curmudgeon's tags:
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):
I was reading an article on Joel Osteen in Conde Nast's Portfolio - largely about how much money the Texas-based Lakewood Church brings in for it's television and in-house ministries.
 
Apparently, Rev. Osteen, labeled by some as "gospel-lite" has been criticised for "waffling" on the question of whether atheists or people of other religions go to heaven.
 
This got me to thinking - why would an atheist want to get into heaven in the first place?
 
I understand that this question tests the willingess of Christians to be inclusive, that were folks from certain Christian denominations to say no, they don't get into heaven, they'd be branded as being intolerant, xenophobic, arrogant, dogmatic, doctrinaire any other pejorative term one can think up.
 
I remember the story a friend of mine told me when he was in Hebrew School - something about being taught that Jewish people were specially chosen by God, and people of other religions not being a part of this. He didn't like the idea that his friend (me), was left out, and this apparently turned him off of religious practice from that point on. I imagine that similar teachings in other religious settings have turned off young people for decades.
 
While I appreciate the sentiment - that there really ought to be room in heaven for friends  who don't believe as we do, I see this sentiment as being ultimately arrogant,  condescending and disrespectful of others' religious beliefs.
 
Muslims, Hindus and atheists all have their own visions of what happens after death, and the one thing in common among them is that it is NOT feasting in final victory with Christ sitting at the right hand of God. They may or may not have their own visions of hell, too, and one can say with some degree of certainty that their beliefs do not condemn them to hell for not following the Christian way.
 
In fact, I belive that if an atheist found himself in heaven, he'd think he was in hell and that this indeed is an eternal punishment!
 
Imagine going through all your adult life disbelieving in the existence of God, debating those who do believe, maybe filing lawsuits to get religious displays removed from public view, protesting christmas pageants in public schools, whatever, and then after crossing the end of the line, finding yourself standing in front of St. Peter at the gates or whatever, and being invited to sit at the table because your "inclusive" Christian friend somehow got you in?
 
What a vision of hell - spending eternity with the Lord you don't believe in!
 
And just imagine being a Hindu: For over six thousand years your people have believed that once your karmic-dharmic cycle is finised, you enter moksha - you transcend this plane of existence and become One with All. All your life you, your family, your friends and acquaintances have believed this and treasured these teachings and one day the body gives itself over and all of a sudden you're facing this Middle Eastern guy speaking not Sanskrit but Aramaic, not doing the Cosmic Dance of Shiva, but singing a hymn and dipping bread into wine.
 
What could be more disappointing than to arrive not where you believe you are going, but when your friend believed we are all going?
 
That would make me want to slap my friend upside the head!
 
To believe that there is room in the Kingdom of Heaven for all of those who have their own realms to go to is to tacitly affirm the idea that their realms aren't worth striving for, that their religious beliefs aren't just as true for them as your beliefs are true for you. It is to say - you are welcome in my house, but only because your house isn't good enough for me. I welcome you because I don't want to feel bad about myself for excluding you from this really great place I'm headed for.
 
Someday I'm sure I'll be asked this question and my response at this point is going to be - Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Atheists all have their own ideas of what happens after death. It is important to respect what they believe, while affirming what you believe. It is no sin against God to have a friend of a different religion or of no religion at all.
 
It's not that there is no room in Heaven for non-believers, non-believers simply see the world and livie in the world differently from you. Just as it is important to treat them as your friends and neighbors in life, it is just as important to see them off as friends and neighbors at the end of life and beyond.
 
