If Christianity does turn out to be the right religion...

The mistake here was the term "right religion". That's an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
A man comes along and offers this child food and water, a place in his mansion, and a family to call his own.

It's a gift, and the child would be foolish not to accept the offer - those who decline, what choice do they have? They're left on the streets. Earth will be destroyed, so there's only one place left to go - Hell.

How would that kid know that this man isn't going to bring him home, lock him in a dungeon, and rape him for years? And/or does this man also let the child know that if he doesn't accept this free gift he will be punished forever in a place that he created for such people who don't accept his gift?

There's only one place left to go after the earth is destroyed? Where is hell? Where is heaven? There are no inhabitable planets out there that this being can put us on once our own planet is destroyed, if that ever happens?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
To answer the second part of your question, God knows you from before you were born - He knows if you would believe in Him or not, given all opportunities.

And then he lets us become a human being doomed from the start, knowing we won't believe and knows WHY we won't believe and doesn't help us believe? Does he let us know that before we become born? Does he say, "By the way, before I send you down there I should let you know that you're not going to believe in me, hence you will suffer for eternity after you leave that body."?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Why bother with those who would never believe even if they stood in front of His face?

Who would not believe in this guy if he was standing in front of their face? If this god is omnipotent, omniscient, and loving, he would know exactly what everyone needs to see and know in order to believe in him and would be able to provide this information. Hmm, I guess you're one of the lucky ones whom he knew would believe in him? Well praise the lord for you.

reply to post by BlackStar99


Ho, BlackStar. Since you asked, you get my opinion on this as well:

Why would you want to worship and spend eternity in heaven with a god who's sending billions of good people to be tortured for all eternity on the sole basis that they didn't pick the right religion? Does god not understand the basic human psychology that a child will follow the religion of their parents almost all the time? When god's distributing out souls, how exactly does he decide which soul to give an edge to by putting them in a Christian family or Christain predominant country?

Disclaimer - I am a christian. However, I believe there is a lot more grey area here than usually presented (I'm also likely a HERETICAL christian).

First off, as to hell - I do not believe in a hell of eternal torment. The bible has several words translated hell, and here we're dealing with the lake of fire - Gehenna. I can't actually find any justification in the bible for the concept of ALL people having an immortal spirit, and as such cannot account for any belief of eternal torment of the "unsaved".

Multiple verses talk about the wages of sin being *death* and the gift of god being eternal life. For god so loved the world, etc., that those who believe in him shall not *perish*, but have everlasting *life*. Jesus warned against being afraid of those who can destroy the body, as compared to god who can *destroy* the body AND SOUL in hell.

I follow closely with the Seventh Day Adventists on this one - annhiliationism. Only the 'saved' or those who accept the gift (or otherwise make the cut, for lack of a better term) have eternal life. The rest die, and cease to exist - which is what most are planning for anyway. Effectively a non-issue.

Additionally - I don't think the good/bad list is as cut-and-dried as a lot of people think, either. The bible also teaches that 'sin is not imputed where there is no law', so I can put no stock in the concept of original sin (other than people being inclined towards wilfullness and rebellion). Thus, if you aren't made aware of the message - or in my opinion never had it fairly presented to you - you aren't held guilty according to it. This squares for those who live in remote areas and are never introduced to any Word of the bible, as well as those who only have received bad examples or teaching from "christians" during their lives.

Coupled with this concept, we've got some interesting verses - I'll leave you with one, from Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

This seems to suggest that the deciding factor is not simply what most christians believe, but is due to mitigating circumstances - I believe this is in allusion to how people respond to the "law of god" as written on their hearts (conscience and actions), regardless of any direct AWARENESS of this being in relation to a relationship with god as presented in the bible.

I could be wrong on all of this, of course, but it squares with what I read in the book, my common sense, and my view of a righteous creator.

Be well.

Originally posted by Praetorius
I could be wrong on all of this, of course, but it squares with what I read in the book, my common sense, and my view of a righteous creator.
Be well.

