Ramblings on morality, temptation, and religion

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by revrew

What, afterall, is the alternative? That a highly convincing band of uneducated fishermen decided to make up a blasphemy, persuaded thousands, even tens of thousands of people to believe something that never happened, then waited 30-50 years to write fairy tales to support it, were willing to be tortured and killed for something they knew was a lie, all for no material gain, and that later followers of this persecuted young religion fabricated more and more documents to support the idea--just so they could get beaten and killed for it, too? And now, today, this B.S. religion is the most widely influencial force of good in Western civilization, having been affirmed and testified to by millions of people since that date?

I find that explanation requires just as much faith as the simpler: that the eyewitnesses actually saw what they said they saw. And that's only part of why I said at the beginning, that I believe there's ample evidence to verify the Resurrection.

One word: scientology.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by revrew

RE: no contemporary accounts, "heresay after the fact," etc.:
Jersualem was a backwoods, armpit of a country at the time. If somebody started a riot in Bangladesh today, do you think we'd still have the A.P. press release from New York City 1000 years later? I don't find it surprising or even troubling that we don't have a report from Rome on a little one-day riot (one among many) in Jerusalem. Who really cared? What other Jewish records from the three-year period of Jesus' public ministry do we have? I'm guessing few to none. To say, "we don't have a record," is hardly a disproving argument, as we hardly have any records at all!

I'd argue that much of what happened to Jesus and the fact that it reached the attention of both the Roman authorities and the Jewish High Priest of the time make it more than a mere one-day riot in Jerusalem. It would have been a big event in the day, and recorded as such. I can't say exactly what records we have from these times as I don't know, all I know is that some do exist, that there were Jewish literary men, and other historians and philosophers, who's texts survived, and that none of them mention Jesus.

The mere fact that Christians later went through and modified the writings of Joesphus and others to add more fluff regarding Jesus shows that even just centuries after the events there was no other contemporary evidence existing. They recognised this as a major weakness and attempted to rectify it.

And even if records of these events did not reach us or were considered too minor to record, I find it hard to believe that Herod's slaughter of all children under the age of two years was not recorded, or the fact that, worldwide, there was no mentioning of the 3 hour eclipse in Luke 23:44-45 by any astronomer or astrologer.

"We don't have a record" is indeed a disproving argument, because records are all we can use to ascertain for certain if something occured. As BrianD said earlier, it's very hard to prove something didn't happen. Instead you have to prove something did happen by looking for evidence. In the Bible we have one source of evidence, but the remaining sources from this period do not correlate with its contents, which makes it a questionable source of history.

Originally Posted by revrew

What we do have, however, are eyewitness reports (notably Peter, if you're determined to throw out Matthew and John--does it matter if Peter wrote it in 60 or 30 AD?), one detailed historian's account (Luke and Acts), and the odd way in which a band of first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, of Jewish people--at the time--were willing to be executed for believing the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection, an event which a good Jewish person should have considered blasphemy. In the face of brutal persecution, the eyewitnesses themselves refused to recant...and to what gain? The idea of resurrection was just as ridiculous to them as it is to us today, maybe even more, given the Jewish faith.

Peter's writings are perhaps even more controversial. Some scholars think it was written in the early 2nd century, and contains references to events that didn't take place until after his death. It was also excluded from some church canons into the fifth century.

Originally Posted by revrew

What, afterall, is the alternative? That a highly convincing band of uneducated fishermen decided to make up a blasphemy, persuaded thousands, even tens of thousands of people to believe something that never happened, then waited 30-50 years to write fairy tales to support it, were willing to be tortured and killed for something they knew was a lie, all for no material gain, and that later followers of this persecuted young religion fabricated more and more documents to support the idea--just so they could get beaten and killed for it, too? And now, today, this B.S. religion is the most widely influencial force of good in Western civilization, having been affirmed and testified to by millions of people since that date?

I don't think the religion was created as a joke by some crafty fishermen at all. I don't think that's how any religion starts. You had the Old Testament in existance for centuries before Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth, and what ended up as the New Testament was likely the teachings of a man named Jesus based on this interpretation of the Old Testament. He probably had followers, and upon his death the stories of him grew more fantastic and wonderful with each telling, until they were commited to paper in the form - or close to, at least - that we now read. I'm just making a guess based on the evidence available, but I consider it more likely than taking the New Testament as literal truth of what happened.

Originally Posted by revew

I find that explanation requires just as much faith as the simpler: that the eyewitnesses actually saw what they said they saw. And that's only part of why I said at the beginning, that I believe there's ample evidence to verify the Resurrection.

And I disagree, and don't feel we have ample evidence to verify either the resurrection or the fact that we have anything from anyone who was an eyewitness. I don't expect or want to change your views on this, and I'm sure you don't expect to change mine.

Guess we just need to agree to disagree.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

st.cronin. Specific to your answer that we cannot be damned by our works, this would seem to indicate you believe that once saved, we can not be 'unsaved'.

I fundamentally disagree with this. In my mind, our works can certainly damn us.

Several days late, and I haven't finished the thread yet, but my first thought is that one of the new ideas that Christ brought to the world is that what you do isn't neccesarily who you are. The old joke about the Scotsman who screws the goat is an example of pre-Christ thought. But what Christianity shows us is that we can be "saved" regardless of what we DO. What takes place in our heart is ultimately all that matters. Now, the difficult part is that our heart, to some extent, guides our actions - so that if you go out and fuck a goat, that is in some way a reflection of what is in your heart. It is NOT, however, a complete manifestation of your soul.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But what Christianity shows us is that we can be "saved" regardless of what we DO. What takes place in our heart is ultimately all that matters.

Is this really true? Is that really what Christianity shows us? Is their anything in Christianity that supports the notion that an athiest (like myself), who has a "good" heart, is kind to people, gives to charity, doesn't cheat, steal, etc, etc., and basically lives a good, honest life, but does not believe in God, can be "saved"?

Thats one of things that always sort of irks me. I have a really hard time accepting or believing in a God who supposively rewards people who live good lives in the afterlife, but only on the condition that they take this leap of "faith." In essence this God is simply condeming people for using the power of the minds He apparently gave us. So it's all just comes down to some sort of test?

For example, you have a guy who kills a bus load of nuns and children, but then finds God, is born again, repents, has faith etc, etc, and he gets in "heaven", while some poor guy or girl who doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason, but spends their lives helping sick children, the elderly, etc, etc just because he/she thinks it's the right thing to do is flat out of like? Too bad, so sad, Hell's that way?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

For example, you have a guy who kills a bus load of nuns and children, but then finds God, is born again, repents, has faith etc, etc, and he gets in "heaven", while some poor guy or girl who doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason, but spends their lives helping sick children, the elderly, etc, etc just because he/she thinks it's the right thing to do is flat out of like? Too bad, so sad, Hell's that way?

