) something besides my own selfish interests to carry as an ethical standard.
I don't really think either case is that simple. I'll point out just one more issue - you deconstruct Wall's presentation on the basis of his first point, without even touching on the second point. I suspect that the reality is that the falsity of the first premise seems so obvious to you that the second is just an absurd addition. But it is the second premise that seeks to address the objections you raise. It seems that you accept the possibility of God, but not the chance that God could be good under any circumstances - since you say you would "rather God not existed" and that if God does exist you would expect to be consigned to some type of eternal punishment as a result. Wall is pointing to the possibility of a God that justifies the our ethical basis in that they are a reflection of God's qualities - and hence something innate in the universe. Note that this is NOT the same as unchanging. Is a symphony imperfect because it's theme changes and transforms?
Actually I disagree with your assertion that ethics are dependent on God or a lack thereof. Though many theist believe that our moral structure comes directly from God, it is not necessary to believe in God and still arrive at the same ethical conclusions. For example, one could look at Immanuel Kant's Catagorical Imperative which is a normative theory of ethics. Meaning it attempts to establish a set of rules to determine whether or not acting in a certain mannor is ethical or unethical. This theory, though Kant was a Christian, was developed on the basis of trying to establish an ethical "rubric" so to speak that anyone would have to buy into via sheer logic. Thats a little overly verbose, but I think I've explained it sufficiently. And as for
And as for Hell...I can not except God (in definition a perfect being, meaning lacking no positive qualities...suchas God possesses omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) condemn a soul to suffering. And as the bible says, hell is to be without God. The only way to be without God is to not exist. Therefore hell equates to non-existence. Just my 2c
You can't please God the way Enoch did without some faith, because those who come to God must (minimally) believe that:
A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him.
That's it. The "good news" is so simple that a child can understand it, and so deep that a philosopher can't.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. (snip)
Nice deconstruction of the first, er, bit. I myself have more of a problem with the second bit, where it says God will be good to those who really look for him. Just how does one do this? It's never all that clear. What should we do? Should we love our neighbors? Who are our neighbors anyway? Or should we kill our neighbors if they worship differently than we do? There are a lot of books purporting to be the Word of God that have contradictory advice on this topic. It all serves to confuse people and give religion a really bad name.
Then there's the existence of evil that has kept believers and unbelievers alike pondering and agonising for millenia. If God rewards those who really look for him, then all those suffering people must be, well, doing something wrong. They must have displeased God, and are somehow deserving of their suffering.
This is too much like blaming the victim for my own morality. I know too many good people who suffer through no fault of their own. If there is a God (which I'm not too certain about - bit 1 hasn't collapsed yet) I can't help but think he/she is not too concerned with the suffering of individuals. For me, bit 2 HAS collapsed. Into a zero. Too bad for me, I guess, but that's how my brain works. Or doesn't.
Nice deconstruction of the first, er, bit. I myself have more of a problem with the second bit, where it says God will be good to those who really look for him. Just how does one do this? It's never all that clear. What should we do? Should we love our neighbors? Who are our neighbors anyway? Or should we kill our neighbors if they worship differently than we do? There are a lot of books purporting to be the Word of God that have contradictory advice on this topic. It all serves to confuse people and give religion a really bad name.
1) You and I are going to die, sooner or later. 2) What is epsilon / infinity? For large values of epsilon? 3) I don't want to imply that this life is a 0, but you'd better consider well what your goals are for it.
Further investigation (from my point of view, any way): Psalm 73 book of Job, first couple chapters (one of the oldest sections in the bible, FWIW) Ecclesiastes (yeah, I know Larry mentioned it already)
I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.
-- Oscar Wilde
Interesting point about Christianity (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
The question wasn't about ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
Larry really was right-- a lot of people's perceptions make the question more complicated than it needs to be.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
Christianity is about a life change -- not a fire insurance policy.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:1)
That's a pretty cool philosophy. Ignore all the teachings of your savior, live an evil life and wait for him to change it all for you. No need to put any effort in yourself (apart from giving money to that nice man on Sundays because Jesus wants you to).
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:1)
To continue the analogy, engineers still make mistakes, even after they've been on the job for 30 years. Christians are still humans. They make mistakes, too. And as far as unrepentant Christians go, I don't think you can actually call them Christians, in the real sense of the word. One of the cornerstones of Christian doctrine is repentance. Someone who rejects the concept of repentance is by definition, not a Christian.
A little cynicism goes a long way. Sometimes, a little too far, if you ask me.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:1)
However, I think you have a different idea of what Christianity is from this other joker. He says that Jesus will change your life, and makes no mention of you having to put in any kind of effort yourself. Apparently if you don't change then it's because you didn't believe in Jesus enough.
Kinda reminds me of that bit in Peter Pan where Tinkerbell will die if all the little children in the audience don't say that they believe in fairies.
I'm not trying to belittle Christians, but those kinds of arguments are just too weak to pass up.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:1)
Too scared about losing karma points so you post as an AC? Doesn't your god book mention anything about taking responsiblilty for your own actions.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:2)
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
- - - -
That's YOUR sect's interpretation of scripture.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
No that was just the point I decided to discuss. Christianity is an entire package. That is why I said elsewhere on thsi topic that if you believe in the Lord and accept the holy spirit then He will slowly change you from the inside out. Thus its not that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but rather you do not desire to do stuff (ie immoral stuff).
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
Yes it is about both but more importantly what happens in the next world/life. This is why being a martyr in Christianity is not such a bad thing. Jesus spends a great deal of time talking about such things such as he is preparing a mansion for us and he will return and make all things new, etc. Of course being a Christian is all about living a livestyle pleasing to God. So you don't just sit around twidling your thumbs waiting to die...you live life to its fullest, but more importantly, live it as God intended (morally and spiritually).
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
This is very true. God always answers prayers, but sometime his answer is "no" or "not yet" and thats something that is hard for some Christians to accept. God is looking out for what is in our best interests, not our desires.
Re:I guess I'm a bit confused... (Score:1)
I used to be disconcerted that many Christians viewed their faith as nothing more than "death insurance." They would act as though they'd gotten a "ticket to Heaven" and were free to do their own thing without consquence. You can imagine (or I guess you can't) how your post blew me away! No afterlife in Christianity??
Jesus' whole life is about Heaven and Hell. In fact, His name is about them! Jesus actual Hebrew name, Yeshua, means "the Lord saves." Saves from what? Boredom? He saves from Hell by allowing us into Heaven in spite of our sin. Lots of prophecy throughout the OT is tied up in all of this. Heaven and Hell are integral parts of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and especially the Gospels. The relevance of sin, salvation, the "Great Commission," the crucifixion, resurrection, sacrifices, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' second coming, election, grace, and prophecies are practically dependent upon the premise that Heaven and Hell exist. Not to mention the beloved 23rd Psalm and John 3:16. (I'm starting to wonder if I've been trolled.) What is all that talk in the Bible about eternal life for? There are hundreds of references to both eternal life and eternal death in the Bible. I did a search on my computer. :-) Jesus concludes a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 25 by saying, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
That's because you get only one earthly life to put your faith in Christ. When you die, your eternal fate is set forever.
The Bible talks more about this life than the afterlife because the Bible is our:
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
God tells us things on a need-to-know basis, and right now we don't need to know very much about the details of Heaven or Hell. We'll find out soon enough.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Most religious people tend to define evil as opposing the will of God. God doesn't want us to murder, so murdering is evil, etc. So, IMHO, it is impossible for God to do evil since evil is defined by what God does not want to be done.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
But then you run smack into the Euthyphro Problem. Is something good just because God says so, or does God say so because it's good?