You aren't the only christian who believes this way. My question is, why aren't all christians on the same page? If their god speaks to them as they claim, why aren't they all in agreement with the interpretations of the scriptures? Why doesn't this omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being bring them together in their beliefs? There are many various beliefs amongst themselves that contradict each other. A house divided against itself can not stand.

reply to post by Hydroman

Why doesn't this omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being bring them together in their beliefs?

God does not want to rule over mindless robots but people who exercise what shreds of free-will may still exist within them, to find and discover His will and to follow it. Forcing people into obeying Him is not the way He wants it, but to compel people through persuasion in the way of promptings through the spirit.
Some people do not respond and want their own will to prevail or are partisan and find an earthly leader to follow.
The good shepherd knows his flock and the individuals that comprise it. It become very evident who is not of the flock when they go off to follow another.

reply to post by Hydroman


Thanks Hydroman, and good questions you ask. I'd love to have a better answer or claim to possess the knowledge to frame one, but can only suggest that it comes down to free will and the fact that 'god' for the most part lets the world and those in it run according to their own wishes - sometimes I think I would wish it otherwise, but as Jefferson once said:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Additionally, and I know this doesn't speak well of us (but all groups and beliefs are guilty of the same, so so be it), but I so often hear people talking about god (or politics, when comes to Ron Paul, etc.) asking questions like "Why does god (or Washington, etc.) allow bad things/evil/cruelty/whatever to happen if he's so good?"

Well, perhaps it's because it's OUR responsibility to work in this world to make things better, to touch hearts and minds to educate people about what the bible actually says, or to induce positive change in society and politics - the people have the capability to do this, but frequently are too lazy or confused to do such (personally, I dwell in a state of constant cognitive dissonnance and internal conflict that I tend to not even know how to aim at larger goals beyond one-on-one dealings with people in my daily life).

You also have to take into account how strongly people can believe something (and I know I'm opening up a shot at believers in religion, as well as everything else here also), even if it is incorrect, atrocious, or just distasteful - and those people can also win hearts and minds.

This is one reason I'm glad that my personal views here seem vindicated by what I actually read in the bible - even these people may have a chance to experience eternal life as I believe their consciences and intent might be more important than their actions in this world, strife and discord resulting from them aside. Remember, as far as this life goes, the only thing we know for sure is that it ends. In my opinion, while we should always do everything we can to bless those around us and make this world a better place, in the end the only thing that matters is eternity...and this is why I try to walk only in love and peace, and cannot understand those who live in judgement, fear, and approval of war and aggression/retaliation. King and Gandhi had it right, IMHO.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by BEAST1E
Isn't it said in the bible that admittance to heaven isn't based on whether your faith is Christianity but just that you have faith?

Correct, "Religion" doesn't save anyone. Christ mocked the religious people the most when He was here. Jesus is the way, not religion.

Lol this doesnt make sense Christ made fun of religious people so now we make a religion around Christ

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Why doesn't this omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being bring them together in their beliefs?

God does not want to rule over mindless robots but people who exercise what shreds of free-will may still exist within them, to find and discover His will and to follow it. Forcing people into obeying Him is not the way He wants it, but to compel people through persuasion in the way of promptings through the spirit.
Some people do not respond and want their own will to prevail or are partisan and find an earthly leader to follow.
The good shepherd knows his flock and the individuals that comprise it. It become very evident who is not of the flock when they go off to follow another.

'God' doesn't want to force mankind to follow his will, but it's OK to put us up aganist impossible odds, if we don't follow his will?

The inclusion of 'free will' in such a situation is only a cosmetic maneuver. The OT character Jahveh has allegedly given us 'free will' on the obvious condition, that we don't use it against his wishes .....or else.

That's not much of a 'free will'.

The OT 'god' appears to be rather obsessed with authority, and have consequently had some troublesome opposition. But as he's circle-argumented to be ultimate reality, that should make it OK then. Ofcourse on the condition, that one believes in the initial assumptions the whole myth is build on.

