Sorry Romney

[Harlowe]

You know Jecks, if you want to be an ass, have at it, but I've always been pretty respectful of your religious views.

[Ddrak]

What is so boggling about one God/Different messengers? Most religions have areas of belief in common with others. The Golden Rule is virtually universal and what about tribal people? God dooms them to hell because of their isolation?

I would disagree with this statement. Most religions are fundamentally different at the core even if they have surface similarities in some of their morality. The "golden rule" (as an example) is peripheral to Christianity itself. If you look at the paths to salvation and the character of the deities they are entirely contradictory:

Christianity = trinity, salvation by grace, works are irrelevant
Islam = solitary god, salvation by works
Hinduism = many gods, cycle of reincarnation
Bhuddism = no gods, cycle of reincarnation
Animism = many gods/spirits, various post-death beliefs

There's really no commonality there at all, and it doesn't make a lot of logical sense to say that there is some bunch of gods out there who are sending a lot of mixed messages on various paths to salvation that specifically contradict each other.

With tribal people - I actually don't know the answer there. It falls into the same category as children too young to understand the message.

Do you really think every Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, Sikh, Jew and those of other religions are going to hell?

Yes, I believe they are (except Jews for reasons I explained before). Sucks for them, and sucks for me if my beliefs are unfounded. That's the nature of the religions - we can't all be right.

Dd

[Lurker]

That's the nature of the religions - we can't all be right.

But they could all be wrong.

[Trollbait]

I would disagree with this statement. Most religions are fundamentally different at the core even if they have surface similarities in some of their morality. The "golden rule" (as an example) is peripheral to Christianity itself. If you look at the paths to salvation and the character of the deities they are entirely contradictory:

Christianity = trinity, salvation by grace, works are irrelevant
Islam = solitary god, salvation by works
Hinduism = many gods, cycle of reincarnation
Bhuddism = no gods, cycle of reincarnation
Animism = many gods/spirits, various post-death beliefs

There's really no commonality there at all, and it doesn't make a lot of logical sense to say that there is some bunch of gods out there who are sending a lot of mixed messages on various paths to salvation that specifically contradict each other.

With tribal people - I actually don't know the answer there. It falls into the same category as children too young to understand the message.

Ddrak summed this up pretty well. I was not trying to be an ass but all I could come up with to what you had said, Harlowe, was a /boggle =p

But they could all be wrong.

Well....my faith would not be very strong if I made any allowance for the possibility that Christianity is wrong...now would it?

[Beestyall]

While the phrase Golden Rule does (more or less) come from the Christians, there are similar beliefs in the Naturist, Zoroastrianism, Hindi and Buddhist teachings, not to mention many of the largely isolated NA tribes. The fact is that being generous in heart and soul isn't a unique trait that the Jews turned Christains suddenly came up. It was around long before the Jews left the Egyptians and that Carpenter got uppity in the Zionist's face.

I find it odd that major religions today consistantly place women in subservient roles. They were made from men, they are to follow men, they are blamed (largely) for Original Sin. How is it women allow themselves to be thought of as second place citizens in religion?

Further more, and now I'm picking on Catholics, how can Mary be born free from sin, but others can't? If divine intervention occured (to cleanse Mary) then, does that make Mary also partly from God, as in a daughter of? Or why not just cleanse all souls, as God did with Mary and allow children to be born free of sin to be baptized later.

And yes, Dd, I think you can say that your religion works for your faith and not believe that one is going to hell because they believe something else (especially when that something else has been around a lot longer and likely a foundation of your religion). It's like saying the only true route to San Francisco from New York is through the Arch in St. Louis and that anyone that went from New York to San Francisco without going through the arch, didn't really make it to San Francisco.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I have a theoreticl question for the poeple participating in this thread. If, as Christians claim, the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of Christ, then what would be the fate of sentient species that have evolved on other planets (for the sake of argument, assume they exist)? Did God leave them out of the party? Are they just smart animals with no soul?

This is somethng that troubles me about Christianity. I am a challenger of the faith, meaning I struggle with it. As someone grounded in science, I know the odds of life (including sentient life) evolving elsewhere in the universe is almost a certainty. Ironically, the thing that would prove to me the existance of god, a Christian god, would be the absence of any sentient life other than what passes for it on this planet. (Garrdor excepted).

