CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[Ziggidy]

Attacking someone's beliefs is different than attacking the person, "does it make YOU feel big? "

At times....however, there is no association here.

 

[JettaKnight]

If reading the bible is what gets you to decide Christianity is true then those issues in the bible are very important in what conclusions you draw. I've not even pointed out the parts of the bible in which I find God acts irredeemably immoral, which to me personally is reason enough to doubt it's the book written by a perfect, loving, moral creator.

I would have grave concerns for a person that is led to Christianity through the Bible alone.


EDIT: see the followup.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I personally have an experience that I believe God had a huge hand in. Too many "coincidences" for it to be chance. It wasnt in the moment life saving (car crash, etc) but it did enrich my life and got me where I am today. Without it life would have been much harder.

And as mentioned upthread about "proof"; There is a reason it is called religious FAITH. Because there is no concrete proof. If there was, it wouldnt be faith.

 

[T.Lex]

I wouldn't have any "extra" concerns if someone was brought to Christianity by reading the Bible on their own. I don't necessarily care what modality brought the person to the doorstep, or even a step or 2 inside, but more about how to help them on the next part of their journey.

 

[JettaKnight]

I started the thread.

Yup.

I believe that you and Jludo are honest and sincere and I always try to treat you as such, and welcome the discussion.



I even sometimes pray for you, Paul, to my imaginary god.

 

[ATM]

...I even sometimes pray for you, Paul, to my imaginary god.

Yup.

 

[Jludo]

I personally have an experience that I believe God had a huge hand in. Too many "coincidences" for it to be chance. It wasnt in the moment life saving (car crash, etc) but it did enrich my life and got me where I am today. Without it life would have been much harder.

And as mentioned upthread about "proof"; There is a reason it is called religious FAITH. Because there is no concrete proof. If there was, it wouldnt be faith.

I have to ask then/though that sounds like had you had negative life experiences that would have been evidence in the other direction?

 

[Jludo]

I wouldn't have any "extra" concerns if someone was brought to Christianity by reading the Bible on their own. I don't necessarily care what modality brought the person to the doorstep, or even a step or 2 inside, but more about how to help them on the next part of their journey.

This is one of my biggest issue with the Christian God, what about those who never had the chance to have even the slightest clue about jesus existing? A just and moral God, to me, wouldn't allow entire peoples to exist outside the possibilty of hearing this most important truth.

The instance jesus said you can only get to heaven through him, did that rule apply to native Americans? Was there a grace period where the rule only applied so far as the bible had traveled?

 

[Jludo]

At times....however, there is no association here.

Im not sure I follow, a person is their religious beliefs so criticism of their beliefs is criticism of them?

 

[JettaKnight]

I wouldn't have any "extra" concerns if someone was brought to Christianity by reading the Bible on their own. I don't necessarily care what modality brought the person to the doorstep, or even a step or 2 inside, but more about how to help them on the next part of their journey.

Yeah, post-coffee Jetta finds the writings of pre-coffee Jetta* to be incorrect.

OK, let me perhaps expand that - Many, many have been brought to the cross via Scripture** (and we would say the work of the the Holy Spirit), but I worry for the Christian that stays there in that place, one that never challenges themselves to look at how that fits into the world they know. For example, what does history say about Jesus? Or for Foszoe, what does the Church and its traditions say, which is apart from the Bible? What has God done in your life? How does Christianity compare to other religions? (i.e. "did you choose the right one?")


* I need a tatoo: "don't believe pre-coffee Jetta's ramblings"

** If you're a fan of PBS Mystery, then you remember Poirot played by David Suchet. He came to the cross through a careful examination of Romans.

 

[JettaKnight]

This is one of my biggest issue with the Christian God, what about those who never had the chance to have even the slightest clue about jesus existing? A just and moral God, to me, wouldn't allow entire peoples to exist outside the possibilty of hearing this most important truth.

The instance jesus said you can only get to heaven through him, did that rule apply to native Americans? Was there a grace period where the rule only applied so far as the bible had traveled?

A just and moral God would have everyone die for their sins.

God, being God, is free to give a gift to whom he desires, and I am not in a position to question the almighty.


EDIT: I'll expand on this a bit: This sort of question, along with, "what about babies?" Is always brought up in any Christian discussion about soteriology. The honest answer is, "I don't know". Maybe their faith is considered based on their level of possible knowledge. Being a Calvinist, I view salvation as an act of God that does not involve a choice on mans part (i.e. I didn't choose God, God chose me).; so therefore, God may choose those even that didn't receive the word of God in its written form. At least that would fit my theology.