Real inclusivity honors all religious viewpoints. Including non-believers out of guilt or unwillingness to honestly look at tough questions demeans one's own distinctive religious practice.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....
    Ok this is a deep question but it presupposes certain things that seem at odds with religion and likely with reality over all.  You're reality seems to imply that there are multiple afterlives. that hindues are infact reincarnated after each life and moved up or down according to their actions, there is also an after life where 72 virgins greet suicide bombers, atheists presumably cease to exist, agnostics. . .I dunno maybe they become ghosts, so on and so forth.  That all religions are "right"
     
    If we don't presuppose that all religions are right we have to choose which one is "right" for the terms of this conversation.  We'll stick with the Christian belief structure for the moment, that if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior you go to heaven, if not you go to hell.  (We'll skip the obligatory Hitler gets into heaven as he was clearly Christian and Ghandi goes to hell becuse he was a Hindu.  This is further backed by the Bible and I quoth Romans 4:2-32 If his good deeds had made him acceptable to God, he would have had something to boast about. But that was not God’s way. 3 For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.  It goes on to talk about work and wages to make sure that it is 100% clear, you don't EARN your way into Heaven, it's something given to you and that you must accept.  But the Ghandi vs Hitler debate is for another day as it has little to do with my actual point.
     
    Really your debate is flawed right there because it presupposes all religion is correct instead of one religion being correct.  Once we assume that only one exists and that it the Christian idea we are then we don't have the option of Atheists ceasing to exist, Hindus being reincarnated and whatever other religions might believe.  We are faced with the Christians in Heaven and the rest of us in Hell waiting until Revelations to set us free (least most of us) 
     
    It's like asking if somebody who doesn't believe in America if they would rather be in a US prison or a US 5 Star Hotel if they were to find themselves in America.  Or a better anology do the "faith" inherent in the systems if you don't believe in capitalism that doesn't mean you want to be homeless if your country suddenly becomes capitalist.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 28, 2008....
    Actually I'm not assuming that all religious perspectives are correct. Where do I state that? I stated that everyone has different perspectives and as fellow human beings we ought to respect each other. Of course there are going to be instances where religious values clash, such as honor killings taking place in the US. Those will take place between humans whether there is one correct answer or not.
     
    As far as an afterlife, all of our beliefs about who is "in" and who is "out", or who is getting into heaven and who is getting into hell could very well be incorrect, as illustrated by the "righteous" man being sent to eternal punishment while poor Lazarus is eternally rewarded. The tables are constantly being turned on those who are righteous and those who are not, so how can we assume to know God's will as though it (God's will) were some kind of math question?
     
    The assumption that there can only be one right answer to something we know little to nothing about isn't a safe one, but it is easy to argue against, which is why I suspect you lean on it so often.
     
    I don't presume to know where anyone else is going any more than I presume to know where I am going. I may live my life as faithfully as I know how and it still may be God's will to send me to eternal punishment. All I know is that in this world, the beliefs of people I encounter deserve to be treated with just as much respect as I would ask them to treat mine.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....
    We have to presume that the facts as we have them are "correct" until new information becomes available, we don't really have a choice.  And perspectives other than ours are pretty much by definition wrong.  Why would you "respect" the beliefs of someone outside your religion, particularly if you care for them.  Accordng to the big three (If Hindus turn out to be right it doesn't matter if we worshiped or not the system will handle itself) if you don't do x,y,z you go to hell.  So tolerating someone else's beleifs is like saying I don't care if you shoot up with heroin and commit suicide (If you truly believe in a soul bringing a person over to your religion is at least AS important as protecting their temporary physical body, if not more so) 
     
     
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 28, 2008....
    I cannot speak for Islam or Judaism; however, I must say that you quite misunderstand Christianity, Sean.  How does respect lead to not caring?  Just because Jesus respected the rich man's decision to not follow him (Mark 10:17-31) it does not follow that Jesus did not care for the Rich man.  The only two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40) that are important for a Christian to follow, as recorded as being summed up by Jesus, are to love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, and soul and to love your neighbor (everyone including enemies) as yourself.  Now, we can debate which is a greater love (respect or conversion) but we can also debate which is a greater converter (force or respect).  The tenets of Christianity are not as black and white as you make them out to be.  Nor is it clear that they are as literal as you would like them to be for the sake of argument.