If the former, then we just have the ultimate case of "might makes right"; if there was anything other then the arbitrary whim of God driving the choices, then we'd be in the latter case.
So God just happens to be the biggest bully around. Doing what It wants may be wise, but not inherently moral. You're 'just following orders', like lots of perpetrators of war crimes. They just picked the wrong bully to pander to, assuming God didn't want them to do that.
And if it is the latter case, then you can't use this as a defense for the free will problem, because God conforms to good, and doesn't define it; so if God is perfectly good and has free will, then It could create beings that would do so as well... and didn't.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
The normal anser to this question is, "because they wouldn't have free will". But you yourself just said that God could choose to do evil, but doesn't want to. So either:
- A: God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
- or B: God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
How can I make this any clearer?Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Well apparently that comes with the territory and is just part of the nature of a free will free thinking being is that they could choose to do what God considers moral or they may do something God considers immoral. But if you create a being with a blank slate, then it could go either way could it not?
God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
Well this is hard to answer since we know little about God. But I would say if God has always existed and always will (out of time) then he came with both free will and goodness. He didn't have to choose it. He didn't have to develop like we have to. He came as the final end package. But...
God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
God is omnipotent and anything is possible if he desired it. I've heard people say "Well God could never do this as he is Love, etc.". Nope...that's putting a chain around God. The correct answer is "God WOULD never do this as jhe is Love".
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.
Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.
"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
I don't think that's phrased well. The notion of God "making" the rules runs smack into the Euthyphro Problem [friesian.com] I alluded to in another post. If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control (otherwise we'd be smack dab in the middle of the former case). God recognizes what's good, It doesn't make the good good.
So, which is it? The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold [power] makes the rules"); or, the rules are just out there, independent of God, and "soverignty" doesn't enter into it?
Now, there's still the possibility that God acts as an oracle, perfectly recognizing what's good and relaying it to us, but as I said, "soverignty" isn't relevant. And in the case of your experiment hypothesis, why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
What about a God that creates a universe and then perversely gives rules to the inhabitants that are ill-suited for that universe, for Its own amusement? I don't think you can get away with that "by definition".
God is an all-wise being... any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
A theist friend of mine wants to write an evolutionary ethics simulator that he thinks would arrive at things like the Golden Rule and such. Why couldn't a creator of our universe have similar goals in mind - for us to derive our own ethics? More generally, why would a creator necessarily be perfectly wise? Why not just finitely but greatly wise?
Moreover, if such a creator is so greatly superior to us, how could we know anything about It? I mean, even if It told us about Itself, how could we trust that information? It could be fooling us, or not giving us a complete picture. I'm sure a lot of sheep have a pretty worshipful view of their shepherd, and lots of evidence that they are well cared for... until they get to the slaughterhouse.
God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him
Creations surpass their creators in specific capacities all the time. That's why we make the class of creations called "tools". None of the creators of Deep Blue could have beat Kasparov at chess, but their creation did. Again I think you'll need to justfity that "by definition".
God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Now this is interesting - I haven't run into too many theists who've realized this way of deriving ethics. Like a chessboard has certain rules of operation, and our desire to win means that certain strategies are better than others. Sacrificing your queen early on is almost never a wise move, for example.
There are physical rules that govern how our universe operates, and from our desires we can derive what strategies are best for achieving them.
Of course, this means that we don't need God as a law-giver (soverignty and authority don't matter to what's ethical or not), only perhaps as a law-relayer. And that has yet to be established.
Why couldn't we be created so that we could see the full four-dimensional structure of space-time? Again, justification is needed.
I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why...that brings us back again to the subject of faith
Well, as C.S. Lewis said, faith is having the courage of your convictions, being able to stick to what you've determined is right in the face of adversity (like not panicking when the anaesthesiologist drops the mask on your face; you've already decided that the surgery is the best course of action).
Faith is not believing in something depsite what your judgement tells you. And my best judgement is that no theist point of view that I've come across holds up.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
You're assuming that there is only ever one choice which is good. Doing good is a creative act, and creativity has infinite possibilities.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
But remember that God's all-good nature is itself a choice.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
I've known some excellent christians in my life, and many of them have tried to convert me over the years. In the end, when their logic fails to persuade me, they all seem to offer this Pascal's Wager argument as a last-ditch effort.
Well I wouldn't call it a last ditch effort, bur rather a sincere concern for your eternal well being and one to get you to think about something other than the immediate and present.
If the only way to convert someone is through fear, then the rest of your message must not be terribly compelling to the person with whom you're speaking. Now, maybe fear wasn't necessary to win your faith, but that's just an example of how religion and faith in God is such a personal decision.
Well perhaps some mean it in fear but I do not. I simply mean, look at what you could be missing out on! If Christianity is right, then the afterlife will be super. But you'll be missing the party.
All I'm saying is that I would be much happier if Christians would just admit that it's possible for someone to read the Bible and honestly not believe it, to think that maybe all the answers don't lie in their holy book.
I think many already feel this way. The Bible is great for believers and helps to strengten the faith, but for non-believers its just another book...albeit a book that may shed some light on Christian beliefs but not really something that will instantly convert someone. Really those life-changing experiences come from God and you'll have to be receptive to them in order to feel them. Statistically, most conversions come from conversations with Christians or attending a Christian event, not from reading literature.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
It may not be a hard theology to grasp, but it's hard to grasp how people can find that anything but absurd and contradictory. I don't belive in God. Yet I'm pragmatically moral, considerably moreso than many of those that do "believe and trust" in him. Yet, according to this doctrine, I'm going to hell.
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Being pragmatically moral is not the issue. The issue is how God who is pure can possibly interract with someone who is not pure. When you mix pure water with pure water, the result is still pure water. But when you mix contaminated water, no matter how small, with pure water, the result is contaminated water.
So the question is this: are you pure? It doesn't matter if you're a little or a lot contaminated. When you mix with the pure, the result is contamination. And above all things God will not allow himself to be contaminated. He will remain pure.
And the heart of your contamination, in this case, is not whether you lied to your parents, or participated in pre-marital sex (although those are not insignificant). The heart of your contamination is that you reject God, which allows you to ... (list violations of 10 commandments here).
Your eternal death is not as a consequence of God's sending you to hell. It's as a consequence of God accepting your decision to reject Him. It's up to you. You're allowed to choose, and God will not interfere with that choice. That may look to you like God is standing at a distance. It's more that he's not interested in forcing your hand.
Rejecting God is entirely your choice. The consequence of rejecting God is that existance w/out God is horrible. It's awful. It's the worst possible thing that can be imagined. You've never experienced it because the world is filled, from head to toe, with God. The classic image of hell is only a description of what the consequence of that rejecting God is like. For another description try reading "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Okay, this has officially gone from amusing to sad and scary.
That you can perceive someone as being "unpure" based not on their thoughts or deeds but based whether they happen to believe in a particular deity, is simply absurd. So raping, murdering, downright evil folk can get to eternal salvation, but helpful, polite me is damned to eternal suffering. Gotcha. And this is the religion you've chosen to believe? Blows my mind.
So...what about all those folks before Christianity existed...what about them? They in hell too? Or did they get grandfathered in?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
IMHO, the belief that we can be self sufficient just does not jibe with reality. I don't regulate the beat of my own heart, or the release of hormones into my own blood stream. Much less do I control the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, or the sun that provides almost all of the energy that fuels all of the life on our planet. Simply put, I can't possibly be self sufficient and live.
And setting ourselves up as our own god is something, so far as I've encoutered, that we are all guilty of. We all seem to believe that we are capable of depending on no one but ourselves. It is this unbelievable worship of ourselves that allows us to justify murdering someone who is getting in the way of our plans. It is the thing that causes us to think that it's ok for us to exert power through rape. It's the thing that justifies lieing, and cheating, and stealing. We think we're owed something by virtue of who we are.
