the right religion

[1robin]

This is just your belief - and is the same claim by followers of most other religions.

Your belief holds no value over theirs.


*

No that is a statement of objective fact. If I have claimed my path was the right one then that would have been a faith claim. What I said is absolutely true. What are you doing?

 

[1robin]

It might claim that - but it does not actually do that.

A Feeling, or a "tingle" isn't experiencing God.

*

Is a person who has never entered a house qualified to claim what is not in the house? You must think you can assert truth into being or something. Only those who have experienced God can make an informed comment concerning it. There are over 2 billion of those who have experienced God and we all say the same things about it. A feeling does not instantly sober people up and change them in fundamental ways like the Duck Commander, George Forman, me, Johnny Cash and a few billion more of us. That takes power. A feeling does not convert the greatest empire on Earth as it persecuted the Christians where ever it found them. A feeling does not gain converts by the thousands even while being persecuted by their own nation Israel immediately following the death of their leader. That takes power. Islam conquers by persecution, Christianity conquers in spite of persecution. I would never post a statement condemning the description of the view from the summit of Everest without ever having climbed the mountain. Why do you feel like you should?

 

[metis]

A merit based salvation system is a logical absurdity. Just try and create one your self (any type you wish) and you will quickly see it is an ambiguous nightmare.

First of all, I would suggest that the issue of "salvation" is really not your choice or mine, especially since judging other's "salvation" goes beyond my job description. But it seems to me that if a deity condemns others on the basis of not having the politically-correct beliefs, then that deity to me is evil.

Secondly, the idea of merit is found throughout the Christian scriptures, and implied by the very nature of teachings that go well beyond just teaching about belief. Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, as found in Mathew 25, is just one of many citations one can cite whereas salvation very much is an issue, and the "goats" do believe about Jesus but not in him. It's like Gandhi once said: too many elevated the man and forgot his message.

The God I describe is a God that insists on moral obedience. In fact he is the being most associated with moral commands, more than any other in history. However salvation is not a reward for good behavior. It can't be. His standard is perfection. No one achieves this. I am not discussing my preference between two concepts. I am describing why one of the can't possibly be true. Merit based salvation is a logically incoherent standard.

That's operating from an either/or dichotomy that I simply do not accept.

I think you point was concerning universality but Christianity is the only faith that is present in significant numbers in every nation on Earth so that contention would demand you accept it if that is your standard.

But it is not universal and never has been. I read a missionary's comment a while back whereas he said that probably 2/3 of the people living in China couldn't give you even the most basic description of Jesus and what's found in the gospels. And what about all those who preceded Jesus?

To me, it just doesn't add up.

I came to Christianity kicking and screaming because in spite of the wall of objections I threw up as a shield I eventually just could not deny it's evidence any longer.

If it helps you, I'm truly happy for that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They come in maybe a dozen flavors so I would probably guess the wrong one. However I would bet that whatever you take on him is would fit in one of the categories.

I find that very sad, really.

Ok then. I would bet that the Bible has sold a million copies for every one copy of your revealed text that has been taken and read.

Right. The Bible has been hawked far and wide by all sorts of salesmen. But as I say, God and I are just too humble and mannered to do that sort of thing.

It is number one in every category many times over that is relevant to theological texts starting with any letter.

The Bible? No. The Bible is an outdated collection of ancient fiction and poetry from a foreign culture. We should let it go and embrace some modern English-speaking prophet.

I am available, but only if you ask politely.

What I can't figure is what it appealing about this to you.

Think of me as a prybar. I've never met a locked-up mind which didn't excite me.

If I were to have posted a list of possible answers you would make to my statement. That one would not have made it.

OK. I'll step aside and explain this one for you, but please don't expect it in all cases.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Have you ever heard that? It means that if you behave a certain way -- for example, arrogantly asserting that your god/scripture/truth/prophet is the very best of all gods/scriptures/truths/prophets -- then you may get the same treatment in return. Another debater may poopoo your stuff and claim that his stuff is clearly superior.

When that happens, it's bad form for the gander to whine about being treated the same way as he's been treating the geese.

 

[1robin]

I find that very sad, really.

I do to bu unfortunately it is almost always true.

Right. The Bible has been hawked far and wide by all sorts of salesmen. But as I say, God and I are just too humble and mannered to do that sort of thing.

The Bible was born in persecution not in a Wal-Mart.

The Bible? No. The Bible is an outdated collection of ancient fiction and poetry from a foreign culture. We should let it go and embrace some modern English-speaking prophet.