    But to your earlier point about Hitler.  Just because he was born and raised in Roman Catholicism doesn't mean he was a Christian. Just because he wrote about the Lord in the Mein Kampf doesn't mean he was a Christian either.  Look, I can call myself a scientist.  But that doesn't mean I really am.  I can really, really believe myself to be a scientist, but that doesn't make me one.  And if I decide to start digging up graves and piecing together mulgere's monster, that doesn't mean I speak for all of science...in fact, I may speak for none of science!  With that said, I cannot begin to know what Hitler's mind was thinking or if he truly felt he was a Christian.  I know his anti-semitism was certainly supported by his pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic background.  Unfortunately, Christians, being human beings first and foremost, are imperfect and never live up to the standards that Christ put forth.  He may have truly felt he was a Christian as do many people (both good and bad)...but Christ said this as a warning to his followers:

    "Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. "Not everyone who calls out to Me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of My Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to Me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in Your name and cast out demons in Your name and performed many miracles in Your name.' But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from Me, you who break God's laws.'"  (Matthew 7:15-23 NLT)

    Now, you take Paul way out of context.  Paul was not addressing Nazi Germany when writing his letters.  He was addressing Gentile Christians who were ostracizing the Jewish Christian community for their lack of faith when Christ was alive.  It was the classic, "God made us Christians in place of you screw ups...therefore we're better than you."  The Jewish Christians (remember Christianity at the time was not considered a new religion, but another sect of Judaism by its followers) were still practicing Judaism (following the laws and such) while worshipping Jesus.  The Gentiles were appalled by this and were putting the Jewish Christians down.  They were also ostracizing the Jews who had not converted.

    It is in this context that Paul writes his letter to the Romans.  He is confirming that while we are saved by faith, the Jews were first God's people and that just as certain branches were removed from the tree of life to graft in new ones (namely the Gentile believers), God was more than capable of removing the newly grafted branches to graft in the old branches (namely the Jews).

    This may sound confusing, but Paul is affirming the Gentiles in there understanding that we are saved by faith alone, while admonishing them for their harshness to those outside their group.  With that said, he was not saying that someone like Hitler, who (for the sake of argument) was a Christian, would go to heaven regardless of his gross misuse of the Christian teachings and his inhumanity toward those he deemed worthless.  Paul was saying that no one is safe from being removed from the tree of life.  You take on chapter from a letter and use it on its own (and out of context) as if it stands that way...but it doesn't.  Paul new too well how easy it was to fall away from Christianity and warned his followers about the dangers of that.  So even if Hitler was a "Christian" he was one that fell away.  How do we know that...by the kind of "fruit" he bore.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 28, 2008....
    Sean - if the perspective of "the other" is by definition wrong, then eveyone is wrong. We are all "the other" to someone else. And Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, even Atheists all have different sub-groups who disagree with each other, oftentimes vehemently. Therefore, while Lutherans are wrong, Catholics are equally wrong, because they both disagree with each other on key theological points. And if our own perspective changes over time, as mine has, can I hosestly say that I am right now but was wrong then? Could it not be vice-versa?
     
    One perspective might indeed be right, or they might all be right, or they might all be wrong, or all visions of heaven may coexist simultaneously, but we certainly don't know which it is. All we can hold on to is what is true for us. Just because Hinduism doesn't ring true for me doesn't mean it must necessarily ring false for everyone else.
     