One of the things that many Protestant churches, imo, consistently miss is how illogical the faith actually is. It doesn't make any sense, when you put it that way. But when you do understand the faith, with your heart and your mind, it has an undeniable beauty like nothing else.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But when you do understand the faith, with your heart and your mind, it has an undeniable beauty like nothing else.

I sort of feel the same way about hockey.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

For example, you have a guy who kills a bus load of nuns and children, but then finds God, is born again, repents, has faith etc, etc, and he gets in "heaven", while some poor guy or girl who doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason, but spends their lives helping sick children, the elderly, etc, etc just because he/she thinks it's the right thing to do is flat out of like? Too bad, so sad, Hell's that way?

Yeah, pretty much. But until you learn not to scoff at the "injustice" of it all, and realize that no matter how good, charitable, and compassionate you are, you're not perfect, and not worthy of God's glory, you're probably not going to be able to accept the gospel.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I sort of feel the same way about hockey.

EXACTLY

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

One of the things that many Protestant churches, imo, consistently miss is how illogical the faith actually is. It doesn't make any sense, when you put it that way. But when you do understand the faith, with your heart and your mind, it has an undeniable beauty like nothing else.

So, you're basically saying, only the Catholics "get it" because they have all the stained glass, pretty robes, smelly incense, and such?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

So, you're basically saying, only the Catholics "get it" because they have all the stained glass, pretty robes, smelly incense, and such?

Also it could be argued that Catholics have the unbroken lineage back to Jesus via the succession of Popes. Maybe that counts for something as well.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

So, you're basically saying, only the Catholics "get it" because they have all the stained glass, pretty robes, smelly incense, and such?

No, not at all. I'm not remotely a Catholic, but do share their faith and recognize the strengths of their particular brand of worship. The protestants have their strengths, as well - I was just pointing out one thing which I wish they would approach differently.

Also, 99% of all protestant services have sucky music. 0% of orthodox services have sucky music.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No, not at all. I'm not remotely a Catholic, but do share their faith and recognize the strengths of their particular brand of worship. The protestants have their strengths, as well - I was just pointing out one thing which I wish they would approach differently.

Also, 99% of all protestant services have sucky music. 0% of orthodox services have sucky music.

There are protestant sects that are almost complete mirror images of Catholicism. They just don't recognize the Pope or any of that apostolic benediction garbage.

Anyhow... I have drifted away from the organized sort of churches, and I now attend a non-denominational Bible church.

And the music's not that bad.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Thats one of things that always sort of irks me. I have a really hard time accepting or believing in a God who supposively rewards people who live good lives in the afterlife, but only on the condition that they take this leap of "faith." In essence this God is simply condeming people for using the power of the minds He apparently gave us. So it's all just comes down to some sort of test?

For example, you have a guy who kills a bus load of nuns and children, but then finds God, is born again, repents, has faith etc, etc, and he gets in "heaven", while some poor guy or girl who doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason, but spends their lives helping sick children, the elderly, etc, etc just because he/she thinks it's the right thing to do is flat out of like? Too bad, so sad, Hell's that way?

I get a sense that this is the conventional perspective on the Christian message. It's my understanding of Christianity that God does not reward people for living good lives and does not punish people for living bad lives. If so, we would have a very difficult time figuring out whether we were going to heaven or not. I know I'd always be trying to figure out if I'd done enough to warrant a place in God's kingdom. Instead, it's my understanding that God provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them. He rejects those who live from their own selves and own resources operating as though He doesn't exist.

In some respects that puts your analogy above in perspective in that God is not so interested in the things we do, but the how and why we do them. I can have the highest spirit of self-interest in doing good things and be the proudest person in the world in doing them. That puts me in the same self-centered place as the one who does the conventionally bad things. As for the one who does the conventionally bad things and then sincerely (emphasis on sincerely) repents, God chooses to reward that person for giving up on their own efforts to be right with him.

Just my 0.02.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I get a sense that this is the conventional perspective on the Christian message. It's my understanding of Christianity that God does not reward people for living good lives and does not punish people for living bad lives. If so, we would have a very difficult time figuring out whether we were going to heaven or not. I know I'd always be trying to figure out if I'd done enough to warrant a place in God's kingdom. Instead, it's my understanding that God provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them. He rejects those who live from their own selves and own resources operating as though He doesn't exist.

The first part of the statement above is half of the reason why Luther split from the Church. He wanted to have some way of knowing whether or not he would be accepted into Heaven.

It is human nature to be concerned about acceptance into Heaven. Heck, how do we know if we REALLY believe unless we are put to the test?

I have always believed that there are signs of God's existence if you wish to find them. If you wish to deny God's existence, you can do so. What startled me was a good friend of mine who has never been extremely religious and works as a research scientist specializing in nuclear physics, he said, "There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is."

What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that a being came into existence that created everything? Given other things I have observed, I find it much easier to believe the latter.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The first part of the statement above is half of the reason why Luther split from the Church. He wanted to have some way of knowing whether or not he would be accepted into Heaven.

It is human nature to be concerned about acceptance into Heaven. Heck, how do we know if we REALLY believe unless we are put to the test?

I have always believed that there are signs of God's existence if you wish to find them. If you wish to deny God's existence, you can do so. What startled me was a good friend of mine who has never been extremely religious and works as a research scientist specializing in nuclear physics, he said, "There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is."

What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that a being came into existence that created everything? Given other things I have observed, I find it much easier to believe the latter.

Ironically, I was convinced of the existence of God after reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The first part of the statement above is half of the reason why Luther split from the Church. He wanted to have some way of knowing whether or not he would be accepted into Heaven.

It is human nature to be concerned about acceptance into Heaven. Heck, how do we know if we REALLY believe unless we are put to the test?

I have always believed that there are signs of God's existence if you wish to find them. If you wish to deny God's existence, you can do so. What startled me was a good friend of mine who has never been extremely religious and works as a research scientist specializing in nuclear physics, he said, "There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is."

What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that a being came into existence that created everything? Given other things I have observed, I find it much easier to believe the latter.

You see I actually understand this sentiment. I understand it very well. I don't believe it, but I can really see how one could look around at the world and make that conclusion. I really do.

What I don't understand, however, is that next step. Going from "I believe that there is a higher being out there that created this universe" to "I believe that this higher being is the Christian God who 'provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them. He rejects those who live from their own selves and own resources operating as though He doesn't exist.'"

That's such an incredible and complex leap and seems wholly inconsistent with the original basis in believing in a higher power that was based on "things observed." While I understand observing something and thinking "a higher force is at work here", I have never observed anything that would lead me to believe that this higher force would be anything like the Christian, or any other religious, God.

For the record, WH, I don't know if you're a Christian or not, so all the above is generalized and not aimed at you specifically.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Instead, it's my understanding that God provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them.

