the right religion

[kjw47]

So, no one can see God's truth, but if we guess wrong, we're damned for all time? How is that remotely worthy of worship?

Compare what Jesus teaches to what you are being taught.

 

[kjw47]

so yes god made it easier for satan to twist the truth...
if the truth was revealed then there would be no problem..no twisting about.

i think this argument is silly.

Even though many deep things were hidden, there was still alot of truth that remained, and if one compares what Jesus said to what they are taught, they can see who is telling truth and who is not.

 

[Storm]

Compare what Jesus teaches to what you are being taught.

That wasn't an answer.

 

[waitasec]

Compare what Jesus teaches to what you are being taught.

jesus spoke in code...giving "satan" plenty to twist.

 

[waitasec]

Even though many deep things were hidden, there was still alot of truth that remained,and if one compares what Jesus said to what they are taught, they can see who is telling truth and who is not.

that doesn't matter. i'm just not understanding why god can't just be straightforward

 

[Storm]

Compare what Jesus teaches to what you are being taught.

Oh, and btw... what exactly do you think I'm "being taught," and by whom?

 

[waitasec]

I find it impossible to believe you don't get this.

what? that you would be perfectly happy that SOME of your loved ones made it and SOME didn't. :areyoucra

The biblical Heaven results in the enjoyment forever of at least some of your loved ones and no regret or pain from any other person or source

.

and what of the others? are you saying everyone you know that you care about is potentially subjected to your apathetic view of them if they don't make it to heaven?
:areyoucra

Yours results in universal destruction of everything and everybody. What is the issue here?

finality of the known is something i have come to terms with...and with in "my system" no one is excluded...everyone, NOT SOME, faces finality of the known

 

[waitasec]

Since your system can't even establish a universal standard for the concepts we are discussing then this is a pointless statement. I do not think you understand what it is I said and I am just to lazy to type it again.

:slap:
what are you talking about?
of course there is a universal standard...everyone will face the finality of the known. your system only allows for "some".:areyoucra

 

[1robin]

It's not my suggestion it's been traditionally promoted by Christian and I suspect with good reason. The Bible says the goats and sheep will be separated. The chafe removed. The weeds left behind. What do you think the Bible means by that?

I believe with good reason that the fire imagery of hell is allegorical. That hell is or will be anihilation of the soul. This is a very accepted doctrine. It is not downplayed by Christianity at all.

Sure if I were to go to Jail I'd want to be treated as fairly as the next guy. So obviously it's in my best interest to make sure the criminal is treated as fairly as possible.

That is not what I meant. To apply your everyone gets the same fate philosophy, I was saying that when someone you know goes to jail you would have to go with them. This is an unjust idea. God is perfect and will not dwell with sin forever. We can not become perfect on our own so God made a way to declare us perfect. If we refuse to accept this free offer that God makes we are not made legally perfect and so cannot dwell with God eternally. It is just the nature of the situation, it is not a philosophy that Christians created it is just the way it is.

Sorry have to edit/add...

What do you mean there is no reason to act morally?

If we all end up in hell or heaven regardless of what we do then why do anything hard.

What I value causes me to act morally. What I value is my reason to act. You assume there are no legitimate values except for what you value? That's poppycock.

There is no way without a higher standard to establish that what you value has any actual value at all.

Hmm... poppycock. Dutch, means soft dung. Kind of wondered where that word came from. Also a brand of flavored popcorn.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[1robin]

Well, I'm not a Christian, but I am a Universalist.

A universalist in the everybody goes to heaven eventually or that all religions are true sence?

My real problem is with ETERNAL Hell. Something more along the lines of Purgatory, where you suffer, but also atone? Fine and dandy. But I just can't believe in a God who gives up on us.

What governs all this as the bible says, is that God is perfect and cannot dwell with imperfection eternally. We must become perfect if we are to dwell with him forever. We can not achieve this on our own so God paid the price and offers us a chance to be legally declared not guilty by him by virtue of what he did. If we die without excepting this free offer then we will never be allowed in heaven. This does not in my opinion result in eternal torture. I believe that it results in anihilation. We must not reduce what we will accept to only what we like. I see a strange trend in people to rule out things that are likely true because they do not like them. Whether we like the fact that if we step on a nail that it will hurt does not change the fact that it will.

 

[Storm]

A universalist in the everybody goes to heaven eventually

Not Heaven, but the same place. Whether that's a paradise or torment depends on the collective choices we make.

or that all religions are true sence?

That too. I believe religion is the search for God, no more, no less. One culture's vocabulary is not superior to another's.

What governs all this as the bible says, is that God is perfect and cannot dwell with imperfection eternally. We must become perfect if we are to dwell with him forever.