That is funny those that have it still think it is as relevant as ever and there are more than 2 billon of them. How many think your text is relevant in comparison. Let me give you a tip. The career trajectory of a Bible critic has been one of histories saddest.

I am available, but only if you ask politely.

I have already requested what you offer from you and so far I have not even seen a bad attempt at an answer.

Think of me as a prybar. I've never met a locked-up mind which didn't excite me.

A pry bar is a description silly enough to apply to you but it would have to be a plastic one.

OK. I'll step aside and explain this one for you, but please don't expect it in all cases.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Have you ever heard that? It means that if you behave a certain way -- for example, arrogantly asserting that your god/scripture/truth/prophet is the very best of all gods/scriptures/truths/prophets -- then you may get the same treatment in return. Another debater may poopoo your stuff and claim that his stuff is clearly superior.

However I gave reasons that have stood for thousands of years in defense of the Biblical prophets. You have not given even bad evidence or attempted to, even when asked. Your analogy should have been what is good for the Goose is dismissed and something far far worse is good enough for the gander. That would have been more accurate.

 

[1robin]

First of all, I would suggest that the issue of "salvation" is really not your choice or mine, especially since judging other's "salvation" goes beyond my job description. But it seems to me that if a deity condemns others on the basis of not having the politically-correct beliefs, then that deity to me is evil.

That was not the point. You have basically two choices: grace and merit. Merit is impossible and logically incoherent. I attempted to demonstrate that but asking you to invent a merit based standard (even a bad one) to show its absurdity. That has nothing to do with whatever salvation standard is true beyond the fact of an illustration of why a merit based one is impossible. I do not know why you confusing a logical exercise with an argument for actuality.

Secondly, the idea of merit is found throughout the Christian scriptures, and implied by the very nature of teachings that go well beyond just teaching about belief. Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, as found in Mathew 25, is just one of many citations one can cite whereas salvation very much is an issue, and the "goats" do believe about Jesus but not in him. It's like Gandhi once said: too many elevated the man and forgot his message.

Yes merit is very very important in Christianity. That is why I said your statement about a God who did not demand moral behavior did not apply to my God. It just is not the standard for salvation and could not be. A Christian is not only commanded to be moral but perfect. Yet it says in many other verses that all have failed and fallen short and no man is without sin. So commands to be perfect are goals not a destination. I do not think the Bible will have much effect on you but since you used it I will give the most quoted and relevant verse on salvation it has.

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

That verse was by he man who wrote more on the NT than the rest put together. He was also one of the most trained men in Israel on the law (or merit). If anyone should have been yelling merit merit it was him but he said grace and grace alone.

I will give another illustration. In John when Nicodemus asks specifically how to be saved did Christ say be morally good? No he said he must be born again. Nicodemus was a moral man. He was a member or the priestly class but was not corrupt. It was he not the disciples that asked for Christ's body. If any man in history could have gotten to heaven on merit it was him, yet Jesus asked how could he be a priest and not know salvation came by faith and a new birth based on forgiveness alone.

That's operating from an either/or dichotomy that I simply do not accept.

Are you in support of oriental philosophy? That is not even a valid view in philosophy. Two mutually exclusive claims can't possibly both be true. Jesus says he is the way truth and the life and that no one proceeds to the father but through him. Islam says you must agree to certain intellectual and historical propositions and obey certain ceremonial duties, Hindus claim we must do more good than bad. Either one may be true but what is absolutely certain is they are all not true. And philosophy is almost as tragically invalid as merit salvation. If you look at reality through oriental lenses it is no wonder you arrive at impossible concepts like merit based salvation.

But it is not universal and never has been. I read a missionary's comment a while back whereas he said that probably 2/3 of the people living in China couldn't give you even the most basic description of Jesus and what's found in the gospels. And what about all those who preceded Jesus?

That is not what I claimed. I said it is the most universal of any theology by far. If for some strange reason universalism is your standard for theological truth then the Bible wins again.

To me, it just doesn't add up.

What specifically does not add up?

If it helps you, I'm truly happy for that.

Why would that make you happy (Just out of curiosity)?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

However I gave reasons that have stood for thousands of years in defense of the Biblical prophets. You have not given even bad evidence or attempted to, even when asked.

Actually the situation is opposite. I have given unassailable evidence and argument for the truth of my God and His message. Meanwhile, you have struggled along with some pretty flawed stuff.

I mean, you even admitted that your holy scripture claims that its God can do magic!

