Some questions about Christian religion

Remove all ads!

Then why do I need to search for Jesus and God and not the other way around?

 

At Alexander the Great:

That's not the only story, there are different versions from different written sources. So, it's good possible, that you had the story from a different source. That the Sky and the Earth weren't mother and son, but married, is another valid version, from another written source.

 

Because it's not a free lunch?

But actually it is very close. According to Christian beliefs most of the work about you is done by God but you must be willing and trying to contribute. Not that it's not a narrow path.

 

*throws his hands up*
But I'll try anyways.

This easing up is the worst thing in the world for both the church and the world.

If the death and resurrection of Christ is not the only way to salvation, than Christianity is useless, a waste, a total despair.

"easing up" is called "sliding away" and will lead many to Hell. It would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown in a lake than to be that Danish priest or one who teaches what he does.

 

Actually, how can not believing in God lead you to hell, with a healty dosis of sceptism(sp?) you could get the following:

If Lucifer lies, he would be very good in that, since he had a few millenias to practice and was created by the great flawless creator.

If Satan was lying, he would be perfect at it, since his lying was flawless, so he could make you believe he was God!
And his son, the son of God! Resulting that every christian goes down to the lake of fire.

Now if Satan was very very very evil, he would do that, and God could hardly do anything since Satan lied to him!
But God ofcourse created Satan with the intent to lie, so Satan made God believe he had a flaw...

Oh, and that lake of fire stuff? How many people have actually been there and returned?? Kenny?

No wonder God was cooking them already till they turned black/brown, so they could prepare for what was coming...

 

Well, on that only one way to salvation:

Yes, the death of Jesus Christ is the only way. It's for His blood and by His blood that we're saved if we are. Which doesn't bar non-believers from salvation. It's still God who has the final say.

 

@Math

If that is how you feel, if that is how christianity feels, you can have it all for yourself. And I won't even start bothering why you posted that link. Pretty mature, huh?

@Morgoth
Nice ones. Though, Christians have some standard phrases that have passed in generations, which doesn't necessarily answer any of your questions, but make sense in the art of circular argumentation. I can understand that science isn't accepted. But logic. I am truly puzzled how intelligent people cannot see obvious flaws of logic. Christians are doing nothing that doesn't make it an unfriendly, reward-orientated and arrogant religion that scares people into obidience with the threats of eternal fear and torment. Math put it quite precisely himself.

Indeed, we have never agreed more. Love. Friendliness. Honesty, fairness and kindness, are not necessities(mark that word) at all in the base concepts of Christianity, they could have been anything. Only the death and resurrection of Christ counts. I might realize someday that I was wrong about God beeing the entity of kindness. Perhaps that is why my logic fails so horribly. Because I assume God is unquestionable and unconditional love and warmth. Which God isn't.

@Chev

Are you sure? Non-belivers can get salvation? Then you agree with the danish priest, whom Math would rather see drowned?

[ June 18, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

First, God's love is unconditional. Were it not so, then incarnation, death and resurrection would make no sense at all. However, something still has to be required from us, poor sinners, and it's not exactly crying 'make love not war' and general soft-hearted aproach. In Roman church, for example, God's inifite mercy (misericordia) is as much a dogma as free will. There's no free will without responsibility and coping with the consequences of one's choices that are already alleviated to the maximal extent possible where it still can be called free will.

And no, I don't agree with the Danish priest. What Mat refers to is Jesus's teachings about the leading of other people into sin, which is thus considered a lesser sin than 'just' a suicide. In his case it's not believing or not, or to be more precise - aposthasy or lack thereof, but how his proceedings affect the people who listen to him and follow him. That's what is more important than his performing priestly duties as a non-believer, which is secondary at most.

[ June 18, 2003, 02:02: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

First part) How can unconditional love still demand that something is required? Or is it unconditional love to condemn people to eternal suffering if they didn't do as they are told. This is conditional love. Or his love is not kind in the english definition of kindness. Or his kindness is not love in the english definition of love. Well either way it is illogic, so I guess Christianity has no quarrels with it.

Second part) I am well aware of that the approach is different between what the priest does and what you wrote about not barring non-believers from salvation, but the result is exactly the same. You get a bunch of Goodhearted people standing up there with God, who didn't belive in God but devoted their life to goodness. I'll carve it out. If you say that non believers are not barred from salvation you are acting out a sin with exactly the same result as the priest and thus exactly as guilty. Well it is deduction of logic, so I guess its a little hard to graps for christianity. Or did I miss something in this?