 

[Jludo]

A just and moral God would have everyone die for their sins.

God, being God, is free to give a gift to whom he desires, and I am not in a position to question the almighty.

This is interesting then because it sounds like belief in god is out of your own hands, outside your own judgement. If you cant question the almighty then in theory by all our moral standards theres no reason not to worship a truly evil god(by our human standards) As we just aren't in position to comprehend his actions.

 

[JettaKnight]

This is interesting then because it sounds like belief in god is out of your own hands, outside your own judgement. If you cant question the almighty then in theory by all our moral standards theres no reason not to worship a truly evil god(by our human standards) As we just aren't in position to comprehend his actions.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

God created all, morality stems from God, ergo, by definition God is "good" and not "evil".


And why wouldn't judgement of God be out of my hands? How can the imperfect pass judgement on the perfect?

 

[Jludo]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

God created all, morality stems from God, ergo, by definition God is "good" and not "evil".


And why wouldn't judgement of God be out of my hands? How can the imperfect pass judgement on the perfect?

You have to have some standard by which to say god is perfect. God could be doing the most evil things, in your view, but because hes God the things hes doing must be good inherently?

 

[T.Lex]

So, "good" and "bad" are related to perspective. Any god is going to have a different perspective than man - especially since men can rarely agree on objective definitions of "good" and "bad."

(This is GenReligion, not GenChristian, so I'm actually going to try to speak more broadly.)

Looking at the Roman gods, for instance, none of them were perfect at all. They all had foibles and vulnerabilities. Same with other polytheistic religions, I believe.

The gods in those religions tend more to reflect human experience than monotheistic religions. That's where you tend to see the notion of a "perfect" god.

In that regard, is a religion that has god(s) more similar to humans more understandable or acceptable?

 

[Jludo]

A just and moral God would have everyone die for their sins.

A just and moral god would do this without giving a person any chance of redemption?
A native american born in 900 ad is morally guilty by original sin and outside redemption as they could never know christ and most likely worship a different god?

 

[Jludo]

So, "good" and "bad" are related to perspective. Any god is going to have a different perspective than man - especially since men can rarely agree on objective definitions of "good" and "bad."

(This is GenReligion, not GenChristian, so I'm actually going to try to speak more broadly.)

Looking at the Roman gods, for instance, none of them were perfect at all. They all had foibles and vulnerabilities. Same with other polytheistic religions, I believe.

The gods in those religions tend more to reflect human experience than monotheistic religions. That's where you tend to see the notion of a "perfect" god.

In that regard, is a religion that has god(s) more similar to humans more understandable or acceptable?

They wouldn't have to behave similar to humans but how they act should conform to our deepest senses of morality, of our innate sense of morality. This objective standard that supposedly exists. If the actions of a God fly in the face of this personal morality then by what standard do we decide god is moral? Because mom said God was perfect? Because the book said he was perfect?

 

[JettaKnight]

A just and moral god would do this without giving a person any chance of redemption?

There's nothing that a person can do to redeem themselves.

My view is that you can either accept this reality, or deny it.

A native american born in 900 ad is morally guilty by original sin and outside redemption as they could never know christ and most likely worship a different god?

I really can't say for certain.


Woman Finally Accepts Doctrine Of Total Depravity Now That Daughter Is Two

 

[T.Lex]

They wouldn't have to behave similar to humans but how they act should conform to our deepest senses of morality, of our innate sense of morality. This objective standard that supposedly exists. If the actions of a God fly in the face of this personal morality then by what standard do we decide god is moral? Because mom said God was perfect? Because the book said he was perfect?

But the expectation that a god conform to "our innate" sense of morality is illusory. At that point, every man creates his own god, since there's no way all of us will agree on what "innate morality" is.

Stealing bread to feed our children?

What about the baker who needs every penny for his own kids?

To me, that kind of every-man-a-pope construct doesn't make sense.

Rather, in my life experience, I see evidence of a transcendent consciousness of significant powers that we do not fully understand. That's not imagination-based; it is based on my own observations.

 

[JettaKnight]

They wouldn't have to behave similar to humans but how they act should conform to our deepest senses of morality, of our innate sense of morality. This objective standard that supposedly exists. If the actions of a God fly in the face of this personal morality then by what standard do we decide god is moral? Because mom said God was perfect? Because the book said he was perfect?

OK, let's travel down this path of "God isn't perfectly good."

Pragmatically, isn't the consequence of disregarding him the same?


Methinks you'd have a much better conversation with a Rob Bell, universalist type.