If one doesn't believe, that Jahveh is ultimate reality (but only some pretender-god with some power) I would find the attitude of the rebelling Lucifer quite reasonable, and should the general scenario as painted in the bible turn out to be correct part of the way, I would without doubt side with Lucifer.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .that one believes in the initial assumptions the whole myth is build on.

Which is . . what?
That there is a such thing as a god?
So, lets say there was, and there was a priest for a particular god, by the name of Jethro, and an Egyptian man comes to him having this vague understanding that he was really a Hebrew. This man, Moses feels comfortable enough with the take on god that this priest has. And one day, the god appears to him and says, "You are in luck because I am actually the god of your forefathers who you did not know or really know much about but you may be familiar with their names. Well I know those names and I knew the people who bore those names so you would be doing a good thing to follow me."
Moses brings the people he now perceives as being his kin, up to Sinai in order to worship that god that he found there. They come up and the god says, "Since I did miraculously bring you here, you are now obligated to serve me as a nation of priests and Moses will fill you in on the details."
Moses goes up on the mountain to get those details and the god says, "Here is how things are in heaven and I want you to replicate it to have a portable model of have to take around with you, and if you do that, I can feel right at home and stay with you so I can do some more miraculous things for my priest nation, who serve the purpose of maintaining this little heaven on earth for me."
That was the plan and it degenerated to being replaced by a stone temple and the people loved the land more than the god. As a result of this forsaking the god for the habits and ways of the Heathen followers of false gods, the land was taken away from them. That was not punishment enough because of the extent of the fall from such a preferred position, and we all needed to be cursed with a double curse.
Now that god was a good enough god for the time and the situation but the scheme set up turned out, ultimately , a failure because of the perverse nature of men.
Not to be derogatory or disrespectful to that god of Moses, there was a future leader foretold by Moses. Also hints through the prophets of a time that would usher in a new revelation of god that we must follow if we do not want all the effects of the curses from the first god to befall us. Of course I am talking about Jesus and his revealing to us the character of the Father.

Originally posted by mb2591

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by BEAST1E
Isn't it said in the bible that admittance to heaven isn't based on whether your faith is Christianity but just that you have faith?

Correct, "Religion" doesn't save anyone. Christ mocked the religious people the most when He was here. Jesus is the way, not religion.

Lol this doesnt make sense Christ made fun of religious people so now we make a religion around Christ

SOME people do. Not this member. Christ's message was one of redemption through Him, not religion so we could make ourselves righteous or justified.

Pharisees = religious people
Apostles = humble recipients of redemption

Originally posted by Praetorius
And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

This seems to suggest that the deciding factor is not simply what most christians believe, but is due to mitigating circumstances

I think you're correct and the funny thing is that this doesn't negate the blood sacrifice that Christ made or make it less valuable. If you pay for someone's lunch and they don't take it right away but they eventually come back starving needing the lunch, would the lunch still be paid for? I don't see any other purpose for judging the dead here other than to look at their actions and intent. There is no indication that 100% of these people are thrown out.

Why pick Christianity? I believe it's one of the few if not the only religion that tells you point blank. "You can't do anything good enough to earn eternal life." The gap between men and God is infinite and we can't bridge it no more than we could build a bridge to the moon. Christianity seems to provide an honest answer for narrowing the gap. "Stay were you are, God will come to you."

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .that one believes in the initial assumptions the whole myth is build on.