I honestly have no idea what this means or would entail.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You see I actually understand this sentiment. I understand it very well. I don't believe it, but I can really see how one could look around at the world and make that conclusion. I really do.

What I don't understand, however, is that next step. Going from "I believe that there is a higher being out there that created this universe" to "I believe that this higher being is the Christian God who 'provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them. He rejects those who live from their own selves and own resources operating as though He doesn't exist.'"

That's such an incredible and complex leap and seems wholly inconsistent with the original basis in believing in a higher power that was based on "things observed." While I understand observing something and thinking "a higher force is at work here", I have never observed anything that would lead me to believe that this higher force would be anything like the Christian, or any other religious, God.

For the record, WH, I don't know if you're a Christian or not, so all the above is generalized and not aimed at you specifically.

Until you believe in God, and spend some real time trying to get to know Him, you won't be able to make that leap of faith.

No offense, but if you don't believe in God at all, there's really no point in arguing with you about it. It would only frustrate both of us, and I'm not in the business of trying to make people believe something they don't want to hear.

The Holy Spirit opens the hearts of the unsaved, and we are merely called to share the Word with those who will hear it.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

What I don't understand, however, is that next step. Going from "I believe that there is a higher being out there that created this universe" to "I believe that this higher being is the Christian God who 'provides people a place in heaven when they give up on themselves and their own attempts to get into His good graces and trust in what Christ has already done for them. He rejects those who live from their own selves and own resources operating as though He doesn't exist.'"

This is where I split with a lot of the Christian teaching...

First off, I am Roman Catholic.

Second, I don't believe in wearing religion on my sleeve, but I try to lead my life by following the path Christ showed us.

Third, I don't believe the standard Christian teaching that it is basically leave everything up to God and he will provide for you.

Many people believe in an "Earthly" heaven. You follow The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc., and you will be showered with riches here. I don't buy that. I also don't stand with the "Proclaim Christ as your savior and you will be saved!" mentality because I have seen too many people distort this belief.

I believe that it is a combination of good works and God's Grace that gets you into Heaven. Now, before someone cries that I am a heretic, let me explain...

As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe that it is only through God's Grace that we are allowed to enter Heaven. What we are asked to do, as Christians, is accept that Christ is the Son of God, who sacrificed himself for us, so that we might be forgiven for our sins. He was the great sacrificial Lamb. Nothing I do will absolve myself of my sins, but I can attempt to atone for my sins to show the sincerity of my attempt to mend my ways. The only way I am forgiven for by sins is through the sacrifice of Christ. Now, if I accept Christ, am I not obligated to avoid sin, and help others? Therefore, to me, good works are a needed sign of someone who has accepted Christ as his savior.

Now, to answer your question in making the leap to believe that there is one God, and that he is the Christian God, I will point to the Old Testament. In the OT there are an absolute slew of prophesies regarding Christ. Most of these were like Nostradamus' prophesies in which no one realizes what is being revealed until the time comes. The prophesies of the OT clearly show Christ as the Son of God, which was the point of them. The Jewish religion has a line of great prophets, but they suddenly disappear after Christ. That is what makes me believe that Christ is the Son of God.

Why should we try to conduct ourselves in the best way we can? I believe that in addition to all-powerful, all-knowing, all-etc., I believe that God is all-just. I believe that there is a Purgatory. By leading a good life, I can minimize my time there, before I am allowed in Heaven.

Granted, the concept of Purgatory is controversial, but I believe that it is consistent with other Church teachings.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it does.

[Warhammer]

Catholics are Christians, I was only stating this as full disclosure since beliefs are slightly different among Christians, although the core belief is the same.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This is where I split with a lot of the Christian teaching...

First off, I am Roman Catholic.

Second, I don't believe in wearing religion on my sleeve, but I try to lead my life by following the path Christ showed us.

Third, I don't believe the standard Christian teaching that it is basically leave everything up to God and he will provide for you.

Many people believe in an "Earthly" heaven. You follow The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc., and you will be showered with riches here. I don't buy that. I also don't stand with the "Proclaim Christ as your savior and you will be saved!" mentality because I have seen too many people distort this belief.

I believe that it is a combination of good works and God's Grace that gets you into Heaven. Now, before someone cries that I am a heretic, let me explain...

As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe that it is only through God's Grace that we are allowed to enter Heaven. What we are asked to do, as Christians, is accept that Christ is the Son of God, who sacrificed himself for us, so that we might be forgiven for our sins. He was the great sacrificial Lamb. Nothing I do will absolve myself of my sins, but I can attempt to atone for my sins to show the sincerity of my attempt to mend my ways. The only way I am forgiven for by sins is through the sacrifice of Christ. Now, if I accept Christ, am I not obligated to avoid sin, and help others? Therefore, to me, good works are a needed sign of someone who has accepted Christ as his savior.

Now, to answer your question in making the leap to believe that there is one God, and that he is the Christian God, I will point to the Old Testament. In the OT there are an absolute slew of prophesies regarding Christ. Most of these were like Nostradamus' prophesies in which no one realizes what is being revealed until the time comes. The prophesies of the OT clearly show Christ as the Son of God, which was the point of them. The Jewish religion has a line of great prophets, but they suddenly disappear after Christ. That is what makes me believe that Christ is the Son of God.

Why should we try to conduct ourselves in the best way we can? I believe that in addition to all-powerful, all-knowing, all-etc., I believe that God is all-just. I believe that there is a Purgatory. By leading a good life, I can minimize my time there, before I am allowed in Heaven.

Granted, the concept of Purgatory is controversial, but I believe that it is consistent with other Church teachings.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it does.

It does, sort of. I think you got distracted by the quote which really didn't have much to do with what I was trying to say.

It's just that you mentioned that you "observed" something in nature, or a pattern of things, and said "Based on this observation, 'There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is.'" Thus, there is a God.

Again, it's the next step that confuses me.

It's sort of like:

I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).
I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Catholicism).

Why Catholicism? What have you observed in the world that makes the Catholic God any more believable or legit than any other God?

How does observing "too much order" in the Universe lead to a belief in Purgatory? Or a belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament are to be believed any more than the prophecies in the Koran or any other religious text? Or that this God who created the Universe and all this order, then created a human son, sent him to Earth to absolve Humans of all their sins, let him die, and then had him resurrected three days later?

Maybe it just is a "Leap of Faith", but that seems inconsistent with the initial belief in God, which followed an "observed" phenomonen, which is how was believe in most things (e.g., earth is round, gravity, water is wet, etc.).

[Warhammer]

Just some quick comments before I head home, the comment on Chaos Theory was by my friend, not me. He believes that God exists, but that is as far as he goes.

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all believe in the same God. They just have different beliefs about God.

Also, I think you are making too many leaps. "Too much order" does not lead to a belief in Purgatory in and of itself.