If we stop and recognize that we're not all that, and that we simply are NOT self sufficient and that we absolutely and completely depend on something outside ourselves, then it becomes very difficult to murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc.
As far as all those people before Christ being in hell, all I can say is that it is not for me to judge anyone. CS Lewis describes this very problem in "Mere Christianity". He suggests that the deal is this: acknowledge that you're screwed up, and accept God's plan for your life. For you and me today, that means accepting the realities of Christ's life. For someone who was born before Christ, it may have meant something different. But the whole deal comes down to recognizing that you are not god and that you depend completely on something outside of yourself.
This process, by the way, is called "repenting". That word tends to generate a lot of negative reactions, but it simply means acknowledging yourself as screwed up, and relying on God's plan for your life. The problem is this: I can't ever know whether or not you (or anyone) has repented. I can't ever know if anyone has really done the job of acknowledging their own screwed up selves and accepted God's plan instead. The reason is that it may be much harder for one person, due to his genetics, upbringing, etc, to show one single other person an act of kindness than it is for me to give away all of my money to the poor. Only God knows whether or not anyone has repented, so only God can judge the value of anyone's actions.
God judges justly whether or not those who came before Christ have repented. Just has he judges justly whether or not those who came after have repented. The good news for you is that you don't have to worry about anyone other than yourself and your relationship with God. It's not until you have made yourself right with God that it matters if someone else has.
But, of course, you're completely free to totally reject this if you like. And you're free to consign this to nonsense. My hope is that you might at least be somewhat interested in understanding the Christian point of view, whether or not you decide to agree with it.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
--The Problem of Pain
I think the Church does itself and it's message a disservice by presenting Hell wrong. Hell is the inevitable result of denying God. If you refuse to accept God then you cannot happily be with Him for eternity. I don't pretend to know exactly what Hell is, but from my study of the Bible I do know that it's not somewhere God wants people, and I know that it's not tourture for the sake of tourture.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Exactly! Its not contradictory. Look, you're saying this "I'm a good person, I do good things, why would I go to hell?"
The answer is...because you did not believe. Christianity is not a "good works" religion. You can't earn your way to heaven. It doesn't matter what you do. The only way to get into heaven is to believe in God. You don't have to do anything else. You can help little old ladies across the street all day long but its not going to earn you a ticket to heaven. But if you pray and believe in him, that will.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Mlong,
This particular heresy was invented by Martin Luther; and developed by American fundamentalists. It was, in many ways, a step up from the belif system we had at the time (as I explain in another post in this thread).
I know that you believe in solo scripture. Even so, the Bible does not support your argument:
- Matthew 25:31-46
- James 2:19, 26
Christianity is a relgigion that believes in the importance of good works.A lot of fundamentalists based their beliefs on a flawed translation of John 3:16, which really should be translated as:
Christianity is not a clique, and it annoys me that the agnostics/atheists here are receiving a gospel that becoming a Christian makes one an arrogant prick.Well, I guess Matthew 7:13-14,21 come in to play here.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
As a Christian, this is the part of Fundamentalism that I find most objectionable. This idea of eternal damnation comes from the Greek mythos (the ancient Isreleis did not belive in an afterlife per se). This can be seen in the gospel of Luke, where the only time the Greek word hades is used is in the parable of the rich man and Lazardus (5 cent summary: Selfish rich man is tortured by fire in Hades, poor suffering man is in heaven).
Over the years, this idea developed in to a place to punish the sinners. Of course, we are all sinners. In the dark ages, people belived that everyone was going to go to hell, except for a few saints. In fact, Fundamentalism was a step up from this, because it revised the theolgy from "Jesus forgives all sins, but any sin done after accepting Jesus is a black mark on your record" to "Jesus forgives all sins you do for the rest of your life". It is still a flawed theology, because it still has the baggage that we are so sinful that we all deserve to be tortured in the most horrible way for ever and ever.
People like to feel that they are somehow special, that they are part of the inside clique. Fundamentalism, which tells the people that they are very special with God, and that everyone else is not, meets this human desire very nicely. And, it goes with the writings of Saint John, who was trying to strengthen Christianity in a time when the church was undergoing some very difficult struggles, right after the Christians were expelled from the synagogues, which made them lose the right to not worship the emperor as a god under Roman law. And so they started feeding Christians to the lions.
This is why a number of Christians, such as the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists, do not belive in eternal punishment for all non-believers (they still belive only they are going to heaven, but it is still a step upward).
To say "you are going to hell because you belive differently than me" is the ultimate arrogance; I belive in a God which brings out the good things in myself, not the bad things like my arrogance.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
No that is what you read into my sentence. I said if you don't believe you're going to hell. I didn't add "for everlasting punishment due to your sins". As I've stated elsewhere on this board, nobody will go to hell who did not choose it. The Lord doesn't want anyone to go there or be punished, but the fact is many will reject him and thus will end up there. I don't know what it will be like but I suspect their own misery and separation from God will worse than any flames and heat. But the fact remains that someone who does not believe in God surely cannot (maybe even would not want to) spent eternity in the Lord's presence. And someone who is not pure cannot either (remember when Christ forgives us he cleanses us).
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Of course it is. I have free will right now. I could go out and murder someone, and I'll be punished. I might get life in prison, or maybe execution. Free will is simply defined as the ability to choose...free choice. Or by the ability to make free choices without them being constrained by external circumstances (like fate).
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
First of all you are not being punished for doing something only thinking a particular way or simply because you choose not to believe something. TO top it all off there is no evidence for the xistance of god.
So this is not like a murder but more like a contract. God says "if you believe that I exist then I will reward you for eternity but if you don't believe that I exist then I will burn you in hell for eternity.
This is like signing a contract under duress or confessing to murder under torture. It's coerced and the terms are dictated by god.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
I also wonder how scripture literalists handle the "vaporware" problem of Christianity; people have been believing since the days when Jesus walked on this earth that their generation was the one that would see Jesus come back in glory. 2000 years (approximately 100 generations) has passed and it still hasn't happened yet. Not that there has been a lack of faith among belivers; 1844 [prodigy.net] comes to mind.
I know I handle the problem by saying "It does not matter when He comes or how he comes or what happens when he returns again; what matters is is I am ready for him coming again". What will really happen will be a profound surprise; the first century Jewish people were not expecting Jesus to be the messiah.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
I assume you're talking about Matthew 24:34 -- "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
well the NIV's footnote for 'generation' says 'or race'. I'm not sure whether or not that's accurate.
But it can be argued that the 'this generation' does not refer to the one Jesus was speaking TO. There's some evidence that He was talking about the generation that saw some of the previously mentioned things happen -- like the generation that sees "nation will rise up against nation" (which is probably predicting World War 2).
But yeah, I've kind of wondered the same thing. These are possible answers though.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
As I just posted in another article, I think it is kinda sad that the internet causes Christians to get in to these nasty flame wars with each other on places like Slashdot.
One place where I have seen some really mature discussions about God and Jesus is on the Orson Scott Card mailing list [timp.net]. I don't know what got in to me to get so passionate about the (relatively minor) points on which we disagree; I think we have a lot more in common with our faiths than what we disagree on.
My main objection when I was an atheist was the creationists. I am a Christian who belives in Evolution and an old universe still; I don't have to be like an ostrich when it comes to modern science to accept Christ in to my life.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
No doubt...
> As I just posted in another article, I think it is kinda sad that the internet causes Christians to get in to these nasty flame wars with each other on places like Slashdot.
well I don't think this was a flamewar. I've certainly seen far worse! Agreed, the Bible says that people will know we are Christians by our love for each other. That is SO key. If we can't show some respect for each other on Slashdot, we're screwed!