What better proof could we have of a text being false?

 

[1robin]

Actually the situation is opposite. I have given unassailable evidence and argument for the truth of my God and His message. Meanwhile, you have struggled along with some pretty flawed stuff.

I guess I know you are but what am I? will be your next argument. You have given no evidence of any kind. Not a bad reason nor a good reason. Nothing.

I mean, you even admitted that your holy scripture claims that its God can do magic!

The Bible never uses that word and I do not believe I have.

What better proof could we have of a text being false?

Better than what? No evidence of any kind has been given.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess I know you are but what am I? will be your next argument. You have given no evidence of any kind. Not a bad reason nor a good reason. Nothing.

If you ever come up with any evidence for the legitimacy of the Bible, I will be happy to examine it with you, though I should warn you that people have tried to legitimize it for a couple thousand years with no luck. The career of a Biblical apologist is doomed from the start.

The Bible never uses that word and I do not believe I have.

Magical, supernatural... what's the dif. Foretelling the future is magic. If it were not magic -- if any regular old person could do it -- then why would you consider it worth mentioning as evidence for the Bible's legitimacy?

No evidence of any kind has been given.

Well, keep trying then. Dig deep. You might yet find some evidence of the Bible's legitimacy. You can't just give up!

Can you?

 

[metis]

Yes merit is very very important in Christianity. That is why I said your statement about a God who did not demand moral behavior did not apply to my God. It just is not the standard for salvation and could not be. A Christian is not only commanded to be moral but perfect.

The Jewish paradigm is quite different as it never was assumed we could be perfect and, therefore, there are provisions supplied by Torah and Tanakh dealing with God's willingness to forgive us even without the Temple. Christians tend to see this differently, but I find no logic in what they believe here. Check out these verses on the issue of forgiveness, but I don't have time to pull out just those that apply: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Yet it says in many other verses that all have failed and fallen short and no man is without sin. So commands to be perfect are goals not a destination. I do not think the Bible will have much effect on you but since you used it I will give the most quoted and relevant verse on salvation it has...

Thanks, but as I say above, I don't agree with those theological constructs.

Are you in support of oriental philosophy? That is not even a valid view in philosophy. Two mutually exclusive claims can't possibly both be true.

Why operate out of an either/or paradigm? Might it not be possible that different religions may contain some truths? And does any one religion really contain all the truths?

Because I'm an anthropologist now retired, I have studied the world's major religions and a great many smaller ones, and I simply find no room for the "my way or the highway" type of approach.

Jesus says he is the way truth and the life and that no one proceeds to the father but through him.

Makes not one iota of sense to me.

If you look at reality through oriental lenses it is no wonder you arrive at impossible concepts like merit based salvation.

I consider the above to be both arrogant and highly judgmental. I have not attacked your religion but somehow you feel free to attack others. There are a great many Christians who have found some wisdom in the eastern religions, and vise-versa.

That is not what I claimed. I said it is the most universal of any theology by far. If for some strange reason universalism is your standard for theological truth then the Bible wins again.

I didn't know there was some contest here. The idea that the "Bible wins again" is just so short sighted.

FYI, I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years and comparative religions for an additional two years, so I know exactly where you're coming from and why. So far, there is not one single item that you've mentioned that I haven't run across many times before.

Why would that make you happy (Just out of curiosity)?

Because I am not anti-Christian, so if your believe helps you be a better person, I'm all for that being an approach that helps you. OTOH, if one uses their religious beliefs to bash others, then I have a rather serious problem with that. I don't know how many times I've been told that I'm going to hell because I don't believe as some others do, including just last week at my brother-in-law's funeral at a Baptist church whereas it was repeated again. I would suggest that those who believe as such simply do not fully believe in Jesus, who said not to judge others, nor with Paul who said he was not even willing to judge himself.

Since it is quite clear that we are never going to agree on even the most basic items, and since it appears you have no intention of trying to be even slightly objective, I prefer to call an end to my part of this discussion.

Shalom and take care.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know how many times I've been told that I'm going to hell because I don't believe as some others do, including just last week at my brother-in-law's funeral at a Baptist church whereas it was repeated again.

I hear that sometimes, but it's usually not so blatant. At virtually all the funerals I attend, the speaker declares his happiness that the deceased, though his faith in Jesus Christ, is assured his spot in heaven.