Why I believe in God, the way I do. That is a tough question to answer. The easy answer is because I have connected the dots for myself and concluded that God is God. The question of why I am Roman Catholic rather than Southern Baptist is a completely different question. A better question would be why do I believe in God rather than a pantheon of gods?

Are you trying to find out why people believe in God, or are you trying to find out why they subscribe to a particular religion?

[Franklinnoble]

The problem with purgatory is that there is no Biblical foundation for it. It's strictly Catholic dogma.

[WVUFAN]

I have trouble with the Church because of the concept of Predestination -- the idea that since God is omnipotent, he allows people to be born onto this earth knowing they're going to hell. It just seemed to me that my preconceived idea of what God is like wouldn't allow that, and no one could really convince me otherwise.

I know this has no connection to anything the Bible has ever said, but I kinda like to think Hell is not permanent -- that it's a place where people go to think about what they have done in their mortal lives, and that as soon as they truly repent, they're given access to Heaven.

It reminds me of a story, although I don't remember who wrote it. Disturbed (the band) did a song based on the story -- where a man dies and "wakes up" standing in a line, surrounded by darkness. The line seems neverending and it moves very slow. When he asks the woman in front of him, he's told Hell is overburdened and this is the line to get in. This long time waiting causes the man to evaluate what he's done, and truly repent for what he's done. When the line suddenly clears and the door to heaven appears. The "line to Hell" WAS Hell, and the moment he no longer deserved to be there, the correct door opened.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What startled me was a good friend of mine who has never been extremely religious and works as a research scientist specializing in nuclear physics, he said, "There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is."

What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that a being came into existence that created everything? Given other things I have observed, I find it much easier to believe the latter.

I guess the questions would be more aimed at your friend, who I know nothing about. Again, this more general musings that directed at anyone in particular.

There are two steps at play here:

1. I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).

2. I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Religion).

I understand 1. While I don't agree with it, I understand how someone could look at the universe, observe it, and come to the conclusion that "there is too much order for there not to be a God. "

But how does what one observes in the universe lead one to believe in all that comes with believing in a religion. A lot of that stuff has nothing to do with observations at all.

I just find "Step 2" to be incredibly hard, if your foundation for believing in God truly is "Step 1", as some people claim it is.

I remember seeing some show on PBS and there was some Christian Scientist going on and on about how the order of the universe made it impossible not to believe in God and how the odds of life were so incredibly small there had to be a God, etc, etc.

But how do all those observations and odds and all that lead one to believe anything about God other than His existence? I think that's what I am after...

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I honestly have no idea what this means or would entail.

If we say that a person gets into heaven by doing good things, then it would seem that that individual is functioning entirely based on their own power, their own efforts and their own work to be good enough to please God. It becomes that person's responsibility to meet a standard God has set. In my understanding God will not accept those who function from this mindset of 'try, try, try again to be as good as I possibly can.'

God's desire is for people to give up trying to meet His standard by their own effort and realize they can't because He demands perfection. Irrespective of whether I tell a little white lie or kill a truckload of nuns and children, I am not perfect. The only one who has lived this perfect life and met God's perfect standard was Jesus Christ. He lived a perfect life, died on the cross and was raised from the dead so that those who trust in Him and stop relying on themselves and their own efforts can be acceptable to God. God provided the way for me to be acceptable to Him through Christ. As we place our faith in Christ and admit there's nothing we can do to be good enough, God gives us the same right and perfect standing before Him that Christ has in his perfection. I can be accepted by God because of what Christ has done and not because I'm good enough. I have to give up on myself and my own effort and trust Him to make me right with God.

To try to get to heaven any other way is to trust in my own power to get the job done and because God is perfect and I am not, my efforts won't cut it.

Again, my 0.02.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Are you trying to find out why people believe in God, or are you trying to find out why they subscribe to a particular religion?

I think they are both pretty self explanatory. Believing in a God or creator is completely natural and has occured in all societies throughout our history. As to why people subscribe to a particular religion over all the others, it's generally because that was the religion that they were brought up with. Sometimes people will switch religions or find religion after previously following none, but they would be the minority.

[Edward64]

Again, fascinating thread. Thank you all.

My background is a non-practicing Catholic. I do believe in God.

The problem with purgatory is that there is no Biblical foundation for it. It's strictly Catholic dogma.

Franklinnoble. I don't claim to be a bible scholar but I believe it is more accurate to say "there is no protestant Biblical foundation for it" as the protestant Bible removed the Book of Maccabees which did have a reference to a purgatory state.

Why should we try to conduct ourselves in the best way we can? I believe that in addition to all-powerful, all-knowing, all-etc., I believe that God is all-just. I believe that there is a Purgatory. By leading a good life, I can minimize my time there, before I am allowed in Heaven.

Granted, the concept of Purgatory is controversial, but I believe that it is consistent with other Church teachings.

Warhammer. I agree with you. Purgatory brings some comfort to me knowing there is some "fairness" in God's judgement.

I know this has no connection to anything the Bible has ever said, but I kinda like to think Hell is not permanent -- that it's a place where people go to think about what they have done in their mortal lives, and that as soon as they truly repent, they're given access to Heaven.

WVUFan. I do believe there is a Hell and it is permanent (however, see Purgatory above). There's some people that are just plain evil.

The typical portrayal of Hell is burning fires (ex. Constatine, great movie) but I like to think of Hell as essentially non-existence, just gone, non-recoverable. No pain, no demons torturing you, just non-existence, no reunion with loved ones in Heaven.

What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that a being came into existence that created everything? Given other things I have observed, I find it much easier to believe the latter.

Warhammer. I've always had a problem with this argument. What is more believable, that the entire universe came from a point singularity that spontaneously exploded into what we see today? Or, that an All Mighty, All Divine being was created spontaneously?

What I hear as a comeback is that All Mighty always existed, no one created the All Mighty. I would reply then that the Universe always existed, energy always existed and theorectical physics (and its applications) always existed.


P.S. Catholic choirs are the best.

[Edward64]

Here are some questions I've always struggled with. I would appreciate any of your insights.

Literal Interpretation of the Bible. Which Bible, the Catholic Bible or the King James Bible? The Protestant Bible is a subset of the Catholic Bible, Martin Luther removed some books during his Reformation.

Therefore, to most Protestants, the original Catholic Bible was faulty, Martin Luther fixed it. If the original Catholic Bible was faulty, why couldn't there be other aspects of the Catholic Bible (and hence the Protestant Bible) that is faulty?

Only Saved by Accepting Jesus as a Personal Savior. I understand children who die before coming to the age of accountability gets a free pass.

How about that Austrailian aborigine in the outbacks in early 1900s who never met a missionary? What happens to the aborigine?

Book of Job. Some view this as an inspirational book on how Job preservered and kept his faith. I've always rejected this book. God is playing a game with Job and 'goaded' the Devil to kill innocents (ex. Jobs children). Anyone else have a problem with this Book?