Which is . . what?
That there is a such thing as a god?
So, lets say there was, and there was a priest for a particular god, by the name of Jethro, and an Egyptian man comes to him having this vague understanding that he was really a Hebrew. This man, Moses feels comfortable enough with the take on god that this priest has. And one day, the god appears to him and says, "You are in luck because I am actually the god of your forefathers who you did not know or really know much about but you may be familiar with their names. Well I know those names and I knew the people who bore those names so you would be doing a good thing to follow me."
Moses brings the people he now perceives as being his kin, up to Sinai in order to worship that god that he found there. They come up and the god says, "Since I did miraculously bring you here, you are now obligated to serve me as a nation of priests and Moses will fill you in on the details."
Moses goes up on the mountain to get those details and the god says, "Here is how things are in heaven and I want you to replicate it to have a portable model of have to take around with you, and if you do that, I can feel right at home and stay with you so I can do some more miraculous things for my priest nation, who serve the purpose of maintaining this little heaven on earth for me."
That was the plan and it degenerated to being replaced by a stone temple and the people loved the land more than the god. As a result of this forsaking the god for the habits and ways of the Heathen followers of false gods, the land was taken away from them. That was not punishment enough because of the extent of the fall from such a preferred position, and we all needed to be cursed with a double curse.
Now that god was a good enough god for the time and the situation but the scheme set up turned out, ultimately , a failure because of the perverse nature of men.
Not to be derogatory or disrespectful to that god of Moses, there was a future leader foretold by Moses. Also hints through the prophets of a time that would usher in a new revelation of god that we must follow if we do not want all the effects of the curses from the first god to befall us. Of course I am talking about Jesus and his revealing to us the character of the Father.

edit on 24-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I am familiar with the christian myth(s), but thanks anyway. You probably did it with the best intention.

Retelling it (them) doesn't add or subtract anything of my understanding, and it doesn't add or subtract anything of the validity of the myth(s).

Quote (on assumptions): ["Which is . . what? That there is a such thing as a god?"]

That is one, yes.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by bogomil

 

The concept of 'original sin', as in, the events of the fall of man aren't necessarily what's up for debate here. After all, take a look around you, our world is not perfect. It's evident that man in it's current state is fallen. After all, if this was a perfect world, it would be filled with perfect people, we'd have the perfect lives, with no need for salvation.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

If 'original sin' is off-topic, then so is 'salvation'.

The seemingly (and probably real) dysfunctionality of cosmos (.e.g. 'suffering') is a subject for consideration in practically all the religions/semi-religions I'm familiar with. The christian answer to it is one of the least credible.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
God does not want to rule over mindless robots but people who exercise what shreds of free-will may still exist within them, to find and discover His will and to follow it. Forcing people into obeying Him is not the way He wants it, but to compel people through persuasion in the way of promptings through the spirit.

I didn't say that he should rule over us like we're mindless robots. Just that he'd show us that he's real and speak to us. If he is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. he'd know exactly what it would take for us to believe, but that doesn't mean he would be forcing us to do anything. I believe Barack Obama is real. He's not forcing me to believe it. If I want to follow him or not is my choice. If there's a good reason to follow I may do so. If he's a douche bag, I may not.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .'original sin' doctrine amongst the most irrational. . .

Collect a few examples of perfect people to show as your evidence that it is wrong. People generally have a natural inclination to do things that are wrong. Now the Catholic idea that original sin can be nullified through a priestly ritual is ridiculous.
Jesus is in the world spiritually in order to give us direction towards the goal of being a good person. That is our salvation, which is the good shepherd to guide us into the promised land.

Sorry, I missed this post from you the first time around.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not trying to postulate, that cosmos is perfect. I'm saying, that I consider the perspective of (many of) the christianities on the imperfection to be pure guesses/speculations. Some of these guesses/speculations even so OBVIOUSLY wrong, that it is possible to take a 'gnostic' position against them.

E.g. Genesis 1 and 2. Cornerstones of many of the christianities.

* A 'gnostic' position doesn't mean something from gnosticism, but a position of validation/not-validation.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .doesn't add or subtract anything of my understanding. . .