My favorite place to discuss Christian issues is Crosswalk.com Forums [crosswalk.com]. There's a great bunch of people there and they chat on everything from the silly to the serious. I'm 'yodermk' on that board.
re: evolution
I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain here, but I *do* lean towards the regular 6-day creation account as recorded in Genesis. I think there are a number of reasonable explanations for how that could be possible. One thing I read just this week that really bolstered my faith in the Genesis account is a book called Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson. It talks about how "primitive" folk religions actually point toward Christianity in some amazing ways. There are some tribes that have been isolated and never would have had any contact with Jewish or Christian witness, but they have beliefs that parallel the Fall of Man and the Flood in absolutely astonishing detail! (Not everything in their legend matches the Bible perfectly, but it's surprisingly close.)
But like you implied, this kind of stuff is far less important than the basics of the Gospel. Not to mention getting actively involved in the Great Commission. The more I think about it, the more pumped I am about missions. There is simply no other reason for our existance on this earth!
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Although it's not a salvation issue, I think it's fairly important to know the truth on this. If sinners really will be tortured eternally, that should give us extra motivation to tell people about Jesus. If they will just be annihilated, well, they still miss out on the joys of heaven, but the absolute urgency isn't there. The biggest possible tragedy is if the truth is that they suffer eternally but we believe they will be annihilated and therefore we are not as motivated to witness to them!
There is a book out, called Divine Revelation of Hell [amazon.com]. In it, a lady claims to have been revealed visions of hell for 40 days. Jesus led her in there and showed her around. I haven't read the whole thing, but what I *have* read is FREEEEEAKY. I guess you can possibly write it off as being a hoax, but I *do* believe God can reveal that kind of thing, and why shouldn't He? If this was indeed a revelation from God and it describes the actual hell, and somehow we could make the world sure of that, people would be running to Jesus faster than you can say "First post!"
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
The God I know says that there is no good in ourselves.
Isaiah says that "we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags."
The Lord Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone."
Since it is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than to speak a lie that will comfort and then kill, I will say this...
I believe that the ultimate arrogance is to create a god according to your preferences, and then set it apart from you (as if it were pre-existing) and bogusly superimpose it over the God of the Bible. Now you worship your idol-god as if it were the eternal living God of the Bible. Your idol-god comforts you for now, massaging your personal ideas about morality and home-brewed theories concerning eternal truth, but it leads ultimately to eternal punishment.
Hell is not exclusive to "Fundamentalism" but it is fundamental. It starts way back in Genesis 2. (Btw, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are not Christian. Jesus Christ = God is a core principle.) You may want to read my previous post [slashdot.org] on Heaven and Hell. I don't know why you'd want to jettison the fundamentals (core, foundation) of the body of belief you claim to adhere to.
You appear to be a victim of liberal biblical scholarship. Instead of studying the Bible to apply it to your life, you've basically taken to the Bible with a big, black marker and a pair of scissors (this is a slight exaggeration, but just as dangerous). It's no wonder you're biblically illiterate. I hate to be so blunt, but I want you to realize the gravity of what you're doing. The Bible is to be revered and studied for application and instruction for life. As a self-described Christian, I would expect you to enthusiastically agree with me on this. Any other kind of biblical study is of no real (i.e. eternal) value.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
As have you. (Pot calling the kettle black indeed)
- Does your church forbid women to speak in it (1 Cor 14:34)?
- Do you really think that genocide is acceptable? (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)
- Does your church mandate that women wear veils? (1 Cor 11:6)
- Do you really think a man should marry a woman who he rapes, instead of going to jail? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
- What is your opinion of seeing prostitutes? (Genesis 38:15-16; Joshua 2:1; Judges 16:1) Of having a harem (1 Kings 11:3)?
- How do you explain that Jesus has not returned for 2000 years, even though the early Christians thought he would appear in his generation? (For exmaple, 1 Cor 15:51 is stated in the first person plural, which means that St. Paul thought that miracle will happen to the people he was writing to, not some group of Christians in the distant future. All other predictions of the Parousia have the same problem.)
People like you need to read the Bible instead of regurgitating what your Fundamentalist pastor shoves down your throat.Arrogant, closed-minded Fundamentalists (read: Jerks who don't do anything to make the world better, but instead sit around, thinking they have some monopoly on God, and judge and condemn anyone who doesn't have their particular narrow world-view) annoy me. This person probably also thinks the earth was created in seven days and is 6000 years old.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Yep [slashdot.org]
A saying comes to mind here: Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open. I can't deal with nutcases like superyooser until I meet someone like this face-to-face and find out what it is going on in this person's life that makes them have such hatred in their worldview.
Until then, I will have to satisfy myself with putting superyooser on my list of foes.
For people who are not Christians: You don't have to be a nutcase like superyooser to accept Christ in to your life.
- Sam (Talking to myself here, yes)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Your ejaculation about "genocide" shows that you have not grasped the concept of holiness and its inherent intolerance, or, dare I say it, "bigotry." Yes, God is a Bigot with a capital B. Bigotry has become a loaded word and a political epithet, but it is nothing more than intolerance (another loaded and greatly abused word *sigh*), and even a cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely intolerant of evil. And, of course, God and only God makes the rules about what is evil.
The nations that God commanded Israel to destroy were nations of people who had rebelled against God for many generations. It was chronic, consistent, unrepentant evil and repudiation of God. So God rightly and justly commanded His chosen people to destroy them. Earlier, God had used the Flood to do the same thing. Also, this "genocide" serves as a great illustration of the eternal condemnation that awaits all people who reject God. There is no contradiction here. As individuals, we are not to murder from a personal agenda except for self-defense (this is explicitly biblical). But government is a human institution established and sanctioned by God. If God-fearing leaders justly wage war, there is nothing wrong with it, even if it wipes out a whole nation. I whole-heartedly agree with Deuteronomy 7:3: "make no treaty" with an evil people. That's why the United Nations is completely ineffectual in making progress towards peace. Treaties with liars and cheaters do not work! Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of evil (i.e., the presence of Christ). Destroying the menacing threats of corrupt nations results in greater peace. Appeasement with evil only helps it to flourish. There's no reason to have guilt when destroying evil. We never celebrate the taking of life, but removing unbridled corruption from the earth is the SOBER DUTY of a moral people. (Moral being defined only by the single living God of the Bible.) This is wholly just and righteous because it is the way of God. It is the reason we destroyed the Taliban, and it is the reason we are going to war with Iraq.
As for your last point, Jesus instructs us to always live as if He were coming back at any moment. This is the proper way to live, regardless of when He actually does return. It is the perfect attitude of a Christian whether it's 35 A.D. or 2035 A.D. or 4000 A.D.
You are ticked that I have a "monopoly" on God. Unlike the capitalist free market system, truth is exclusionary by its nature. It can't help but be monopolistic. If you're not in line with that single, narrow truth, then you believe in a falsehood. (Hold off on the knee-jerk reaction; read on for clarification.) Jesus said,
Yes, only a few. Straight from the Savior's mouth. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude.Since God is Truth, and Truth is exclusive, then God is exclusive. Unholy things cannot be in the presence of His holiness. It's not an issue of fairness or hateful condemnation. Trust me, you don't want fairness. The fair and just thing for God to do is to throw us all into Hell. But He exhibits grace that is available to all people.
The only way in which I consider myself "somehow special" is that God showed me grace, which I do not deserve. I am far from holy and have no worth in myself except that which God gave me. I do not claim to be better than anyone else. The more I grow spiritually, the more I can understand why Paul called himself "chief of sinners." Little by little, God opens my eyes to deeper (hidden) levels of sin in my life.