Age of the Earth. Some Southern Baptist that I have spoken to, believe you can age the Earth by the OT begats which I think comes out to < 10K years. For those who believe this, can you please explain why?

Jesus Christ as the Savior vs Jesus Christ as the Great Prophet. Christians believe JC was the son of God. Muslims believe JC was a Great Prophet.

Can someone explain how/why this discrepancy came to pass? At the very least, I would think the Muslims would have thought JC as a hoaxster or liar and not consider his a prophet.

Noah, the Ark and the Flood. I can easily accept there was a regional flood but cannot believe a global flood that covered most land.

Also, the Ark with all the animals etc. Impossible to believe all those animals could live together in an ark.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Until you believe in God, and spend some real time trying to get to know Him, you won't be able to make that leap of faith.

No offense, but if you don't believe in God at all, there's really no point in arguing with you about it.

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Until you've become a parent and experienced that joy and the pain that goes with it..you don't know what it's like and whether or not choosing to be a parent is selfish or not.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

My two cents: You really haven't fully experienced life until you've had a kid. I doubt any parent will disagree with me.

Perhaps there is a relationship here...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Several days late, and I haven't finished the thread yet, but my first thought is that one of the new ideas that Christ brought to the world is that what you do isn't neccesarily who you are. The old joke about the Scotsman who screws the goat is an example of pre-Christ thought. But what Christianity shows us is that we can be "saved" regardless of what we DO. What takes place in our heart is ultimately all that matters. Now, the difficult part is that our heart, to some extent, guides our actions - so that if you go out and fuck a goat, that is in some way a reflection of what is in your heart. It is NOT, however, a complete manifestation of your soul.

Not entirely true. Matthew 12:31: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

[revrew]

This discussion has taken a long, and interesting turn since I wrote what I am about to post. I don't mean to threadjack, but hope only to address some things mentioned earlier:

Many have said (in this thread and elsewhere), "Why only Jesus? How could a loving God condemn to hell those that are good but don't subscribe to Jesus? We don't know if the words written about him are even true." These are not easy questions to answer, but the following parable was written to help answer in a story-format. Incidentally, if you enjoy science fiction, you may find this an appealing parable:


The year is 2124. The world has been ravaged by unforeseen toxic fallout from human technology gone horrendously awry. Every living thing on land has been corrupted down to the genetic level. Humans are but hideous shadows of their former glory, their skin pallored an ashen gray, their eyes bloodshot and drooping in folds of crusted skin, their strength sapped, their joints twisted.

But one, very wealthy man has built for himself an airship, a home in the air free from the earth's toxic waters and poisoned food chain. There he lives with his beautiful bride, she expecting their first child. Aboard their vast and luxurious airship a single child is born. He is the first healthy, perfect child in over a century. His fingers are full and chubby, his eyes a sparkling blue, his cheeks a rosy pink. He giggles and coos without the hacking cough characteristic of every surface dweller, and he later laughs and runs and jumps with a freedom of spirit long lost to the world below. He is the pride and joy of his father, but alas, only his father. For his mother died in childbirth, leaving the father with only his precious son.

Now in time, the child grows. And as the day approaches for his son's sixth birthday, the father and son decide to have a birthday party. The airship is prepared with dozens of rooms, each filled with bright colors, balloons, streamers, and laden with pure food and drink: cakes and steaks and fruit punch and peanut butter—all the things a six-year-old would revel in.

The wealthy man then sends messengers down to the surface to invite the children of the ground to the party. Oddly, however, the messengers disappear. Though the man had asked the ground-dwellers to RSVP, no reply comes.

As the day approaches for the party, the son begs his father, "Daddy, may I go invite some friends myself? I've never had friends before. May I, please?"

The man, moved by compassion for his child, lets the boy go, but only for a short while.

The child, however, disappears as well. For when the ground-dwellers find the child, they tease him for his pink skin and joyful spirit. They mock him and beat him and call him names. They capture him, and the more wicked among them cut him until he screams in horror. Then they chain the boy to a fence post and rape him. When he cries for his daddy, they beat him to silence. In the midst of all their brutality, the boy dies. Then the ground-dwellers hide the boy. They cut his body to pieces and bury them. There, they hope to forget him.

But the man in the airship comes looking. "Where is my son? Who has seen my son?"

The ground-dwellers deny ever seeing the son. "You had a son?" they ask. "We've never seen him. Do you have a birth certificate?"

The man produces a birth record from his airship, but the ground-dwellers say, "This isn't signed by one of our judges. How do we know you're not making this up? We have no reason to believe you ever had a son."

But the man knows he had a son. And in time, he finds the truth about what was done to his precious, angelic boy. Yet even though he confronts the ground-dwellers with what they did, still they say, "What boy?"

For years, the man drifts through the sky in his air machine. Each day he wakes to see the dusty streamers, hung out to celebrate the life of a boy whose life was snatched by evil men. Each day he smells the food and pictures his son's face covered in frosting, only to have the image snatched away by the picture of his son's face covered in blood and semen. Each day he walks empty halls where his son's laughter once rang.

Now the year is 2134, ten years after the boy's death. A torrential flood of radioactivity is released from the groundwater, threatening a terrifying, painful death to all things living on land. The people of Earth line up in a massive throng before the man in the airship, begging to come to his party rooms and have a taste of the birthday cake, to breathe the clean air, and to drink his boy's fruit punch instead of their waters of death.

One ground-dweller pushes his way to the front. "I'm a kind and loving human!" he cries. "Give me a place on your airship!"

"Were you loving to my son?" asks the man. "Did you fight for him, remember him, honor him, stand up for him?"

"What son?" asks the ground-dweller. "I don't know anything about your son, but I was good to other people's sons!"

Other people's sons? Other people's sons? What about my boy? Why weren't you kind to him when others were beating him?

"His son?" another ground-dweller asks. "Forget about the imaginary boy. I want to buy a spot on the airship. What will you take?"

"Nothing," says the man.

"C'mon. I can pay gold. I can wash the floors. I can worship you, even. What do you want? Name your price!"

"I want you to tell me what you did the day they killed my son. If you want to walk the halls that were prepared for his party, I want you to remember my baby boy!"

One by one, the ground-dwellers come, claiming to be noble, claiming to be worthy, but not one will confess that they threw a punch, that they spit on the boy, that they called the boy names. They won't even acknowledge the boy existed.

The man turns and reads the banner hanging over the airship's door: "Happy Birthday, Joshua!" How can he? How can he let the men and women who slaughtered that precious boy feast at the boy's party, all the while pretending they don't see the banner or the streamers or the cake?

"No," says the man. "I had a son. He will not be forgotten; his memory will not be trampled on as you did his body. If you will but tell me what you did to kill my son and honor his memory with your days, I will welcome you aboard. But I cannot…I cannot let you rape my son and pretend it never happened while you eat his cake."