    Also, your characterization of "respecting" different religious beliefs as being indifferent to the damnation of their souls is contradicted by the Gospels: Christ teaches the Disciples to shake the dust from their sandals and move on when they encounter people who refuse to believe.Once the Word has been given, it is the person's choice to believe or not. If the answer is no, it is not our concern whether or not that person gets into heaven. There are others who will hear the Word and respond. If others are steadfastly on the path they've chosen, wherever they believe it will lead, and wherever it might actually lead. that's their choice. It doesn't mean we're indifferent to them, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't help them when they're suffering. All it means is that they're on a different path.
  • RollingC said on Jul 28, 2008....
    Good argument. 
    Someone that doesn't believe in God but spends his life...or at least part of it by his actions, wether they were occasional or not....doing good deeds to his fellow human beings, not doing anyone harm but rather trying to help out whenever he or  could, in my belief, has a right to get to Heaven as frankly I think that your state of mind (or what you have in your heart) would be the mitigating factor in opening up Heaven's door for you.
    Now wether you have to do further penance to clean out your heart of past deeds is something that I don't know much about even though as a Roman Catholic I've been taught about Purgatory. The only example I can think of is the " good " thief on the cross that defended Christ from the insults/accusations of the other criminal being crucified. Obviously the " good " thief was promised entry into Heaven by Our Lord but he was there because of crimes he commited and deserved to be there. He even admited it....so what happens to the past crimes and sins that still weighed on his memory or conscience?
    For if he admited it then he was aware that he had been doing wrong. 
    So basically I do think that faith and actions can earn you the right to get into Heaven but that's not taking into account God's mercy and forgiveness as He can forgive someone that has done wrong but " believes " in Him.
    I cannot begin to imagine the mitigating factors that would influence such a decision by God but I can only think (or hope) that even an atheist can get into Heaven if he spends his life " doing " the right things...or at least trying to.
    Rc
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 28, 2008....
    RollingC, the nature of the salvation of the "good" thief is that he was humbled and openly admitted how "not good" he was.  Rather than think he was the victim, he saw that he was getting what the law required, whereas Jesus had done nothing to deserve death.  The other thief, was no better or worse than the aforementioned one, but he lacked in humility.  He saw himself as the victim and only cared about Jesus exercising his divine power to save his own not-so-divine kiester.

    Neither of the thieves did something to earn salvation...the only thing they earned was their place on the crosses next to Jesus; however, what set apart the one thief for salvation, was that he not only believed in Jesus, but truly repented of his sins, denied himself and was willing to follow Jesus with all of his heart, mind, soul and strenght...even for the little bit of time they had left on the cross...and regardless of the uncertainties of the present situation and the anticipation of the unknown to come.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 29, 2008....
    But this begs the question - why would an atheist, good, bad or indifferent, want to get into a Heaven s/he doesn't believe to exist in the first place? Since we can't presume that Heaven is what they want, neither can we presume that Heaven is where they will go.
     
    As far as one's good deeds somehow earning one's place in Heaven, regardless of faith in God through Christ - I couldn't state it any better than Mulgere.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2008....
    Once again Cur if Heaven and Hell exist why would an an atheist or anybody want to go to hell?!  Its like if you didn't believe that Disneyland was a real place and somebody kidnapped you (death) and you ended up in prison would you say, wow I never believed in Disneyland before I sure am glad I'm getting butt raped!
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 29, 2008....
    Sean - if you're committed to not believing in God or Heaven or Hell, I would think that you would be committed to the point of enduring Hell, if it turns out there is one and the condition for avoiding Hell is faith in God through Christ.
     
    Otherwise, are you really worthy of calling yourself an atheist?
     
    This isn't a zero-sum, win-lose game for me. I'm committed to God through Christ whether I go to Hell for it, or whether or not any of it all exists. One theologian - mulgere was it Barth? - posits that even those predestined to hell are so in order to glorify God. If that's what God has in store for me, so be it.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2008....
    See and that is where you and I disagree.  I'm not "committed" to not believing in God or Heaven, I simply think there is no proof and it's silly to live your life according to this fairy tale or that.  I think the premise of "if I'm wrong as a Christian then no big I cease to exist but if your wrong then you burn in hell" is pretty much a mantra of fear and ignorance.  Which consequently is why I ridicule agnostics because the fact is that EVERY single human being is agnostic.  Not one among us knows for sure or can know.  The closest you can come is near death/briefly dead experiences and even those are questionable.  So techincally we are all agnostics.  You either choose to believe or you do not.
     