So, your thoughts on this? Are sentient aliens consigned to hell simply because they weren't fortunate enough to evolve on the planet where god sent his only son?

[Arkaron]

You mean how would Christians reconcile salvation in the face of something like the Greenbank equation? I'm guessing they don't, in that the Bible doesn't speak to alien life so no, they wouldn't be 'saved'. To use the thread's terminology, I haven't accepted Jesus as my savior, so I can't answer from that perspective.

Edit: But, if aliens found Christ, wouldn't they be saved?

[Ddrak]

That's the nature of the religions - we can't all be right.

But they could all be wrong.

Sure. Naturally, I believe I am right but looking beyond belief and faith this is absolutely correct.

While the phrase Golden Rule does (more or less) come from the Christians, there are similar beliefs in the Naturist, Zoroastrianism, Hindi and Buddhist teachings, not to mention many of the largely isolated NA tribes. The fact is that being generous in heart and soul isn't a unique trait that the Jews turned Christains suddenly came up. It was around long before the Jews left the Egyptians and that Carpenter got uppity in the Zionist's face.

Sure, which is why I've very plainly said that what you call the "Golden Rule" (which I always thought was "he who has the gold makes the rules") actually had nothing to do with the core beliefs of Christianity so this statement confuses me - either you're beating a strawman, you misunderstand Christianity or you are just agreeing with me. Almost all successful religions, cults, and moral codes have a degree of "be nice" in them. If they don't, people as a whole tend to stomp them out in varying degrees of violence. You missed Islam and Judaism in your list there as both have core teachings of hospitality and charity and are far more widely followed than esoteric stuff like Naturist and Zoroastrianism.

I find it odd that major religions today consistantly place women in subservient roles. They were made from men, they are to follow men, they are blamed (largely) for Original Sin. How is it women allow themselves to be thought of as second place citizens in religion?

Further more, and now I'm picking on Catholics, how can Mary be born free from sin, but others can't? If divine intervention occured (to cleanse Mary) then, does that make Mary also partly from God, as in a daughter of? Or why not just cleanse all souls, as God did with Mary and allow children to be born free of sin to be baptized later.

I don't believe women are in any way inferior to men. I do believe there are certain natural roles in a family etc. that women and men tend to play but that's certainly not a hard and fast rule. I am rather skeptical of those who like to think the Bible teaches women as subservient as there's certainly passages that show men should also obey and honor their wives. Besides, any married man knows that's a pretty good idea anyway.

As for Mary - I find that part of the Catholic belief bizarre. Personally I don't acknowledge any divinity about Mary herself, nor Jesus' brothers and sisters who (I believe) were all conceived by a good old shag with Joseph. Again, whatever works for Catholics though - it doesn't really cut to the core tenet of Christian salvation that I can see so it's just a side-issue to entertain us.

And yes, Dd, I think you can say that your religion works for your faith and not believe that one is going to hell because they believe something else (especially when that something else has been around a lot longer and likely a foundation of your religion). It's like saying the only true route to San Francisco from New York is through the Arch in St. Louis and that anyone that went from New York to San Francisco without going through the arch, didn't really make it to San Francisco.

If you believe that the path to salvation is grace and not works, how can you possibly think anything but Christianity is true. If you believe in one God, how can you see any sort of salvation for multiple or non-god religions? It's not at all like saying there's multiple paths from SF to NY - that's an even worse analogy than cars and computers.

Take a concrete example for me - if you believe the Christian tenets of salvaion by grace and that no amount of good works can save you, how do you possibly reconcile that with a cycle of reincarnation based wholly on works and behavior?

I have a theoreticl question for the poeple participating in this thread. If, as Christians claim, the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of Christ, then what would be the fate of sentient species that have evolved on other planets (for the sake of argument, assume they exist)? Did God leave them out of the party? Are they just smart animals with no soul?

I honestly don't know. My initial hunches would be:

i) There are no intelligent aliens (something I find unlikely).
ii) No original sin (now THAT would be interesting).
iii) God provided them with a path to salvation that may be similar or different than ours (no good reason for just one son).
iv) When I figure out what happens to tribal people who never had the chance to hear about salvation, the same answer will apply to those aliens?