If the parable needs explaining, the explanation is this:

God, the Father, sent his Son to invite a people corrupted to the core by their own misdeeds to celebrate the life of the only pure child born in history. But upon that Son was laid the wrongdoing of every human, past and future. As Jesus said, "As you do unto others, so you do unto me." That Son died because of what you and I did.

Now, the flood of hell is coming. It was not meant for us, but for the devil, the author of all evil. The Father's airship is available to save us from this hell, but we want to board this ship without acknowledging the Son. Some of us say, "What I did to the Son wasn't as bad as what somebody else did." Some say, "I'm good to other people." Still others say, "I need to see the birth certificate." None of those things, however, prevent the coming flood. And none of them would even remotely satisfy any of us fathers, if we were in his place. He has put one requirement on attending the party: we have to remember who it's for. Frankly, if I were him, I don't think I could stomach even that. I'd let all the ground-dwellers die. But I'm not God. And I thank Him for that.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here are some questions I've always struggled with. I would appreciate any of your insights.

Literal Interpretation of the Bible. Which Bible, the Catholic Bible or the King James Bible? The Protestant Bible is a subset of the Catholic Bible, Martin Luther removed some books during his Reformation.

Therefore, to most Protestants, the original Catholic Bible was faulty, Martin Luther fixed it. If the original Catholic Bible was faulty, why couldn't there be other aspects of the Catholic Bible (and hence the Protestant Bible) that is faulty?

The history here is slightly faulty. The Council of Nicea set the canon for the 66 books of the Bible. Over the next thousand years, the Roman Church believed 7 other books to be equally inspired. When the Reformation broke out, Reformers rejected many Roman practices, including the inclusion of these 7 books. The Reformers, and thus modern Protestants, use the Nicean list. Today, neither Catholics, nor Fundamentalist Protestants, nor Evangelical Protestants question the original 66, only the later 7 additions. Many critics and liberal theologians (that's not name-calling, just a general category) today do question the original 66, and yes, that questioning does open the whole can of worms of doubting everything.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Only Saved by Accepting Jesus as a Personal Savior. I understand children who die before coming to the age of accountability gets a free pass. How about that Austrailian aborigine in the outbacks in early 1900s who never met a missionary? What happens to the aborigine?

There is much uncertainty and debate among Christians of all faiths over this issue. I couldn't give anything but my opinion.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Book of Job. Some view this as an inspirational book on how Job preservered and kept his faith. I've always rejected this book. God is playing a game with Job and 'goaded' the Devil to kill innocents (ex. Jobs children). Anyone else have a problem with this Book?

I personally find this book very comforting. I know with certainty that God doesn't always protect us from the devil's schemes. If I thought otherwise, I'd wonder where the heck God is when we suffer. People lose their children every day. I don't see this story as a "game" or "goading," especially on the part of the omniscient God who knew all Job's fortunes would be restored. God allowed Job to suffer with the result of Job's record trouncing Satan's victory and providing hope and meaning to millions that would suffer after him. The sheer number of spiritual victories won because of Job's story are a testament to God's good purpose, even in intense suffering. I expect in heaven, Job rejoices that he was given the honor of being Job.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Age of the Earth. Some Southern Baptist that I have spoken to, believe you can age the Earth by the OT begats which I think comes out to < 10K years. For those who believe this, can you please explain why?

The scientific observations we have are exactly that: observations. There are many theories to explain the raw data, including young earth theories. Thorough examination of these theories (with credible sources--I confess there are many to many yahoos out there trumpeting these theories) will reveal they are reasonable, requiring some leaps, but no more or less than other scientific origin theories. Those that hold these beliefs often see the young earth theory as necessary to support a literal Adam, Eve, Fall, and Garden. The literal Adam was foundational to both Jesus' and Paul's theology, making it indespensible to fundamentalist Christians.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Jesus Christ as the Savior vs Jesus Christ as the Great Prophet. Christians believe JC was the son of God. Muslims believe JC was a Great Prophet. Can someone explain how/why this discrepancy came to pass? At the very least, I would think the Muslims would have thought JC as a hoaxster or liar and not consider his a prophet.

Perhaps a Muslim could answer this better than I, but as I understand, Mohammad's faith was grounded in the nomadic shepherd's tales of Judaism and Christianity. He would have been reluctant to throw out the baby with the bathwater. After his later "visions," which gave rise to the Koran, Mohammad believed Allah was the same God as Jehovah, only distorted by Jews and Christians (Mohammad having lived 600 years after the birth of Jesus). Thus, Muslims refute that Jesus actually rose from the dead and therefore also refute the validity of Christianity's writings about Jesus. Once they threw out the biblical record, they were free to create their own explanations for his moral teachings and impact. The explanation? A great prophet falsley deified by Christians.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Noah, the Ark and the Flood. I can easily accept there was a regional flood but cannot believe a global flood that covered most land. Also, the Ark with all the animals etc. Impossible to believe all those animals could live together in an ark.

Many, even Christian "young earth" proponents, believe the world looked very different prior to the flood. Perhaps all land was even contained in a single continent. Perhaps all animal life was contained on one land mass. Regardless, even a local flood could have the effect of a global flood. According to Genesis, the dispersal of human and animal life throughout the planet didn't happen until after the flood, so even a local flood could wipe out all life.

As for the animals on the ark, the Bible is very clear about there being "kinds," or categories of animals represented on the ark. Two dogs, for example, could represent the entire canine family, two cats the entire feline, etc. Depending on how you categorize "kinds" remarkably few animals need be on the boat. Those that believe in a literal flood usually accept that there must have been a post-flood diversification of species. Hence, the young-earth, anti-evolution types need not discount all evolution or speciefication, only the evolvement of living things across the "kind" lines (e.g. a bacteria doesn't become a cat, no matter how many generations removed, but a cat could become a tiger given time and varied environments).

Now, did I just set the record for the two longest back-to-back posts? :o

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by revrew

Now, the flood of hell is coming. It was not meant for us, but for the devil, the author of all evil. The Father's airship is available to save us from this hell, but we want to board this ship without acknowledging the Son. Some of us say, "What I did to the Son wasn't as bad as what somebody else did." Some say, "I'm good to other people." Still others say, "I need to see the birth certificate." None of those things, however, prevent the coming flood. And none of them would even remotely satisfy any of us fathers, if we were in his place. He has put one requirement on attending the party: we have to remember who it's for. Frankly, if I were him, I don't think I could stomach even that. I'd let all the ground-dwellers die. But I'm not God. And I thank Him for that.