By nature of being saved by grace, I am indeed part of an exclusive [dictionary.com] group of people. (defs. 1-2 without qualifications; defs. 3-5 with qualifications; def. 7 invalid) However, it is by no means an exclusionary group of people. The church I attend (like most others where the Spirit is not quenched) welcomes all people. We love all people. If you are anywhere near Greenville, SC, I'd be happy to invite you to my church [erbc-sc.org]. Send me an e-mail. We have contemporary music in the late service. I really want you have a chance to see the "hatred" in our church. :-)
The notion that there is no Hell is a lie straight from Hell. Just go here [biblegateway.com] and search for all the references to eternal life and eternal judgment/punishment/death. The acceptance of Christ does cleanse all sin once and for all. I just don't know where to begin in trying to correct you on this. These themes run throughout the entire Bible. I don't see how you miss it.
You accused me of having hatred in my world view. I don't say that someone is going to hell because they don't believe what I believe. It's not about me! I have no inherent authority to say what is true or not. All authority descends from the Father. The writers of the Bible were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" to write God's truth. I'm just reading the words on the pages and "literally" interpreting them in the proper linguistic, cultural, and literary form contexts with great deliberation, reverence, and care. I do not sacrifice core Christian doctrines because they disagree with my politics or personal "logical" reasoning of fairness. Paul wrote that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's "wisdom." I have not imposed my will on the Bible. My values and moral framework have been greatly changed as a result of studying the Bible.
It is arrogant to say that the eternal punishment that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of is hateful just because it turns [fallen, corrupted] man's sense of fairness on its head. No man is capable of giving increase to God's store of logic. It is arrogant to think that you can.
Kiwi, I feel exactly the same way you do. A narrow way of salvation and a broad avenue of damnation does seem hateful at first. It's hard to reconcile it with our feelings about fairness. I think that's because we have no idea how abhorrent our sin is to God. If we had even an inkling of a clue how outrageous and repulsive even our "smallest" sins appear in the eyes of God, I think we would all willingly jump into the lake of fire because of our overwhelming burden of shame. Many people never come to terms with the reality of God's punishment, but it is better to ultimately die with the hard truth than to live with a comforting lie.
Condemnation is not wrong or unfair. In the beginning, God created a perfect world for us, and He lived openly among us. But we rejected His commands and we hid from Him (Genesis 3). Our sin is the veil that separates us from Him, and we continue to hide from Him because of our sinful disposition.
Sin cannot be in the presence of holiness. It's like oil and water; they do not mix! Righteousness and wickedness have nothing in common; light cannot have fellowship with darkness, thus saith the Bible. It's not a matter of fairness. That's just the way it is. It's not hateful on God's part or mine. People end up in Hell because they've broken down the door trying to get in.
Be careful not to believe something just because it appears to be good. "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) That last statement sounds awfully sinister, doesn't it? Wonder what he means by "their end"?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun.
I replied:
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Christians, particularly the high-profile ones who are in positions of leadership *DO* believe this as well, and try very hard to make sure everyone else believes this.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Ah but that doesn't mean its true to Christianity anymore than those september 11th hijackers were being true to Islam. I am a devout Christian but do you think I put any value in what TV evangelists and the like have to say in between their constant pleas for money so they can build theirselves a new mansion?
I can't choose to believe (Score:1)
Re:I can't choose to believe (Score:2)
Well actually you do. The first thing is to have a desire to believe. Ok so if you have that then you need help actually believing. Well one thing to do is to actually research it and learn about it. You can't believe in something unless you know about it. Secondly, you can try practicing the belief. By this I mean sitting down and praying to God to help reveal himself to you and help you believe. Maybe try that for a month and see what happens. All you got to lose is maybe 5 minutes every day. Also helpful would be to be around Christians, attending a Christian event, etc. If you do all of that then I seriuosly doubt you will walk away empty handed.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Everything!
I stand to lose any possibility of appeasing any of the hundreds of other alleged gods with different sets of rules and requirements; I stand to lose my freedom to a system, managed and manipulated by powerful people, that is evolutionarily optimized not for my benefit but only for the continued survival and control of the system; and most of all I stand to reduce my ability to freely make reasoned ethical judgements.
All this for a miniscule chance at turning into an immortal couch potato after I die? Somehow, that just doesn't seem worth it.
My god requires that you not believe in god in order to achieve paradise. He wants you to make decisions on your own, independent of religious influence. He's a tough god, because he wants you to do all the work; you have to figure out the answers yourself. If you believe in god, he sends you to hell for cheating.
Better not believe in god, then. You'd better stop, or you'll be in big trouble!
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
I stand to lose any possibility of appeasing any of the hundreds of other alleged gods with different sets of rules and requirements; I stand to lose my freedom to a system, managed and manipulated by powerful people, that is evolutionarily optimized not for my benefit but only for the continued survival and control of the system; and most of all I stand to reduce my ability to freely make reasoned ethical judgements.
All this for a miniscule chance at turning into an immortal couch potato after I die? Somehow, that just doesn't seem worth it.
My god requires that you not believe in god in order to achieve paradise. He wants you to make decisions on your own, independent of religious influence. He's a tough god, because he wants you to do all the work; you have to figure out the answers yourself. If you believe in god, he sends you to hell for cheating.
Better not believe in god, then. You'd better stop, or you'll be in big trouble!
Well now this is a challenge people have faced for millenia. How do you know which of the hundreds of religions (if any) are right? Well first off, you have to look at their beliefs. Which seems easier to believe, that there is one God, or 10,000 (and counting every year)? And also, which one makes more sense...a God of love and freedom, or one who will send you to hell if you don't bow down and worship him 5 times a day (and you better face a certain direction while you do it too!). And furthermore, maybe you could look into alledged evidence. The people of the day who were around Jesus never called him a magician or a sham when they saw him doing miracles. They usually used some religious law technicality (he can't heal people on the sabbath...thats a day of rest!). I've read hundreds of books on every religion and I chose Christianity and haven't regretted it. One of the best books out there is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel in which he lays it all out exactly what evidence there is that Jesus was the real thing.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you) and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible. For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings. They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God. Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Where do you think it comes from? If we ignore doctrine altogether, then all it means is someone who follows Christ in some fashion. That's it. No more is required. You don't have to believe most of what he said, or even believe that he existed. You just have to follow his teachings in some way. Just because I don't follow your interpretation of things, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian.
Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity? I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
And saying that I give Christians a bad name because of it is so insulting and rude, as to be a non-Christian act in itself.
Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said. If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
This is true but if you understand it from a Christian viewpoint then it is this... Christ came to fulfill Judaism and not to abolish it. The laws given to Moses were meant to show man that he can never earn his way to heaven and that if you break even one law you're in trouble. It's supposed to show the need for the messiah and ultimately Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness. Thus Jews aren't necessarily wrong if they follow the law to a T, but they sure are missing the point.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
See above.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
>Well actually I was referring to people who come to my church, sit on the pews every Sunday and are only Christian for about an hour every week. Their actions, their morals, etc. don't reflect Christ's teachings.
I hear that. But the ones that really bug me are the ones that don't know their own theology very well.
>I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you)
That's cool. And I don't disagree with you one iota on that. (I'm very familiar with it... even baptised back when I was younger. I still agree mostly on theology issues, too. I consider myself mostly non-denominational at this point, and go mostly to an Episcipal church with my wife.)
> and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means?
I agree, which is one reason I'm speaking up here.
>Well I was never thinking of Mormans but since you bring the issue up I do have some questions. As I understand it Mormanism directly contracts the Bible.