It's an interesting problem - I might toss it at my father some time (he's a preacher).

Dd

[Kulaf]

I have a theoreticl question for the poeple participating in this thread. If, as Christians claim, the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of Christ, then what would be the fate of sentient species that have evolved on other planets (for the sake of argument, assume they exist)? Did God leave them out of the party? Are they just smart animals with no soul?

Much like the Jews who were guiltless of crimes against Gods laws prior to Moses bringing down the 10 Commandments......God does not hold guilty those who have not heard the teachings of Jesus. Which is why Jesus told his disciples to spread his word. Theoretically those on another planet.....should they exist......would need to recieve Gods laws in a different manner.

[Trollbait]

God does not hold guilty those who have not heard the teachings of Jesus. Which is why Jesus told his disciples to spread his word. Theoretically those on another planet.....should they exist......would need to recieve Gods laws in a different manner.

This is what I am lead to understand as well.

[Garrdor]

Modern thinkers arguing about medival ideas.

While we're at it:

Dd - Jesus's existence, death, and rebirth are just as well documented as Samson lighting fucking foxes tails on fire and sending them into a town to burn it down and kill everyone... Or when God gave him a +STR buff and he pulled down the house of Dagon upon 1000s of innocent philistinians.



GUYS GUESS WHAT -


I found this old ass book in my back yard when I was digging a hole for my swimming pool. It speaks of a halfling man and his sacrifice and how it's tied into all of our fates! His teachings imply that we foam at the mouth and argue who's beliefs are more silly. I have seen the light now... I shall feast on the flesh of my new savior in the form of COOKIES. YES!!!!!

BEHOLD MY SAVIOR. *father son holy spirit*



FOLLOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOLLOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AND ACCEPT THE TRUE MESSIAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HAVE SEEN THE FEET OF GOD AND THEY ARE COVERED IN A THICK COARSE HAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









what????





you don't believe me????















WELL.........












NEEENER NEEENER NEEENERRRRRRR!!! Guess what?! You think your life sucks now? You think death is a gift to relieve us from the worst tortures available in natural existence? You're WRONG. Those tortures will CONTINUE...ummm... 100 FOLD ONCE YOU DIE. HAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU CAN'T WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ACCEPT OR BURN!!!!!!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHH!!!!!!!

[Trollbait]

You seem to put a lot of effort into non-belief, Garrdor.


If it is all meaningless then why go so spastic?


You seem to imply that true believers are nutso but the only one flailing around nonsensically is you.


Who are you trying to convince? Us? Or yourself?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I have a theoreticl question for the poeple participating in this thread. If, as Christians claim, the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of Christ, then what would be the fate of sentient species that have evolved on other planets (for the sake of argument, assume they exist)? Did God leave them out of the party? Are they just smart animals with no soul?

Much like the Jews who were guiltless of crimes against Gods laws prior to Moses bringing down the 10 Commandments......God does not hold guilty those who have not heard the teachings of Jesus. Which is why Jesus told his disciples to spread his word. Theoretically those on another planet.....should they exist......would need to recieve Gods laws in a different manner.

See.. here's where we get into some sticky territory, and its why I sometimes struggle with the faith.

God's son existed in time (as opposed to God existing outside of time). That means Christianity draws a line in time, where ostensibly, those who accept Jesus after his Resurrection are going to heaven, and those that don't, go to hell. First, that leaves a lot of humans in the equivalent of an heavenly citizenship snafu. What about everyone on the planet at that time that had no practical chance of hearing the word of God? Are they consigned to hell merely because they didn't live in an area of the planet that afforded them the opportunity to know Jesus? It wouldn't be until almost 1500 years later before humans in North America would have the chance of "salvation" through the knowing of Jesus. Did God, through some administrative oversight, just happen to leave out native americans, most of africa, south americans and aboriginal austrlians?

Wasn't the purpose of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection to save ALL mankind?

Moving forward to today, what about babies and children that die too young to accept Jesus? Those that die in childbirth? Those that are so mentally retarded they can't they barely understand the concept of breathing, let alone salvation through Christ. Did God just leave them out of the Heaven club? They are human, therefore they are born with Original Sin, so by definition, they need salvation to enter heaven. And all of Christianity maintains that a person must accept Jesus in order for that to happen. What if they are just incapable of doing so?