 

@Nobleman - What did the link to the "imagine-USA" movie have to do with the topic. And even after I saw it I still don't feel bad for the Americans. But that's waaaaaay to off-topic.

[ June 18, 2003, 03:16: Message edited by: Velve Zauviir ]

 

Not really. I'm not committing that same sin. The priest doesn't believe in God therefore he doesn't believe in salvation. He only claims that God isn't necessary to be good.

I, in turn, say that to be Christian is not an indispensible prerequisite for salvation. Which doesn't mean that religions are of equal worth and that even the multiple branches of Christanity are equally right. In fact I still believe that the shortest way to God's hall leads through the door of holy catholic Church and that God's grace is always needed for anyone to be saved. Still, the only reason for anyone to be saved is the blood of Jesus Christ, who died for all born, dead and yet unborn regardless of whether they realise it or not.

As for love itself:

It's not love that sets the requirements and it's not God who's condemning one to Hell. In fact it's more like condemning oneself. To be condemned one needs to consider himself irredeemable. There's no such sin that God wouldn't forgive if His mercy were accepted.

 

You just repeated yourself with other words.
So I can ask again

First) If God's love was unconditional we wouldn't need to redeem anything. The english language has many synonyms for this, so we could keep the charade going for some posts with different wordings. God's "love" is conditional. The other way to look at it is, that Gods term "love" is not the same as the english word "love". Which would be illogic and in style with christianity. then sure why the heck. God's love is inconditional. There probably is some old hebrew twist in wording to every part of the translation anyway, further clouded by a few dozen roman translations etc. I do not see beeing the judge jury and executioner, sending people, who denied your magnificent gift and didn't play by your rules, to eternal suffering and torment, as an act of unconditional love. Nomatter how it is peoples' own fault. God is still both judge and jury and executioner. Isn't it plain obvious that this is not an act of unconditional love if you are both judge jury and executioner? That is if God has the final say

Second) Again, yes your approach is different than the danish priest. We agreed on that. There is no need to explain it again. But if you truly mean non-believers are not barred from salvation, you'll add just as much chaos on earth and you'll have a bunch of Goodhearted ateists or buddhists up at God's judgement call. The *worst* thing that can *ever* come out of following the danish priest is to be a goodhearted ateist up at God's judgement call. You might say what you do in good intend, but granting non christians the gift of salvation, in not good for christianity. Is it, Math or Chev?


@velve
I wouldn't have to say this but read the post and listen to the song text. You are right that it has nothing to do with USA as a nation but the people. The link shows we live in a world that is far from joyous and religion isn't helping at all in a grand scale view. But there are lyrics in the song too, that are an natural add-on to my post. I wouldn't have to say it? And I don't care the least bit if you hate USA as a nation, but if you don't mourn those people dying each day in horrible religious deaths, Americans or not, you are pretty twisted. How can you not feel sad for those people? They could have been Korean, Japanese or even from Poland. It would be the same to me. I hope it was a typo you made when you wrote Americans instead of America.

[ June 18, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

How did this topic escape my notice?

Chevalier, Jesus did not say He was a way to heaven; He said He was THE way. There is no other name under heaven that men can be saved by, only by the name of Jesus Christ, and no man can even confess Him unless His spirit is in them. So if you believe in the Bible, then Christianity is the only way. "He who believes on me shall be saved and have eternal life; he who does not believe on me shall be condemned forever."

Nobleman: I don't believe you can be truly good apart from the nature of God. Try to live *everything* Jesus taught without His power to sustain you and see how far you get.

You are condemned to hell when you refuse to surrender those parts of your life that are not compatible with heaven. I might love someone with all of my heart, but that does not mean I am going to allow them to drink alcohol in my house. I know that consuming alcohol is hurting them, not helping them; by condoning such actions, I would not be expressing love for them. But because of free will, I can't just force them to stop drinking -- I can only insist that they not do it on my territory.

Incidentally, the Bible does NOT say "In the beginning, there was nothing" or "In the beginning, there was chaos" or any such thing. It says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So the whole chaos discussion is rather pointless.

Nobleman, it seems you have a skewed view of Christianity, although I haven't figured out yet just what you think it is. But this:

Love is what Christianity is based on. Why did Christ die for us? Because He loved us. He said the whole law could be fulfilled with two commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind -- Love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty simple.