I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. And pretty familiar with Mormon beliefs. I've never seen any contradiction with the Bible. I've seen contradictions with interpretations of what people read in the Bible, but if you go and read it you can definitely see it's pretty much just a matter of different interpretation. There is also the fact that most churches have a tendency to focus on some parts of scriptures more than others... read the whole Bible, not just highlights that normally get pointed out to you.
> For instance, Mormans do not believe in the trinity (one God in three persons) but rather that the father and son are seperate beings.
The interesting thing about this is that if you look back into church history, they are far from the first to interpret the relationship between God/Jesus/Holy Spirit differently than what is now the traditional view. Because that relationship is by no means perfectly clear if you read the bible. The trinity is simply an interpretation.
In fact, there used to be many different ideas floating around. Some were pretty far-fetched, but most didn't conflict with what the Bible said. It was at the point the church turned into a political animal that an emperor decided that Christianity needed to be clarified and standardized. (Real history buffs please forgive me... I know I'm oversimplifying this.) Do you know the Niocene and Apostles creeds? Those declarations of belief are the results of decisions made (presumably with divine inspiration) in church councils with the goal of standardization. The concept of the trinity was the winner of the "relationship between God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost" category.
Afterward, many people and even congregations were killed or tortured because they disagreed with some of those conclusions. The church as a political power attempted to eliminate them all as heretics.
> They also believe God was once flesh,
This is a belief, but one of the fuzzier ones. I could say the same for many other brands. The
Catholic purgatory (though Mormons have a comparable state), the Trinity, the fundies "flaming hades", etc.
But is there any particular reason God could not have been once flesh, or even still have a form like that. We're supposedly in his image, right? I can't limit the possibilities of God in my own mind, and I can't find them in the Bible either. So I won't. Maybe he was, maybe not. Doesn't matter much to me.
> that Jesus was his literal son,
Jesus did call him "father". And who was he talking to while getting babtized, and while dying on the cross?
Another one of those fuzzy areas, not 100% clear in the Bible, and open to interpretation. I have to admit that I always had a hard time wrapping my head around the trinity concept. (And I even know non-Mormon priests that do too.) The Mormon view one always made some sort of sense to me.
Mormons also believe that we are ALL children of God. Jesus is simply the eldest. (BTW, lucifer being the second.) Get a little deep into classic christian theology, and look at the war in heaven and the falling of lucifer, etc, etc. Lots of it goes hand in hand with the Mormon version, really. Not the subjects typical covered in church because they're mostly pure interpretation and conjecture. But interestingly similar nonetheless.
> and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
> Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings.
Yes. The best way to bash something is to take stuff that is true, pluck it out of context, and get on with a show&tell of misunderstanding.
> I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
I'm a history nut, and find church history fascinating. I believe if most Christians would expand their view of their own church and where certain ideas came from (and how they evolved over time) that they wouldn't give the non-traditional ones (like the Mormons) such a hard time.
> Potentially. But if your beliefs directly contradict the Bible then how can they be true christianity?
Here's my point... they don't contradict the Bible. They contradict certain traditional beliefs. But the degree that those beliefs can be held to be "what the Bible says" varies wildly. They are often taken for granted nowadays, but read it and look for yourself... it might be suprising.
> I'm not talking whether you will be saved or not (as you probably will) but rather what it means to be christian.
I definitely think this, and it's probably one of the ways in which I differ from traditional Mormon views. (And lean toward a pretty liberal Episcopal view.)
>Like I said, many people give Christianity a bad name. Just watch some of these evangelists sometime.
No kidding! Amen to that!
>Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
Yep.
> Yes but He also said beware of false teachings and to follow him. And for me, that means looking primarily to what He said and what his disciples said.
Exaclty. Me too. That's why I skip right over what the preacher tells me in church, and what the various creeds say. And go straight to the Bible to think it out for myself. (This doesn't mean priests are full of it... it just means that they and the church are truly human institutions however inspired, and can make mistakes sometimes.)
> If something disagrees with what they said, then its wrong.
And I agree. But just because a certain view was the one agreed upon in a semi-political debate 1500 odd years ago doesn't mean it IS what the Bible says, and any other interpretation is false.
> The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
And much more entertaining, if reading for pleasure. (I reccommend trying it sometime... not a replacement for study, but it helps to see the overall picture, and give context to individual studies. Read the darn thing straight through beginning to end. But skim over the streams begat-begat geneaology, or it'll take forever and kill the pace of the story.
> Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
> Well actually it does. Just go read what Jesus, the disciples, and Paul said.
Go read the entire New Testament beginning to end, (not just snippets) and see if you still have that impression. In particular, pay attention to the book of James. Many protestant churches tend to steer somewhat clear of it, or touch it only lightly.
> True, and Jesus will throw out our sentence if we believe in him. He will say "not guilty."
OK, now go back and read a particular line in James where he says that "faith without works is dead".
To me this means that if you truly have faith, you will be doing good works. And if you aren't, your faith is just is an empty shell and a facade... a fake. So it might not hold up in court as well as you think.
Remember your heart and soul will be exposed. Including any and all thoughts of "I'll be fine, and get away with whatever. I'll just repent and beg for forgiveness right before I die". I would certainly hope it would be seen as the hypocritical fraud that it is.
Anyway, cheers. Hope that clears up any questions you had. Have a good weekend!
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God. John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were. He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
But here's the thing... people say it contradicts the Bible, but usually don't say where, or at the very least paraphrase what they are remembering.
The Mormon belief is that we are all (including Jesus, Satan, the Angels, and all of the "demons"... fallen spirits) God's children. Everything does come from God, so it is kind of hard to argue with that. Else, where did Satan come from? And if we are all his children, then we'd all be brothers. As far as becoming "gods" goes, that's pretty fuzzy. But what happens after all this is over, and we're up there hanging out with God & Jesus? No one really knows. I figure this is just another guess at what might be the end result... we become "like him". Whether one should interpret that as "we'll be gods!" is another matter. It's quite sensational and brings to mind notions of blasphemy, so it is always stated in that manner when one wishes to pick on Mormon theology.
>Not that all Mormons believe that (they probably don't), and I'm not saying that a Mormon can't be a saved Christian (there are almost certainly some that are). But from what I've heard of the official teachings of the Mormon church, I can't possibly call it Christian.
But here we are back to the definition of Christian. They follow Christ, and his teachings. I can't see how one cannot call them Christians. (That's what the word means, right?) On the other hand, they are definitely not orthodox. Or Catholic (the origin of the term catholic being "normal"). And not protestant. (Meaning of direct lineage theologically, but broken away from the official Catholic church.)
>Trinity: sure it's an interpretation, but a VERY safe one.
Yes. I'm just not sure the other is not just as safe. Only very different.
>Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely from God.
Yep. So far, no conflict at all.
>John 3:16 of course states that Jesus is a unique "son" of God -- not created, like all other beings were.
Still no conflict. The term is "begotten", which is used for a direct father-son relationship. More specifically referring to the act of birth, and physical incarnation.
The Mormans agree with this special difference, but that it is talking about his physical nature. That we are all his children spiritually, but Jesus was the only one incarnate directly from God, while the rest of us got them through normal Mom+Dad heredity.
>He is literally irreplaceable to God. They are all 3 parts of God with different missions. The Bible clearly speaks of all 3.
And they agree... but that they are separate personages. If you think about it, it isn't all that much different. Pretty much the exact same overall philosophy there, but more explicit with some details.