There are a couple of elements to this parable that are troubling:

a) It implies that those claiming not to know about the son actually do and are only being duplicitous and evil. It's not genuine doubt, but a coverup. That doesn't seem to describe the question that the parable attempts to answer, where people do have real doubts. There are many religious myths in this world, some more dubious than others, and it doesn't seem duplicitous or evil to have questions about the veracity of any one element of religious mythology. Moreover, as per the Pascal's Wager discussion, those who feel less than absolutely certain about who the man on the airship is or what his demands for carriage are will not know that he demands belief in his son until after they've submitted their ticket application, so to speak.

b) It asserts that people are in a direct dialogue with the god-figure. His presence, his statements, the existence of his airship with its tattered banners all serve as direct physical evidence, giving testimony to the fate of the child. It seems that this sort of evidence is just the thing that people are looking for and questioning here.

Neither of these points argues to the fact that the man on the airship doesn't demand exactly what you say he demands, but it seems to me that the point of the parable is to show why it's reasonable for him to demand what he demands. And taking these points into consideration, it does not seem that these demands are particularly reasonable at all. Truly the man has been done wrong, but it seems unspeakably cruel for this rich man to enjoy his airship while condemning all those on the ground to misery, even though many of them had nothing to with the fate of his son, nor any way to really even know about it.

[Edward64]

revrew. Thanks for your reply. Can you please clarify the origins of the bible?

The history here is slightly faulty. The Council of Nicea set the canon for the 66 books of the Bible. Over the next thousand years, the Roman Church believed 7 other books to be equally inspired. When the Reformation broke out, Reformers rejected many Roman practices, including the inclusion of these 7 books. The Reformers, and thus modern Protestants, use the Nicean list. Today, neither Catholics, nor Fundamentalist Protestants, nor Evangelical Protestants question the original 66, only the later 7 additions. Many critics and liberal theologians (that's not name-calling, just a general category) today do question the original 66, and yes, that questioning does open the whole can of worms of doubting everything.

I googled on 'council of nicea' but did not find reference to the 66 canons, it was more on Arian.

My understanding is

1. Catholic Bible with Apocrypha (circa 300s, post Constantine)
2. This Catholic Bible pretty much accepted until Reformation (circa 1500s)
3. Creation Protestant Bible and variants without Apocrypha (post 1500s)

[revrew]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

There are a couple of elements to this parable that are troubling:

a) It implies that those claiming not to know about the son actually do and are only being duplicitous and evil. It's not genuine doubt, but a coverup. That doesn't seem to describe the question that the parable attempts to answer, where people do have real doubts. There are many religious myths in this world, some more dubious than others, and it doesn't seem duplicitous or evil to have questions about the veracity of any one element of religious mythology. Moreover, as per the Pascal's Wager discussion, those who feel less than absolutely certain about who the man on the airship is or what his demands for carriage are will not know that he demands belief in his son until after they've submitted their ticket application, so to speak.

b) It asserts that people are in a direct dialogue with the god-figure. His presence, his statements, the existence of his airship with its tattered banners all serve as direct physical evidence, giving testimony to the fate of the child. It seems that this sort of evidence is just the thing that people are looking for and questioning here.

Neither of these points argues to the fact that the man on the airship doesn't demand exactly what you say he demands, but it seems to me that the point of the parable is to show why it's reasonable for him to demand what he demands. And taking these points into consideration, it does not seem that these demands are particularly reasonable at all. Truly the man has been done wrong, but it seems unspeakably cruel for this rich man to enjoy his airship while condemning all those on the ground to misery, even though many of them had nothing to with the fate of his son, nor any way to really even know about it.

I'll confess that the parable is troubling. But perhaps some clarification will help. First, the parable is based on the premise that Christian doctrine is fact. That's the hypothetical given, just as Jesus' parables implied the hypothetical given that when he said "the kingdom is like..." that he knew for fact what he was saying.

That in mind, one such given is that the sins of EVERYONE were laid upon Jesus. Thus, there is no one innocent of the death of the son. All are guilty. This is a basic Christian doctrine.

The parable also assumes that God is real, what happened to his son was real, and he has made this known to people (this parable doesn't really address "those who have never heard.") The parable assumes the assertions of Romans 1:18-20, that God IS in direct communication with individuals, that He HAS left evidence of His work and His Son.

Naturally, a skeptic would refute these fundamental assertions.

Finally, where it truly is troubling, is that it does imply, I'll admit, that those that resist belief are doing so willfully. That doesn't necessarily imply "duplicitous or evil" but willfull resistance to believing "the truth". Unfortunately, I can't escape the biblical teaching that sustained disbelief is judged a moral resistance and not simply a reasoned resistance. That is, admittedly, a very disturbing teaching--one of those that makes Jesus' teaching "either right or lunacy". I'll admit that's a disturbing, even offensive. I have repeated an offensive biblical teaching, and I don't take it back.

The crux comes down to this:

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

it seems unspeakably cruel for this rich man to enjoy his airship while condemning all those on the ground to misery, even though many of them had nothing to with the fate of his son, nor any way to really even know about it.

This parable assumes Christian doctrine: that we all had everything to do with the fate of his son, and that we have been given knowledge of it. If one denies those assumptions, than it's easy enough to say, "This parable doesn't apply to me." But if you DO accept, even hypothetically, those assumptions...that's where I find it impacting.

On a personal note to my friends on FOFC, I (and I believe God) welcome doubts, questions, skepticism. Most people, I figure, have a path of questions and doubts before arriving at faith. Many people tread that path even after arriving at faith. I don't condemn those still asking questions, still seeking. The offense comes in the conclusion that when a man eventually rejects Jesus and stops seeking, he does so willingly, an offense to the Father by purposefully denying His Son's death. For those still uncertain of His Son's death, I only encourage you to keep asking questions and wrestling with your doubts. And Mojo--I appreciate your thoughts.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

revrew. Thanks for your reply. Can you please clarify the origins of the bible?



I googled on 'council of nicea' but did not find reference to the 66 canons, it was more on Arian.

My understanding is

1. Catholic Bible with Apocrypha (circa 300s, post Constantine)
2. This Catholic Bible pretty much accepted until Reformation (circa 1500s)
3. Creation Protestant Bible and variants without Apocrypha (post 1500s)

Y'know what? I screwed up in my earlier post. Not only did I have my info wrong, but I got my councils mixed up, too. My sincerest apologies. I need to brush up on my church history. :o

First, I meant to refer to the Council of Hippo, not Nicea. But even then, I had my facts mixed up, because that only decided New Testament, while the Apocrypha are Old Testament writings.