My mind can't accept a god that would arbitrarily leave the most innocent and most vulnerable out of heaven, just because they never had a chance to know him. And therefore, I beleive that Christianity is not the sole way into heaven. Some of you may see that as incongrous to Christianity, but I don't. I think it is more "Jesus-like" to be inclusive than exclusive, when it comes to salvation of the soul.

[Garrdor]

You seem to put a lot of effort into non-belief, Garrdor.


If it is all meaningless then why go so spastic?


You seem to imply that true believers are nutso but the only one flailing around nonsensically is you.


Who are you trying to convince? Us? Or yourself?

[Kulaf]

I have a theoreticl question for the poeple participating in this thread. If, as Christians claim, the only way to salvation is through the acceptance of Christ, then what would be the fate of sentient species that have evolved on other planets (for the sake of argument, assume they exist)? Did God leave them out of the party? Are they just smart animals with no soul?

Much like the Jews who were guiltless of crimes against Gods laws prior to Moses bringing down the 10 Commandments......God does not hold guilty those who have not heard the teachings of Jesus. Which is why Jesus told his disciples to spread his word. Theoretically those on another planet.....should they exist......would need to recieve Gods laws in a different manner.

See.. here's where we get into some sticky territory, and its why I sometimes struggle with the faith.

God's son existed in time (as opposed to God existing outside of time). That means Christianity draws a line in time, where ostensibly, those who accept Jesus after his Resurrection are going to heaven, and those that don't, go to hell. First, that leaves a lot of humans in the equivalent of an heavenly citizenship snafu. What about everyone on the planet at that time that had no practical chance of hearing the word of God? Are they consigned to hell merely because they didn't live in an area of the planet that afforded them the opportunity to know Jesus? It wouldn't be until almost 1500 years later before humans in North America would have the chance of "salvation" through the knowing of Jesus. Did God, through some administrative oversight, just happen to leave out native americans, most of africa, south americans and aboriginal austrlians?

Wasn't the purpose of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection to save ALL mankind?

Moving forward to today, what about babies and children that die too young to accept Jesus? Those that die in childbirth? Those that are so mentally retarded they can't they barely understand the concept of breathing, let alone salvation through Christ. Did God just leave them out of the Heaven club? They are human, therefore they are born with Original Sin, so by definition, they need salvation to enter heaven. And all of Christianity maintains that a person must accept Jesus in order for that to happen. What if they are just incapable of doing so?

My mind can't accept a god that would arbitrarily leave the most innocent and most vulnerable out of heaven, just because they never had a chance to know him. And therefore, I beleive that Christianity is not the sole way into heaven. Some of you may see that as incongrous to Christianity, but I don't. I think it is more "Jesus-like" to be inclusive than exclusive, when it comes to salvation of the soul.

Ok.....reread the sentance in my first quote that I just bolded. If you are unaware of Gods laws......or Jesus's teachings......then God does not hold you accountable for same. Presumably those people are judged on the sum of their lifes works and deeds. And since Jesus died specifically to erase original sin......why would those who die in childbirth or those who remain in a childlike state and do not sin need to fear?

And to Garr and the other athiests........ask yourself one question.........why did evolution/natural selection place within all humanity the idea of god?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well...

Most of Christianity doesn't see it the same way as you Kulaf. All humans are born under the burden of original sin. Accepting Jesus as your salvation redeems you, and washes away the effects of original sin. In Christianity, the ONLY way to heaven is through the acceptance of Christ as saviour. It's the entire base of the system.

We can make exceptions in our own personal belief system, but there really isn't anything in the Christian tradition (other than what we choose to tell ourselves) that says those unable to hear God's word or those never given the chance to hear God's word, would be judged by deeds in the afterlife. In fact, for most of Christianity's history, humans that had never had the chance to accept Christianity were deemed heathens, and were, in the eyes of the Christian religions, doomed to hell. Its only recently (last 200 years or so) that the idea of people getting into heaven without accepting Christ, based on life deeds, has become part of the Christian thought. But that concept really doesn't have any biblical support.