Think about how marriage is referred to... the "two shall be become one" and all of that. Yet my wife and I are still clearly two diffent people. But one could still say we are "one". That's how the bible says it is, anyway. Chew on that for a bit.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
One of the arguments in favor of the Trinity was that anything else would be confusing to the population... that there was one God, but then there are these other guys, too. So are we monotheistic or not?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
It only contradicts the Bible if the Bible really says that (or better yet means that--it does not). Jesus prayed to his Father while here on earth. Stephen the apostle saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. How and why would *one* being do that? (Anyway, you can probably twist anything in the Bible around any way you want to, and it's logical that people would do that to fit their understanding of their religion.)
They also believe God was once flesh, that Jesus was his literal son, and that we will all day become just like (read: equal) to God.
Yes, sort of: Can become like Him is the belief. Sounds pretty strange to some until you think of what we as parents and families do here on earth: Try to make our children better than we are. Not much different in this Mormoon belief. After all, we've got eternities after this life, don't we? The belief that we sit around playing a harp on a cloud for x^y eons is a bit silly, I think. Do we stop learning or progressing after this life? That sounds more heretical to me. No, God wants nothing more than to give us all that he has.
Now perhaps some of this is misunderstanding but many "anti-Morman" books and websites state this as official Morman teachings. I cannot say for myself since I have not looked into it first hand.
Been there, done that (reading the anti-Mormon literature, that is. Unfortunately, most views on Mormonism are extremely polarized and not helpful. Pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon (an amazing book) and read it. Your perspective on Mormons will change, and it won't be because some anti-Mormon told you to think that way.
Also:
- not all religions believe that judgement happens the moment you die. God's a god of justice AND mercy.
- Not all religions believe that if you're not a member of their religion, you're going to hell (this is certainly not a Mormon belief)
Thanks for hearing me out!
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
As a non-Mormon, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and for the Mormon church. Obviously, it is not for everyone--the church demands a lot from their believers.
The only thing which I disagree with which matters is the idea that "The church will not be led astray". I will be impressed if the Mormon church survives for 2000 years and does not do anything which can not be viewed as "being led astray". If the Mormon church becomes very powerful, and does not abuse that power, that will be a miracle.
- Sam
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
I don't know for sure, of course, but I doubt that God would enjoy seeing a bunch of moronic people kill each other over their own ignorance.
As far as I know, there has never been any reference in any Judeo-Christian literature to a regime or government or institution that God himself ran. We, the people, always took that responsibility and screwed it up.
BTW -- you can look in the bible and see that exact phenomenon documented, and you can see where God got pissed off at the people too.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Well, it also depends upon whether you're an Old Testament or New Testament believer. In the New Testament, Jesus created a new meta-rule that supercedes all others: act out of love. Actually, he said it a few times a few ways (do unto others, love your neighbor, the greatest of these is love). But what's great about the one meta-rule is that it allows for malleability. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, talks a lot about slavery and homosexuality. But people who believe in Jesus got over slavery and they'll get over homosexuality. It just takes time for them the understand that love takes precedence over a million little rules and requires them to (gasp!) use their own judgement.
One of my biggest difficulties with faith was the conflict between the commandment "thou shall not kill" and the passage, "there is a time to kill." For the longest time I couldn't reconcile them. Once I learned the meta rule, I realized both can exist. Killing is not normally an act of love. But acting out of love for millions of Jews might include putting a gun to Hitler's head and pulling the trigger. Maybe. In any case, I think Jesus had ethics that were adaptable.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
The point is, there is a standard -- "The wages of sin are death." In the Old Testament, that was the way it had to be -- in the New Testament to the present day, Jesus fulfilled that law by dying to pay for the sins of the world. There is no "adaptation of ethics", no change in what is right and what is wrong. The Old Testament says "thou shalt not kill" but the word is murder. It means unjustified killing. God recognizes the right of the people/state to punish some crimes with death, but this certainly does not allow for murder(and never did).
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach?"
Yes, let's have a look: In the 20th century ethical pragmatism tended to dominate. Communism was one of the systems that 'evolved' as a logical conclusion. Now let's see, how many people did Stalin have killed - there are estimate in the range of 6 - 20 million and perhaps more if you include the side effects. How about Mao? It is conservatively estimated that he directly or indirectly (through forced famine) killed 60million people. Then there's Pol Pot...
Oh and of course there's Hitler who's ethics seemed to be simply that the strongest must crush the weakest so as to lead to a super-race that would dominate(how much more pragmatic can you get especially if you plan to be the super-race?) and we know that he killed about 12 million souls.
Seems to me that ethical pragmatism and it's children led to the slaughter of a lot of innocent people....
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Religion inspired and excused colonialism, which lead to the deaths of 90%+ of the indiginous inhabitants of the americas. The Spanish and Portugese brought priests with them, one of whom gave the command to massacre 10,000 incas at a parley.
Then there are the wars around the protestant reformation. The Inquisition. The balkan wars - ethnically identical groups committing genocide based on religious affinity - Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Muslim/secular.
I'm not sure that the scores talley evenly, but the butcher's bill is too high to tout religiously-inspired ethics.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Of course, that's almost true but not quite [scborromeo.org].
In summary, for those Slashdottian Linkophobes, The Catholic Church presents hell as 'eternal fire', perhaps literal, perhaps not (it leaves itself somewhat agnostic on the matter). Regardless of the literalness of the fire part, Hell is certainly real. "The chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (from the link above, Pgh. 1035.
Belloc
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
GOD can be pragmatic! (Score:2)
Okay, just for a second, lets throw out the human aspect and forget about organized religion and look just at the existance of God and any set of ethics by which he/she/it/they exists and enforces. Now, let's start with a couple axioms. Suppose God exists and has this set of ethics. Also suppose that there is some other set of ethics/laws which are defined not by God, but my "pragmatism." For the sake of arguement I'll say these "pragmatic" ethics are universal truths of the same nature as the laws of physics and chemistry. They are self-evidant and any "pragmatic" person using reason and time would be able to discover them. This is what I believe you to mean by "ethics
Okay, so we have God and his/her/its/their ethics and we have the pragmatic ethics. Now, it may be possible that these two set of ethics are disjoint, or there could be some overlapping or one could be a subset of the other. Regardless, I think the fundamental question is this: Is something right because God says it is, or does God say something is right because it is right? Think about it.
If the answer is the first, then there is no guarentee that there is any correlation between pragmatic ethics and God's ethics. It would be competely up to God's whim (if there is such a thing).
If the second is true, then by definition, God's ethics are the pragmatic ethics. They would be the same set.
Now, the existance of God is a question one is not going to be able to solve or prove rigoriously. However, it is my feeling that if there were such a being(s) that in order to be such a being(s), that being(s) would have to have an understanding of mathematics and the physical laws of nature (this to me seems reasonable considering the universe we are able to observe. It could be wrong, true, but I think the alternative is significantly less probable). So if this supreme being(s) had such an understanding, then it would be most likely that the set of ethics adopted by that being(s) would be the most "true", ie- pragmatic. Therefore, my feeling is that the existance of such a being(s) would imply that any ethics or judgements passed by such a being would be pragmatic/objective/true.
Now, that doesn't mean that should such a being(s) decide to communicate with the human species that the instructions given would be implemented properly. In fact, human experience would suggest otherwise. So I am willing to "see past" the efforts of most individuals (and religious organizations) in their implementation of such instruction and ethics and recognize that perhaps there is something underlying their actions which is more "correct."
The point of this rant is that in your arguement, like most others, you failed to be properly open minded and look at all the possibilities of the solution set. Should there be a God(s), I seriously doubt that he/she/it/they are contrained by the limits our unenlightened minds place on him/she/it/them. Is is possible that if there is a God(s) that his/her/its/their ethics are competely arbitrary? Yes. However, is it possible such ethics are in fact what you consider pragmatic? Yes. Therefore, one could reasonably believe in God, follow God's ethics, and also live pragmatically without any hypocracy. I just wanted to point this out.