Define perfection.

We can not achieve this on our own so God paid the price and offers us a chance to be legally declared not guilty by him by virtue of what he did. If we die without excepting this free offer then we will never be allowed in heaven. This does not in my opinion result in eternal torture. I believe that it results in anihilation. We must not reduce what we will accept to only what we like. I see a strange trend in people to rule out things that are likely true because they do not like them. Whether we like the fact that if we step on a nail that it will hurt does not change the fact that it will.

Annihilation is less objectionable. I still don't believe God, even a theistic God (I'm a panentheist) would give up on any of its children.

 

[1robin]

hmmm. generalize much?

In general I do. I do not find it odd that I must condense hundreds of hours of debate into a few sentences for the purposes of posting.

what are the inconvenient truths of atheism?

That life has no ultimate meaning, purpose, value, or that morality is an arbitrary opinion rooted in no higher standard. It also leaves evolution as the only likely candidate for creation which justifies racism, slavery, injustice. It also eliminates the only suffecient basis for absolute morality, equality, or ultimate purpose.

relationships...connection
those are the things that matter to me, i'm not so sure about you though.

That has absolutely nothing to do with justifying why a person is more valuable than a beetle. In atheism we just happen to be the apex creature and so we just impose our will on everything else. If we were not these issues would become very important to you very quickly. I guess you just couldn't answer my question.

 

[1robin]

and i pointed out where the bible says different.

No you just said it did which judgeing from past experience probably means that you found some verses to twist and strip of context in an effort to force them to mean what you wish. There are approx 772,000 words in the bible at least 600,000 of them concern only or primarily this life not the afterlife so your weird point fails.

thanks to our discourse, i think i finally figured out why christianity, understood in the manner you understand it as, makes me sick.

Then the bible must make you sick and actually explains quite a bit. My position is virtually 100% orthodox protestant Christianity.

it's a underlying silent claim that says..."i am more meaningful than you" to those that are a part of the life of this type of believer...

Find the statement I or any orthodox Christian, or even the bible that says this specifically. A silent claim is a contradiction. This contradiction was probably invented by you in order to justify your beliefs as it is in no way a part of my faith.

 

[waitasec]

That life has no ultimate meaning, purpose, value, or that morality is an arbitrary opinion rooted in no higher standard. It also leaves evolution as the only likely candidate for creation which justifies racism, slavery, injustice. It also eliminates the only suffecient basis for absolute morality, equality, or ultimate purpose.

and as i told you our relationships with people is what matters..not for you apparently, your own son could be burning in hell and you would be fine with that...cool for him

That has absolutely nothing to do with justifying why a person is more valuable than a beetle. In atheism we just happen to be the apex creature and so we just impose our will on everything else. If we were not these issues would become very important to you very quickly. I guess you just couldn't answer my question.

so you care what a beetle feels about you..cool dr doolittle.

 

[tumbleweed41]

1robin, can you define for us orthodox protestant Christian?

 

[waitasec]

No you just said it did which judgeing from past experience probably means that you found some verses to twist and strip of context in an effort to force them to mean what you wish. There are approx 772,000 words in the bible at least 600,000 of them concern only or primarily this life not the afterlife so your weird point fails.

i didn't twist anything..jesus said it himself, he came to divide people...

matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

Then the bible must make you sick and actually explains quite a bit. My position is virtually 100% orthodox protestant Christianity.

i hope your son knows how you would feel if he didn't make it to heaven...you wouldn't care... and the interesting thing is, if you didn't make it, he would feel the same...but that's not going to happen is it,
as the underlying preconceived notion in your belief is "i am more meaningful than you"

Find the statement I or any orthodox Christian, or even the bible that says this specifically. A silent claim is a contradiction. This contradiction was probably invented by you in order to justify your beliefs as it is in no way a part of my faith.

sure it is...john 3:16..the cornerstone of your belief...
besides i was being poetic...
silent claim = preconceived notion
it sounds better.

 

[1robin]

1robin, can you define for us orthodox protestant Christian?