My further research (now for my own benefit as much as yours) revealed the following timeline.
1. The conclusion of the non-Apocrypha Old Testament writings (400 BC)
2. The writing of the Apocrypha books (300-100 BC).
3. By the time of Josephus (first century AD), the Jewish faith had established its cannon--22 books, which divided differently make up the Protestant 39. The Jewish faith at the time did not acknowledge the use of the Apocrypha, but only considered the books up until the time of Malachi authoritative (though some of the Apocrypha claim older authorship, such as the Baruch addition to Jeremiah). Jews, Catholics, and Protestants agree on these 39 books.
4. In the early church (pre-Roman Catholicism), the church widely accepted the use of the Apocrypha in various forms. Augustine, for example, argued for their use, while others claimed church acceptance wasn't sufficient. The debate went on and on.
5. As the Roman Catholic church formed, it accepted use of the Apocrypha, but not as canonical, inspired Word of God.
6. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants sought to return to the Jewish canon and refuted the validity of the Apocrypha.
7. At the Council of Trent (1546), the Roman Catholic church reasserted the validity of the Apocrypha, and for the first time, pronounced the Apocrypha biblical canon.
8. Today, Protestants still reject the use of the Apocrypha, while some Catholics debate as to whether the Council of Trent went too far.

Sorry for my misinfo earlier. I had thought the Council of Hippo dealt with the Old Testament, too, but I was mistaken.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Several days late, and I haven't finished the thread yet, but my first thought is that one of the new ideas that Christ brought to the world is that what you do isn't neccesarily who you are. The old joke about the Scotsman who screws the goat is an example of pre-Christ thought. But what Christianity shows us is that we can be "saved" regardless of what we DO. What takes place in our heart is ultimately all that matters. Now, the difficult part is that our heart, to some extent, guides our actions - so that if you go out and fuck a goat, that is in some way a reflection of what is in your heart. It is NOT, however, a complete manifestation of your soul.

St. Cronin. I am not sure I understand how this applies to my contention that you can be 'unsaved' by works. Your example seems to apply to 'before/soon after' being saved.

Here's a simple example to illustrate my point.

Age 21. Person becomes saved (doesn't matter how it happened)
Age 41. After 20 years of leading the good life, decides hes likes little kids.
Age 42. Acts out fantasies and kills kids
Age 43. Caught on Jan 1, 12:30:32pm.

Is your contention that Person is still saved at Jan 1, 12:30:32pm?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

St. Cronin. I am not sure I understand how this applies to my contention that you can be 'unsaved' by works. Your example seems to apply to 'before/soon after' being saved.

Here's a simple example to illustrate my point.

Age 21. Person becomes saved (doesn't matter how it happened)
Age 41. After 20 years of leading the good life, decides hes likes little kids.
Age 42. Acts out fantasies and kills kids
Age 43. Caught on Jan 1, 12:30:32pm.

Is your contention that Person is still saved at Jan 1, 12:30:32pm?

My understanding is that "acts out fantasies and kills kids" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person is saved - whether or not you are saved depends on an honest acknowledgement of your own flawed humanity, and whether and how you are willing to accept God's love. Being saved does not mean you are free of sin, or even that you are less likely to sin.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by revrew

On a personal note to my friends on FOFC, I (and I believe God) welcome doubts, questions, skepticism. Most people, I figure, have a path of questions and doubts before arriving at faith. Many people tread that path even after arriving at faith. I don't condemn those still asking questions, still seeking. The offense comes in the conclusion that when a man eventually rejects Jesus and stops seeking, he does so willingly, an offense to the Father by purposefully denying His Son's death. For those still uncertain of His Son's death, I only encourage you to keep asking questions and wrestling with your doubts. And Mojo--I appreciate your thoughts.

I don't have anything substantive to add to this, just wanted to say your explanation makes a lot of sense, and that I appreciate the thoughtfulness and civility of this thread in general and your posts in particular. It's nice to discuss serious topics without things flying out of control.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My understanding is that "acts out fantasies and kills kids" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person is saved - whether or not you are saved depends on an honest acknowledgement of your own flawed humanity, and whether and how you are willing to accept God's love. Being saved does not mean you are free of sin, or even that you are less likely to sin.

And hence, what I view to be a paradox that I cannot reconcile with.

Example Person goes to heavan, 1900s Australian aborigine goes to hell (according to some mainstream protestant beliefs).

I do want to add that the Catholic religion does believe works can damn you. Pretty sure suicide is considered a cardinal sin, a big no no (again, Constatine, great movie!).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And hence, what I view to be a paradox that I cannot reconcile with.

Example Person goes to heavan, 1900s Australian aborigine goes to hell (according to some mainstream protestant beliefs).

I do want to add that the Catholic religion does believe works can damn you. Pretty sure suicide is considered a cardinal sin, a big no no (again, Constatine, great movie!).

I believe God reveals himself to all people, regardless of whether there is a Church in their neighborhood. How an aboriginal would be judged, or redeemed, never having heard about Jesus, I couldn't even begin to guess, but I believe it to be possible. One idea, which I think more or less represents Orthodox teaching, is that life is a preparation for your judgement; everything you think and do prepares you (or leaves you unprepared) to meet God. At that meeting, you are judged.

The idea that specific works can damn you, I don't neccesarily disagree with it, except I believe that each case describes a work which comes from a very specific spiritual situation - and it's that situation which works against you, not the work itself.

Damnation is such an uninteresting theology, though. I recommend trying some of Mathew Fox's works, like Breakthrough.

[Edward64]

The idea that specific works can damn you, I don't neccesarily disagree with it, except I believe that each case describes a work which comes from a very specific spiritual situation - and it's that situation which works against you, not the work itself.

I'm trying to grasp this statement and can't. Can you give me an example of your thoughts here?

Damnation is such an uninteresting theology, though. I recommend trying some of Mathew Fox's works, like Breakthrough.

I went to Amazon and read the 4 reviews. Sorry St. Cronin, it looks like an incredible dry reading and I'm in the middle of Mayflower. Would you care to bullet point the important thoughts and lets discuss them?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm trying to grasp this statement and can't. Can you give me an example of your thoughts here?



I went to Amazon and read the 4 reviews. Sorry St. Cronin, it looks like an incredible dry reading and I'm in the middle of Mayflower. Would you care to bullet point the important thoughts and lets discuss them?

At the risk of misrepresenting Catholic thought ... I think that what makes suicide a mortal sin is not the act itself, but the psychic state neccesary for the act.

And Fox is decidedly NOT dry reading imo - he's one of the liveliest, most interesting writers I've read, on any subject - but where I was trying to steer the conversation is to what I consider the central message of Christianity, that we need not fear death. "Damnation" theology works against that message.

[cartman]

The "saved" thread reminded me of this one I started a couple of years ago. There is a 2006 Obama sighting on the first page of the thread. There is a ton of great discussions contained within.

[JediKooter]

WWCD?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If we aren't saved by works, can we be damned by works? (honest question)

The idea is that your actions don't count its your belief in God and acceptance of Jesus as saviour that matters.

In theory you could be a rampging murderer and still go to heaven - this is covered by the ultimate catch 22 though which states that if you're truly saved it'll be visible as you'll be infused with Gods spirit and want to be good, give money to the church etc. .... if you don't then you're not truly saved etc.