 

If you don't wear black clothes, you go to hell, since in heaven all people are wearing white clothes.
If you can't fly, you go to hell, since heaven is an endless collections of clouds and it is necessary to fly, since you need to do groceries or go to the outhouse from time to time..

But that's just me pulling your leg

And since the way to know Jesus is in the hands of corrupt priests... how can you know Jesus then (let alone love him) when the first steps of the road to him are obscured with corrupt mist.

Then give me a rational argument, why the Aboriginal or Zulu or whatnot who has never heard of Jesus (let alone believes in him), deserves to go to hell?

Satan would claim his soul? Didn't God then create Satan to lure people away from him?

[ June 18, 2003, 10:53: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Sorry, I just can not resist. I thank god for the catholic church and monastery brew, Franciscan beer and wine from Vaud. I am indeed so tolerant in religion-matters, I even drink beer from dominician breweries from Lucerne.

 

No, there are a few other things too. It's impossible for me to enumerate all, but for instance it may lead weaker individuals to apostasy (which is 2 and possibly 3 commandments broken), to removing God from their lives and replacing Him with themselves alone in terms of the judgement of good and evil, to separating Christian morals from Christian religion (both lose sense then), to denying the very core and source of Christianity, which is God, within the ranks of His worshippers, turning believers from worship, corrupting the beliefs of fellow Christians who will then corrupt further ones and so on and so forth. Of course, the level of guilt is also taken in consideration.

We don't redeem ourselves, this has been done by Jesus Christ. Our part is showing the willingness and commitment rather than straightforward redeeming. A conscious and consequent choice of God over Satan. We need to repent as no sin and no evil may be allowed in God's presence for else what point would there be going to heaven? As a loving father God remostrates and even punishes us in order to correct and amend us even though it does hurt Him more than us. He however allows us to exercise our free will given from Him and won't break our will even if it's going to harm us ultimately. Isn't it the ultimate love on God's side to have created humans in they way that they can love God of their own choice rather than becausing of having been made so? God's love is such that He does not force us to love Him even to the least extent, but is only content with love given from a willing heart. Yet still he has not deserted us, but given us conscience to support us if we heed it.

They way people tend to see the problem, isn't it evil for a human couple to have children knowing that this world is full of pain and suffering, to which their child will be subject from birth to death?

The other way round. God is judge and executioner because he is love. There's no obstacle to justice if the judge is to execute his sentence since executors have absolutely nothing to say about the sentence and don't even contribute in the slightest. In fact it's been tried and it's not a bad idea - imagine how many quick and unweighed death sentences would there be if the judge were to behead each of the culprits setenced. What wouldn't go in human courts is that there's no accusation, defence, judge etc but only one God. But this limitation is necessary due to the failing human nature. God isn't subject to failings and His judgement isn't biased if not by His love. In fact who of the living or dead would survive an unbending lawful judgement?

Besides, love is one thing and judgement is another. God still loves you even if you choose Satan and Hell in His stead, and yes it's always you to choose and not God sending you to Abyss. As I have said above in this post, in fact His suffering and pain is greater than your own in such cases - He sees His beloved creation abandon, disdain and oppose Himself, His gifts, His mercy and ultimately His love. What feels a mother whose son turned from the Christian ways she taught him and became a serial murderer, genocide, whatever, is only a mere fraction of the suffering of God.

Here's a useful link for further reading about the problems addressed by me so far: http://www.northforest.com/journey/problemwithgod.html

Of course and that's what I said above, twice.

But who believes more: he who maybe even truly believes in God's teachings or he who follows them? If non-believers are saved, they're still saved because of and through Jesus's death and resurrection and in His name. People don't go to Hell because there was no Christian missionary nearby although undoubtedly for many of them there being any could have meant or can mean salvation. Personally I believe everyone is given chance(s). Christians in Christian Church are being given one constantly.

Edit: Being offered the chance, shown the light and refusing to believe is a different thing. You still have to first believe. Which doesn't mean you can't believe in the hour of your death and exactly the same way most people do. One must bear in mind that it's the Church to serve God and do his biddings and not vice versa and we primarily believe in God and not Church. There might be, and have been, God without Church but might not be Church without God. Church is limited to God, God is not limited by anything and bound only by His word.