I can provide it. Here is the bare bones version:
Fundamental principles
The three fundamental principles of traditional Protestantism are the following:
·Scripture Alone
The belief in the Bible as the supreme source of authority for the church. The early churches of the Reformation believed in a critical, yet serious, reading of Scripture and holding the Bible as a source of authority higher than that of Church Tradition. The many abuses that had occurred in the Western Church prior to the Protestant Reformation led the Reformers to reject much of the Tradition of the Western Church, though some would maintain Tradition has been maintained and reorganized in the liturgy and in the confessions of the Protestant Churches of the Reformation. In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, as do the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican churches, to name a few, but interpret it in a more literal way.
·Justification by Faith Alone
The subjective principle of the Reformation is justification by faith alone, or, rather, by free grace through faith. It has reference to the personal appropriation of the Christian salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e., is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification."[7]
·Universal Priesthood of Believers
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Protestant_doctrines

These are the major tenants that define doctrine as protestant and as separate from Catholic. I support all the doctrine I listed above. The Chicago statement should be added to this list and can be found here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

These doctrines compose the core of Protestantism and I find them identicle to my views. Some denominations within Protestantism differ over secondary doctrine that is not really all that crucial. I will add that when I became a Christian I was not in a church and was not even aware of the doctrinal differences between denominations or Catholic/protestant traditions. I wished to define my own doctrine separate from any organized influence. I spent over a year reading the bible every day. When I had finished the bible and reviewed the core issues and had prayed and determined what I thought the truth to be I then selected the denomination that most reflected my understanding of the bible. I chose the Baptist church. I however would find most of my core beliefs shared by virtually all major protestant denominations. My beliefs determined my denomination not the other way around. Italics are my words. Did this answer your question?

 

[waitasec]

i'm feeling nauseous ...

 

[Nakosis]

I believe with good reason that the fire imagery of hell is allegorical. That hell is or will be anihilation of the soul. This is a very accepted doctrine. It is not downplayed by Christianity at all.

I presume annihilation is just as an unacceptable loss. God's going to annihilate someone you care about just because they thought Buddhism or even Atheism was correct.

That is not what I meant. To apply your everyone gets the same fate philosophy, I was saying that when someone you know goes to jail you would have to go with them. This is an unjust idea. God is perfect and will not dwell with sin forever. We can not become perfect on our own so God made a way to declare us perfect. If we refuse to accept this free offer that God makes we are not made legally perfect and so cannot dwell with God eternally. It is just the nature of the situation, it is not a philosophy that Christians created it is just the way it is.

Not necessarily everyone, just that everyone may include someone you care about. Because they refuse an offer that is not free. It requires a conviction/commitment they don't feel capable of making. They would have to lie to themselves if they honestly felt Christianity was a lie. Lying to oneself costs personal integrity.

If we all end up in hell or heaven regardless of what we do then why do anything hard.

You mean as in what motivates you to do good? Why do good except to avoid punishment? I do what I do because of what I value. It's good in the sense that I'm working for something I value. I would assume you do the same. You value God and the Bible. I'd hope these things motivate you and not just fear of punishment.

There is no way without a higher standard to establish that what you value has any actual value at all.

It has value to me and that is all that is important. I've no need of a higher standard. I've no need for you to value what I value as long as you aren't stepping on my toes and we have developed civil laws to deal with that which is derived by finding common values among our fellow man.

I don't really see that we need an objective standard. Reliance on common values seems to work well enough for civilization.

Glad we cleared that up.

Sorry, I just never used that word before. I kind of like to know the meaning of words I use.

 

[1robin]

i didn't twist anything..jesus said it himself, he came to divide people...

Your statement concerned the importance of this life verses the afterlife. So your verses are not applicable.

matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

Within the context of what is being discussed this is a rational statement. Since our allegience must be chosen between God or Satan, then this statement is an obvious implication of the nature of the issue. We are supposed to reflect God and seek him which means we will have an inherent incompatablity with people who reject God. This verse is only troubleing or irrational if the bible isn't true. If it isn't true then this verse isn't true. It is the same principle when your mother tells you not to associate with bad influences. Or when a philosopher says bad company corrupts good morals. It is a universal principle but is only a problem when God says it.

i hope your son knows how you would feel if he didn't make it to heaven...you wouldn't care... and the interesting thing is, if you didn't make it, he would feel the same...but that's not going to happen is it,
as the underlying preconceived notion in your belief is "i am more meaningful than you"

I do not have a son and so this doesn't apply. You are also forceing an impossible event to exist in order to make a point. I would not be aware of a son that wasn't with me. A non memory has no capability to cause harm. If I did have a son and he chose to reject God I could reluctantly accept that that will mean eventual seperation. Of course this will happen in your system as well. At least mine retains a relationship with my son if he chose God yours does not. Whatever problem you invent for heaven they are worse for eventual atheistic anihilation of every one and everything. This is all irrelevant any way because desireability is no basis for determining what is true or not at least to rational people.

sure it is...john 3:16..the cornerstone of your belief...
besides i was being poetic...
silent claim = preconceived notion
it sounds better.

There is no implication of importance in that verse. There is an implication of outcome which is not a reference or related to importance. In fact the bible makes it clear that God is not a respecter of persons. Meaning he doesn't find one as more important or valuable than another. Which is exactly why Jesus died for all not only an important group.