I got tired and had to take a break before getting to where this was supposed to go.
Bogomil brought up a subject that I am trying to deal with to get to where it is explainable, of when a god becomes a devil.
I think that in this scenario that I set up, it would be the time of people like Ezra, when the Persian Emperor decreed that the Jews taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar could return to Jerusalem. That old god had given ample opportunity to his people to rise to their potential, and they turned aside from his ways. In the eyes of the Jews who still wanted the land and the miracles, they held Cyrus as the new Messiah and used the decree as a mandate to go to Jerusalem and evict the people who had taken up residence in their long absence. After these events, they took upon themselves a satanic character of pride and tribalistic hatred of the people they regarded as foreigners in their own land. Though they assumed the written name of their former god, they never took on the attribute that they found so beneficial, and they became a plague upon the land.
The once faithful god in this case did not become the devil but the users of that discarded name used it for satanic purposes. The actual Satan is a person who was already evil and on the road to full-blown rebellion when human history on this planet began.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .christianities on the imperfection to be pure guesses/speculations.

I was not necessarily trying to contradict you, so much as to prod you to build a better case.
To me, the strict original sin concept could not be correct because you would be making Jesus a sinner, which I refuse to accept. I would not say being sinless is impossible so much as highly improbable.
Regardless of that, I suppose I do go along with Medieval doctrine in that I believe without the intervention of the Son of God, we would be libel for penalty regardless of how good we may be.

reply to post by Hydroman

. . .I didn't say that he should rule over us like we're mindless. . .

I was being too severe in my reply and not using such a good analogy.
There are enough people on this forum denouncing "religion", so I don't feel compelled to chime in so much.
But there is a lot of stuff tacked on and since it is human invention, then each version is going to reflect the mind of its individual creator. I go more with the sentiment of the Bill of Rights in that we should be free to practice what religion we want, even if it means there are as many religions as there are people.

edit to answer the question: That makes me afraid when normally I am not afraid of things, why is it that some people seem to never have anything to force them to believe in something, if they were to be honest with themselves. I don't think that it is always the case that people are given evidence and they just decide to reject it. I think some people just have nothing at all happen in their life that in any way would be out of the ordinary and would cause them to think there must be some supernatural power behind it. It does make me fearful for several reasons. It makes me feel bad for others, and I wonder if my belief is based on concrete events, so in the end, means nothing.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .doesn't add or subtract anything of my understanding. . .

I got tired and had to take a break before getting to where this was supposed to go.
Bogomil brought up a subject that I am trying to deal with to get to where it is explainable, of when a god becomes a devil.
I think that in this scenario that I set up, it would be the time of people like Ezra, when the Persian Emperor decreed that the Jews taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar could return to Jerusalem. That old god had given ample opportunity to his people to rise to their potential, and they turned aside from his ways. In the eyes of the Jews who still wanted the land and the miracles, they held Cyrus as the new Messiah and used the decree as a mandate to go to Jerusalem and evict the people who had taken up residence in their long absence. After these events, they took upon themselves a satanic character of pride and tribalistic hatred of the people they regarded as foreigners in their own land. Though they assumed the written name of their former god, they never took on the attribute that they found so beneficial, and they became a plague upon the land.
The once faithful god in this case did not become the devil but the users of that discarded name used it for satanic purposes. The actual Satan is a person who was already evil and on the road to full-blown rebellion when human history on this planet began.

'Gods' become 'devils' and vice versa according to the premises surrounding them. For medieval christianity the devil became associated with the naure-god Pan, and for gnosticism Jahveh was THE devil.

Myths are often like political propaganda, with (hidden) agendas, and any circle-argumentatory self-proving is worthless.

Mankind has to find meaning and reality outside self-proclaimed 'truths' from myths.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You wrote:

["Regardless of that, I suppose I do go along with Medieval doctrine in that I believe without the intervention of the Son of God, we would be libel for penalty regardless of how good we may be."]

'Penalty' .....? So we ARE back to the assumption of 'original sin'. A cornerstone in the christianities, but so improbable for rational reasoning, that it can't be even slightly 'explained'; but always is presented in wrappings of circle-arguments, divine psychology (ineffable ofcourse) and embellished allegories.

As to creating my own position of alternative answers on the imperfection of cosmos, that wouldn't be a problem, but the present forum policy expects strict topic relevance, so that's not for now.