[ June 18, 2003, 15:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

@Chevalier

Yes. You are a chatolic right? I utterly agree. Why I pulled you around in this argument is I wanted to make sure I fully understood what you meant, when forced to write it, carve it, out to dummies as me. Other branches of christianity will try and bring you down on this. I was waiting for this to happen, fx with Capstone, so I could see a longer and better response from you. I just won't want to see Math put a milestone around your neck. You are too good for that. Capstone or Mathetais might never acknowledge this as anything more than blasphemy.

Yes. Indeed. We can both mention tons of more *sins*, I am sure. But they are all just flaws to a christian, not an ateist. And the *worst* thing that can *ever* come out of him preaching this is a goodhearted ateist at the hour of judgement, nomatter how much the priest sinned or not. Which is exactly the same result you get when you say everyone has a chance. When they stand there at the hour of their death. As ateists. Exactly the same result not same approach as you keep arguing on. How can this plain logic be so hard to notice?

About Unconditional love, I was getting the relavance out on a side track for a line that tried to sound good. Judge jury and executioner... Sorry. You found out yourself anyway that it only matters who is judge, not who is executioner. However! The relevance boils down to this. If you are a Judge of your own system, heck your own creation, Supreme master of it all. Then it is not an act of unconditional love to send someone to eternal suffering and torment. Nomatter how you rule it their own fault of betrayal and denial. If you do send someone to suffering in your own Purely Unargued creation with yourself as supreme master, you are acting out conditional love, in the english definition of love. Or unconditional love, if it is some obscure haughty meaning of love, God is acting out. Again it is simple logic. How can it be so hard to see? Are you even reading and trying to understand what I write, before you type?

@Capstone

Yes. Jesus got it right. At least some of what he said. Jesus is what still keeps me around, interested. But I have seen christians so centered on loving God that they forgot to love their neighbours. I cannot live with myself if I do not love, help or care for anyone that enters my life or touches my life with good or neutral intend. I have seen christians fall short in every aspect of this. They are by no means evil, but they just lack the ability and strenght to love others or have unwillingly given it to the church. Instead they wither away in the church with a book they can hardly carry. And you know what. They are still going to heaven. All you need Capstone, is the love for God and neutrality to your neighbour as to yourself. This is the same as Jesus said. The clever cryptic wording, love your neighbour as you love yourself, pretty much leaves this as vague as a the light of a candlelight in the morning mist. All you actually need Capstone is love God and don't be evil to anyone. I admit Jesus wording sounds better. So lets just stick to love your neighbour as you love yourself. Who are we to blame those who loose all their strenght to help and love, cause they whiter away at old age with a hypnotic apathy listening to the priests at church in reapeatable patterns, each darn day at noon.

[ June 18, 2003, 15:26: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

This is more or less about what I was going to ask you

Yes, God is the supreme and sovereign master of it all. As he's perfectly good and perfectly wise there's no reason why he shouldn't be the judge by His own rules, contrary to human legislators who don't have any jurisdictional power. However, in many countries there have been judges judging according to codes they helped develop - not holding both authorities at one time. Similarly God doesn't change His rules in every single individual judgement. And, I have to repeat, no matter what the outcome of the judgement is, he still love you. Over time kings have had to have family members tried and executed for treason for instance or banished (which is more similar to Hell than straightforward death penalty). I'm sure for many of them it was a personal tragedy and they still loved those whom they sentenced.

In God's case this even extends farther - it's not God who sends you to Hell and I'm saying this probably the third time: Hell is the natural consequence of Sin and is a result of the individual's choice. It's separation from God and the full knowledge of one's own unholiness as compared to the perfect holiness of God. The creature also knows that it has rejected God of its own sovereign choice. It's not even punishment since punishment is aimed to discipline, amend and correct. If it's the final condition that shall not alter, then punishment is neither necessary nor relevant and simply not the case. Sin and unholiness is not to be admitted into Heaven or what place would Heaven be? And if God were to purify the sin and unholiness against the subject's will, were would the gift of free will go? It sometimes requires much more love to let someone go his own way than to force him to do what we consider or know, as God truly knows, the best for him.

For sending see above. For eternal suffering and torment see above and also Mat's post explains it well. Fire consuming you constantly for whole eternity is only a figure. Hell is not a sadistic torture, it has nothing to do with revenge or even just judgement of an individual with all consequences - it's the judgement of which place is for you: Heaven or Hell. Although I'm actually quite sure that I would prefer the physical burning on fire alternative.

Yes, Roman Catholic.

Plus probably a good many of Catholics. But it must be held that being a Roman Catholic isn't a free ticket to Heaven and that not being one is not a ban.