Oh and if you have issues with my he/she/it/they thing, I'm just trying to further point out that we often have preconceved notions and we should learn to consider all alternatives until otherwise agreed upon.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God
- - -
I don't see why that is so. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of Hell. Some Christian sects - even "Bible-believing" sects, do not believe in Hell or eternal punishment. (it takes a LOT of rationalization and "creative" interpretation of scripture to buy into this though).
These sects believe that when you die, if you've accepted Jesus, and repent your sins - you go to Heaven. Otherwise, your soul is effectively destroyed forever. This has profoundly less impact on the ethics a person demonstrates in one's lifetime than the whole "roasting in the eternal flames of hell getting assraped by demons" deal.
Boiling it down to those two points doesn't necessitate a belief in eternal damnation either. It's almost a moot point.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Of course true Christian theology states that those who don't believe do go to hell and live eternity apart from God. The reason for this is God values us so much he will not destroy us. You'll either be in heaven or hell but never destroyed. Now what hell is - that is open to interpretation. We know for sure though that it is eternity apart from God. Whether there is flames and brimstone...I doubt it will make much of a difference.
You're looking in the wrong place. (Score:2)
Re:You're looking in the wrong place. (Score:2)
the nice thing about biblical themes is that there are so many to choose from.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Funny how arrogant people never recognize their arrogance.
"Look at me I'm so speacial and importatn that the creator of the universe wants to do things for me".
Rubbish.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Imagine you're a successful businessman, and you have a son you love very much. The son asks you for his half of your inheritance now, so he can go enjoy life partying. While you may not agree with him, you love him and want him to make his own decisions in life, so you go ahead and give him the money and wish him the best.
He disappears for years. Then, one day he comes back. He's absolutely broke. Not a dime to his name. He humbly asks you for forgiveness for squandering his money and asks you to give him the most humble job you can. So what do you do? You celebrate his return and shower him with love and affection and offer him the very best.
God's the successful businessman, and we're the son who is lost and returns.
It's not that God bends the laws for the universe just because we ask Him to; every prayer is answered, but sometimes the answer is "no". However, He does celebrate when we put all our faith in Him.
So, to answer your remark, it's not arrogance; it's complete trust and faith in a loving God to look out for us and take care of us.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
hmmm... you tried to make a stab at explaining god's forgiveness or something, but us non-believers see that story as just deliberately made-up propaganda in favor of the candidate god. it's too contrived of an explanation.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
However, I can say that, based on my personal experience, I've felt God move through my life and improve it in qualitative ways, if not quantitative ways. I can't tell you, "My quality of life has improved by 12.513 bogons since I became a Christian," but I can tell you that my faith has been a source of strength when the world has gotten me down. Now, you may chalk that up to coincidence or luck or what-have-you, and that's fine. I can't force you to believe, nor would I want to -- that's not what it's about. All I can do is tell you how He and I have found a relationship; after that, the ball's in your court. If you don't want to believe, all the testimony in the world won't crack your heart open.
And that's fine; it's what free will is all about.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Well put!
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
In the presence, ethics are given to us.
Larry's point, made farther down from your quote, is that the ethics handed to us are handed to us by the church, not by God. Churches, being made up of humans, are inherently falible.
The rules, by and large, come from the church as well and should also be taken with grains of salt and pragmatism. Smarter people than I have stated that the teachings of Jesus boil down to no more or less that "Love your neighbor".
Or to restate that in slashdot terms, "Don't be an asshole".
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Buddhism can be combined with a belief in God(s), but its basis is rather pantheistic. Look it up.
Nazism is a warning sign about what may happen when an entire people become embittered, and the leaders set up a society to match.
Communism is fatally flawed, but on psychological reasons. No communistic rule will ever get outside of the "tyranny of the proletariat" phase. There are psychopaths, narcissists and paranoids out there. Any leader that exhibits at least those traits are historically proven to be bad leaders. Stalin and Hitler comes to mind.
Also, you must remember that normal people are rumored to be capable of performing atrocities when three criteria are met. Lack of consequence, lack of opposition and motive. Something like that. I could scour the web if you need independent verification.
To blame it all on one evil person is underestimating the power of man.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
In 99% of the history you refer to, the use of "religion" to justifiy actions had little to do with the actual teachings of spiritual leaders and everything to do with pragamatism - certainly the ethical doctrine of manifest destiny is an above all pragmatic one...for the invading culture, that is... The reality is that political and secular authorities have abused religion (and vice versa) so frequently in recorded civilization that it is easy to say, look - religion is the root of societal evil. All you have to do is look at some of the actions of Communist China or the USSR to see that it is not about religion - it is about the abuse of power, a basic human tendency, and the trappings of religion can be used to pursue this use but so can the rational, pragmatic trappings of "the people's revolution."
Meanwhile, I could argue that my belief in God at the least instills some outside basic standard against which to test my ethical conclusions in any given situation... providing (if that standard has any external reality) something besides my own selfish interests to carry as an ethical standard.
I don't really think either case is that simple. I'll point out just one more issue - you deconstruct Wall's presentation on the basis of his first point, without even touching on the second point. I suspect that the reality is that the falsity of the first premise seems so obvious to you that the second is just an absurd addition. But it is the second premise that seeks to address the objections you raise. It seems that you accept the possibility of God, but not the chance that God could be good under any circumstances - since you say you would "rather God not existed" and that if God does exist you would expect to be consigned to some type of eternal punishment as a result. Wall is pointing to the possibility of a God that justifies the our ethical basis in that they are a reflection of God's qualities - and hence something innate in the universe. Note that this is NOT the same as unchanging. Is a symphony imperfect because it's theme changes and transforms?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
And as for Hell...I can not except God (in definition a perfect being, meaning lacking no positive qualities...suchas God possesses omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) condemn a soul to suffering. And as the bible says, hell is to be without God. The only way to be without God is to not exist. Therefore hell equates to non-existence. Just my 2c
Blaming the victims (Score:2)
A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him.
That's it. The "good news" is so simple that a child can understand it, and so deep that a philosopher can't.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. (snip)
Nice deconstruction of the first, er, bit. I myself have more of a problem with the second bit, where it says God will be good to those who really look for him. Just how does one do this? It's never all that clear. What should we do? Should we love our neighbors? Who are our neighbors anyway? Or should we kill our neighbors if they worship differently than we do? There are a lot of books purporting to be the Word of God that have contradictory advice on this topic. It all serves to confuse people and give religion a really bad name.
Then there's the existence of evil that has kept believers and unbelievers alike pondering and agonising for millenia. If God rewards those who really look for him, then all those suffering people must be, well, doing something wrong. They must have displeased God, and are somehow deserving of their suffering.
This is too much like blaming the victim for my own morality. I know too many good people who suffer through no fault of their own. If there is a God (which I'm not too certain about - bit 1 hasn't collapsed yet) I can't help but think he/she is not too concerned with the suffering of individuals. For me, bit 2 HAS collapsed. Into a zero. Too bad for me, I guess, but that's how my brain works. Or doesn't.
Re:Blaming the victims (Score:2)
You could try praying...
Re:Blaming the victims (Score:1)
Yeah, it does.
1) You and I are going to die, sooner or later.
2) What is epsilon / infinity? For large values of epsilon?
3) I don't want to imply that this life is a 0, but you'd better consider well what your goals are for it.
Further investigation (from my point of view, any way):
Psalm 73
book of Job, first couple chapters (one of the oldest sections in the bible, FWIW)
Ecclesiastes (yeah, I know Larry mentioned it already)