They're not telling me that i'm headed for hell, but the implication is sure there.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Jewish paradigm is quite different as it never was assumed we could be perfect and, therefore, there are provisions supplied by Torah and Tanakh dealing with God's willingness to forgive us even without the Temple. Christians tend to see this differently, but I find no logic in what they believe here. Check out these verses on the issue of forgiveness, but I don't have time to pull out just those that apply: Bible, Revised Standard Version




Thanks, but as I say above, I don't agree with those theological constructs.



Why operate out of an either/or paradigm? Might it not be possible that different religions may contain some truths? And does any one religion really contain all the truths?

Because I'm an anthropologist now retired, I have studied the world's major religions and a great many smaller ones, and I simply find no room for the "my way or the highway" type of approach.




Makes not one iota of sense to me.




I consider the above to be both arrogant and highly judgmental. I have not attacked your religion but somehow you feel free to attack others. There are a great many Christians who have found some wisdom in the eastern religions, and vise-versa.



I didn't know there was some contest here. The idea that the "Bible wins again" is just so short sighted.

FYI, I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years and comparative religions for an additional two years, so I know exactly where you're coming from and why. So far, there is not one single item that you've mentioned that I haven't run across many times before.



Because I am not anti-Christian, so if your believe helps you be a better person, I'm all for that being an approach that helps you. OTOH, if one uses their religious beliefs to bash others, then I have a rather serious problem with that. I don't know how many times I've been told that I'm going to hell because I don't believe as some others do, including just last week at my brother-in-law's funeral at a Baptist church whereas it was repeated again. I would suggest that those who believe as such simply do not fully believe in Jesus, who said not to judge others, nor with Paul who said he was not even willing to judge himself.

Since it is quite clear that we are never going to agree on even the most basic items, and since it appears you have no intention of trying to be even slightly objective, I prefer to call an end to my part of this discussion.

Shalom and take care.

Interestingly enough several people were judged by God in the OT to be blameless (noah, job, abraham). It would imply that the perfection that God expects from us is not the same perfection we attribute to God.

Which is funny because one of the first thing Noah (called perfect in some translations/blameless in others), does is getting hammered and passed out.

 

[metis]

Interestingly enough several people were judged by God in the OT to be blameless (noah, job, abraham). It would imply that the perfection that God expects from us is not the same perfection we attribute to God.

Which is funny because one of the first thing Noah (called perfect in some translations/blameless in others), does is getting hammered and passed out.

In Judaism, it has never been the belief that even the most revered were totally blameless in all areas. Matter of fact, most of those that we recognize as greats were generally depicted of having at least one shortcoming, even if it's something as minor as a speach impetiment (Moses). The Biblical scholar and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel mentions this as possibly a way in which the authors would convey to the readers that these people were not to be viewed as deities. And we also see this being played out in the Christian scriptures whereas the apostles were often depicted as having some shortcomings.

Nor was it ever assumed that we would be perfect, therefore there are procedures for repentence and forgiveness.

Thanks for your response.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In Judaism, it has never been the belief that even the most revered were totally blameless in all areas. Matter of fact, most of those that we recognize as greats were generally depicted of having at least one shortcoming, even if it's something as minor as a speach impetiment (Moses). The Biblical scholar and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel mentions this as possibly a way in which the authors would convey to the readers that these people were not to be viewed as deities. And we also see this being played out in the Christian scriptures whereas the apostles were often depicted as having some shortcomings.

Nor was it ever assumed that we would be perfect, therefore there are procedures for repentence and forgiveness.

Thanks for your response.

I have said Gods relationship with us is that of a parent and a child. The child brings home a painting they had done in school. The painting isn't perfect, but the parent doesn't throw it away, instead they hang it up proudly. It encourages the child to do more paintings and as the child does more and more they get better at it. Some children will have a more natural inclination towards being better at it, but the parent still shows equal love to all the attempts by their children.

 

[metis]

I hear that sometimes, but it's usually not so blatant. At virtually all the funerals I attend, the speaker declares his happiness that the deceased, though his faith in Jesus Christ, is assured his spot in heaven.

They're not telling me that i'm headed for hell, but the implication is sure there.

I hear ya.

To me, that's the wrong place for such a message since the audience is mixed, plus the primary issue should be on who died and comforting the family. To have to sit there and listen about who's gonna be saved and who isn't may be fine for Sunday's sermon, but not for a funeral, imo.

BTW, I grew up in one of these fundamentalist churches and left when I was in my 20's, mostly due to the narrow-mindedness, anti-science, and racism that I found within my church. I was very active in that church when growing up, but I just couldn't take the negative we/they approach and self-serving bigotry any longer.