I wouldn't be so sure, and for certain they'd rather see me as errant than blasphemous.

However, I'm not sure if you have realised the reservation on which I insist: One is not saved through faith alone, but neither is one saved through works alone. Also, one isn't chosen for salvation before his birth. Or rather we're all chosen for salvation, intended for salvation and called to salvation by God.

Works are needed for judgement as it's what the Seven Blessings say. We won't be judged for our denomination but for our deeds. That our denomination influences our deeds is a different thing.

However, no one would pass a lawful judgement in the light of God's law and come out spotless. Only God is holy and perfect and even though he calls us to be holy as He is holy, we are less then prompt in following His call. Therefore we need God's grace for salvation and there would never be salvation without grace. Faith can't be artificially separated from deeds or grace. It's true that according to Paul no matter how great your faith is it means nothing without love, but this doesn't make faith irrelevant. Faith and Church are the closest ways to grace.

Thus a man who has never heard of God might still be condemned too - if he through his deeds has rejected God, although it's impossible to claim he hasn't been given chance for it's possible to come to the conclusion that there is God and that God is of divine nature basing on reason even and he still has been given conscience as any human being.

It's impossible for a non-believer to earn salvation through works such as it is impossible for a believer. A non-believer still needs grace and if he is saved, he is saved in the name of Jesus Christ at the cost of His sacrifice and it's a matter between the man and God. This, of course, does not diminish the role of Church. The story of Paul himself is a good example here. Note also that losing faith is not the same as never having it and apostasy is not the same as normal doubts believers have. Consequently an apostate is not *just* an atheist.

Official Catholic view on the matter is included in:

Above quotes comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Still, I do realise that this might be difficult to understand for a non-Christian and even non-Catholic Christian. You would probably come closer to understanding my point given the knowledge that for Catholics it isn't just saved or not saved - there are people who don't deserve to be condemned to Hell (ie haven't resigned themselves to Hell) but aren't quite ready to enter the realm of Heaven. Those are purified in Purgatory. As the doctrine of Purgatory is rejected by Protestants who are the majority between Christians here and this thread is addressed to Christians in general, I would ask you not to initiate a separate series of questions in this thread unless some of them are relevant to the understanding of the points raised by me. Of course I'll gladly answer any questions in a new thread.

[ June 18, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chevalier:

OK. So what you're referring to here is what Paul discussed in Romans 2; that nature itself teaches us the nature of God -- which addresses Nobleman's complaint about the aborigine as well. To whom little has been given, little is required. So if you've never had the opportunity to read the Bible, no I wouldn't believe you're required to keep it -- at least in the details. But love for the Creator and love for your fellow brethren is not a mystery that needs to be explained. So I'd agree that the blanket native who puts this into practice, although knowing nothing of Jesus Christ or His sacrifice, could still be saved. But, as Chevalier said, if you are shown the light and you reject it, that's quite a different thing.

Nobleman, Morgoth: Sounds like you're hung up on people's actions. There's nobody that's perfect, and a lot of times those who call themselves Christians really aren't. Nobody is saved by carrying a Bible or going to church. It's not even just believing in God -- it's having the life.

I would differ from Chevalier on one point. You are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and NOT of works. Paul makes this pretty clear in Romans 3 and 4. But a living faith will produce works -- the answer of a good conscience towards the God who has already saved us.

EDIT: Nobleman, anything that can be backed up by Scripture, I believe. So even if it goes against traditional thinking, as long as there is Scripture for it, that's all I care about. So be careful with those fundamentalist stereotypes.

 

I checked that link a bit and oooooooh dear

first, the proof for christianity

1. So was Buddha, so was Mohammed, so was Zarahustra, so was Odysseus

*gasp* ... That also explains the Bermuda Triangle! Its Poseidon going ashtray!!

2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This is his proof for these arguments:

7. Then why are there sooo many versions about? The dead-sea scrolls, even claims Jesus is not sinless!! I heard the mormon have an extra book?

And alas, things are not what they seem..
BTW, what is love?

Well actually the fact that I am born here and seem to be a slave of the forces of good and evil for no good reason does feel like a slap in the face...

Oh, no, wait.... he loves, so God always has the right to slap me around because he loves me..

Oh..err idunno, maybe that God is responsible for all that evil and a human parent is not?


Flame away!!

[ June 20, 2003, 08:47: Message edited by: Morgoth ]