Even the Catholics (of which I'm one.. sorta) are conflicted on the issue. Until very recently, the Catholic tradition held that there was a place called Limbo, where the infants who died before baptism, those that never had the chance to receive god, but were otherwise just and righteous, spent eternity. Not heaven, because getting into heaven meant accepting Christ. And not hell. Nor purgatory. Limbo was a place of contentment and peace, but without the glory of god. Heaven-Lite, I guess.

Well, the Catholics reversed themselves a couple of years back. The official word now is LImbo doens't exist, and in fact, it CAN'T exist. There is either eternity with God, or eternity without God. Heaven or Hell. (Purgatory is another discussion entirely, and it gives me issues, too) Now the official stance is that god somehow just takes care of things, nevermind the whole accepting Christ thing, and automatically just baptizes those who die innocent and just. (There's really no bibilical support for that, either, and I think its a stretch by the Catholics)

So I just don't like the holes I see here. It doesn't make sense to my conscience. Obviously now, many beleive that there IS an exception to the rule of getting to heaven ONLY by accepting Christ. If it works for infants and the ignorant, can't god have a little conversation with the jew, the muslim, the hindu, the buddhist... all of whom beleived in their hearts, conscientiously, that they were on the true path to god? Is it too much to accept that a loving and merciful god would, at the time of death, reveal himself to that soul, and ask for a choice? Would a loving and merciful god condemn someone to hell for acting in good faith and conscience?

[Trollbait]

Well...the actual answer to your question is found in the following Scripture:

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law ~Dueteronomy 29:29

Having posted that I can say that I personally find Embars question irrelevant. You may misunderstand this for selfishness but only your own salvation should be the paramount concern. Concerning yourself with an unanswerable question as a matter of struggling with your faith is ultimately self defeating and foolish in the extreme.

[Embar Angylwrath]

That's blind faith, Jecks. Not true faith. Big difference.

[Trollbait]

That's blind faith, Jecks. Not true faith. Big difference.

Umm, no. It is actual faith.

When you are truly saved through grace you do not have a need to question. You may question the minutiae as an acedemic theological exercise (As I do sometimes) but you already KNOW the truth. It is the simple matter of accepting that we are saved through the Grace of God alone and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and rose again from the dead. That is IT.

What you are caught up in are called the LEGALISMS.

Many of the old established denominations are also caught up in them so you are not alone.

To say "Well I have not accepted that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior yet because I have a few unanswered questions such as what happens to the other people who never heard the message?" is playing fast and loose with your soul.

YOU have heard the message. That is what is knocking at your door right now. It is up to you to accept or reject it.

One thing I am fairly sure of is that when you are standing before the Throne and it is your turn to answer, saying "Well I heard the message but I did not accept it because I wanted to know what happened to Prehistoric Native Americans when they died" is not going to fly as an excuse.

If I died right now there is no doubt in my mind nor in my heart that I would be with God.

There is no greater comfort than that.

[Ddrak]

I think this debate is a good one, and I meant to actually introduce it save a slight problem with the "submit" button and rebooting for a patch. I don't think it affects my core explanation of Christianity, but it's certainly a topic that people I believe are Christian diverge in beliefs.

I believe that there is no salvation by works, in any situation. I think the Bible is relatively clear on that matter. This basically means I believe differently to Kula, because to judge on works is to draw an arbitrary line and I don't believe God is in any way arbitrary. Kula may believe differently - good for him. Without different beliefs we can't think deeply about our own.

I tend to agree with most of Embar's previous long post, but answer his final question (Would a loving and merciful god condemn someone to hell for acting in good faith and conscience?) as a definite "Yes", given that they had the opportunity to hear the Bible and then rejected it for an alternate path. He *may* present himself to the soul at the time of their death and offer his grace in some way, or he may know whether that person would or would not have accepted during their live (thanks omniscience) but I can't believe there would be any aspect connected to the person's works and deeds during their life.

While God is perfect in love and mercy, he must also be perfect in justice and truth. I honestly don't know the answer to the question of those who haven't heard his message and it's a good thing to ponder, but it doesn't affect my personal situation in believing that there's a God and the core Christian message of salvation by grace is the correct one.

Note - I don't see Jecks or Embar having a blind or easily shaken faith. In fact I see Embar's questioning of faith a very positive thing, not a negative thing.

Dd