 

[metis]

I have said Gods relationship with us is that of a parent and a child. The child brings home a painting they had done in school. The painting isn't perfect, but the parent doesn't throw it away, instead they hang it up proudly. It encourages the child to do more paintings and as the child does more and more they get better at it. Some children will have a more natural inclination towards being better at it, but the parent still shows equal love to all the attempts by their children.

Wells said, imo, and this really resonates with me since I'm "artistically challenged", and that's giving myself the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wells said, imo, and this really resonates with me since I'm "artistically challenged", and that's giving myself the benefit of the doubt.

I had always wondered why faith through salvation was pushed so hard by Paul.

I had thought it was because he saw himself as that child who could not draw well enough, who no matter what he did always fell short. To him the only way that he could possibly make up for the lack of skill would be only if faith was what he focused on.

Though I did note that in one of his letters he mentioned that there are three things Hope, Faith, and Love. Out of all three of those he found Love to be the strongest.

 

[1robin]

If you ever come up with any evidence for the legitimacy of the Bible, I will be happy to examine it with you, though I should warn you that people have tried to legitimize it for a couple thousand years with no luck. The career of a Biblical apologist is doomed from the start.

, With no luck!! My God , man what is success to you. Its principle character is the most well-known and beloved being in human history, and the Bible by far the most reliable text of any kind in ancient history and is the most read and scrutinized book in history. Until whatever text you claimed to have (but actually don't can do either one of these the issue is concluded. Do you actually believe I think you are even attempting to make a scholastic argument? Anyone can see your killing time or attempting to provoke a response. I see no evidence you desire a serious textual discussion. If you were simply humorous that would be fine, if you were serious that would be fine, but to act like your sincere but actually only make nonsensical and meaningless statements can't have an honorable purpose.

Magical, supernatural... what's the dif. Foretelling the future is magic. If it were not magic -- if any regular old person could do it -- then why would you consider it worth mentioning as evidence for the Bible's legitimacy?

Magic is a term for things that can't be done. The supernatural is a term meaning a type of natural claim that is not understood. No matter what term you apply to how God acts you have not one single reason to consider it unlikely. That is a conclusion based in ignorance and preference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To me, that's the wrong place for such a message since the audience is mixed, plus the primary issue should be on who died and comforting the family. To have to sit there and listen about who's gonna be saved and who isn't may be fine for Sunday's sermon, but not for a funeral, imo.

It gives comfort to the (faithful) survivors, and I'm confident enough in my own beliefs, so I don't mind it.

BTW, I grew up in one of these fundamentalist churches and left when I was in my 20's, mostly due to the narrow-mindedness, anti-science, and racism that I found within my church. I was very active in that church when growing up, but I just couldn't take the negative we/they approach and self-serving bigotry any longer.

My situation was similar except that they seemed like generally good people in the church. I just couldn't bear the weird beliefs, as if I were being asked to center my intellectual life around an elaborate fantasy game. I broke with it intellectually as a young teenager but I left the church only when I left my parents' home -- as an older teenager.

 

[metis]

I had always wondered why faith through salvation was pushed so hard by Paul.

I had thought it was because he saw himself as that child who could not draw well enough, who no matter what he did always fell short. To him the only way that he could possibly make up for the lack of skill would be only if faith was what he focused on.

Though I did note that in one of his letters he mentioned that there are three things Hope, Faith, and Love. Out of all three of those he found Love to be the strongest.

Paul was well educated, and wrote using Hellenized terminology, which tended to be dualistic (black/white, light/darkness, etc.). Today we look at such an approach as not being acceptable, but the audiences he was writing to would understand his terminology. What you wrote above catches that dichotomy.

Paul obviously believed that Jesus' message of compassion and justice was the right approach, but what made his approach controversial was his position vis-a-vis the rest of the Law, which he at least eventually downplays. His problem is how does one create a "church" with two different elements following two different sets of rules, one Jewish and one gentile? Do they keep kosher? Must they observe the Sabbath? What if they intermarry (which set of rules to follow?)?

To me, Paul eventually figures out that there's no way possible of creating "one body" with two so diverse elements, thus the rest of the Law had to go. In his earlier writings, he doesn't go that far, but in his later writings (or those done by disciples of his), he does. And we see him confronting Peter with this, and also his approach seems to have not been taken that well by James.

Anyhow, sorry but I gotta cut this short.

Shalom