    Let me ask you something, purely hypothetically.  If you found out tommorow that tax cuts for the rich were directly responible for the downturn in the economy, that Jesus himself appeared and declared that life begins at birth and not one second before, you learned that Bush has purposely rigged the market so that oil companies could make as much money as possible before the very last oil was pulled out of the earth would you still vote Republican because otherwise you couldn't be worthy of being a Republican?
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 29, 2008....
    Curm, I am not sure...I think it might have been Barth.

    Sean, I realize that you posed a hypothetical...but the pro-life/pro-choice debate is not really about whether the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive...but rather, the debate is whether it can be considered a "person."  No body fusses about stepping on an ant, or killing a bee, or eating fish (Okay maybe a few fuss about it)...the issue has not to do with life...but a human "person's" life.  Some say that a human is only a "person" when he/she can identify, consciously, its "SELF."  Others believe that a person is a person regardless of whether they can identify that or not...especially so long as they have/had the capability of knowing one's self.  That is too narrow for some, who want to say that anyone, including those devoid of the capability of knowing one's SELF (e.g. severely incapacitated human beings), who, in normal circumstances would have the capability of consciously KNOWING one's SELF, should be considered human life and not tampered with.  No reasonable person would argue that even the earliest cell clumps in the stages of pregnancy aren't life.  Of course they're life...the debate is whether abortion is advocating the killing of a human "person."
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2008....
    That's kinda splitting hairs MH while technically you are correct that really isn't part of the conversation.  But for yoursake let me clarify.
     
    If Jesus said that a baby's soul enters it's body when cries the first time because that's when the soul is first separated from God and nothing before that point matters in the least to him would you at that point remain pro-life.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 29, 2008....
    Who says that I am pro-life?  And if that was directed toward Curm, who says that he is?  Actually, to answer the question myself, I won't speak for Curm, I am politically pro-choice.  To borrow and slightly reinvent a line from Spider-man though, with each choice comes great responsibility.  If one is using abortion as a form of birth control (while I don't think her right to choose should be denied) I do find that highly unethical.  But I don't want a big government that tells everyone what they can and cannot do.  I do believe that while there are cases where abortion is unethical, there are other cases where it is a highly ethical choice.  So that is my position...but as you are right in your last post...this is not the topic, is it?

    So, let me put myself in the shoes of someone who is Republican and believes that all abortion is a sin.  If I were to know that the truth was other than that which are my current beliefs, I would change my beliefs.  I am not married to anyone position to the point of not changing for the sake of not changing.  While I am sure that I do not speak for everyone...this is where I stand.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2008....
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2008....
    Have any of you guys read the Chronicles of Narnia? My wife was telling me something interesting the other day:

    Apparently Aslan the Lion is an allegory for Christ, right? Well the end of The Last Battle, the end of the series, a Telmarine can be seen in the new Narnia, which is the equivalent of Heaven. Aslan encounters the Telmarine, who is confused: he had worshipped another god named Tash, not Aslan, and yet he is in the new Narnia with all these other people who followed Aslan. How could he make it to "heaven" when he believed in the wrong god?

    Aslan explains to him that he worshiped Tash for who he THOUGHT Tash was, not knowing that Tash was a false god. In effect, the Telmarine thought of Tash as good, noble, honorable, and loving, whereas Tash was just an imposter. However, since Aslan is truly good, noble, honorable, and loving, he was actually worshiping the person of Aslan even though he didn't know it.

    This makes me wonder how many people follow a god different than the God of the Bible, or follow a person or deity that really personifies Jesus Christ. That's not to say people can believe in just anything and hope it's God in a roundabout way...what I mean is, what if Islam worships Muhammed because he appears to have the qualities that Jesus actually DOES possess? And what if they get to Heaven because of that?

    Further, if an atheist demonstrates a kind, loving, servant heart for others, yet denounces religion at every chance, what if they are saved not just by the faith of their spouse or the prayers of their loved ones, but gets to Heaven because they were more representative of Jesus than many Christians had been in their lifetime?

    Talk about deep :)

    But here's the thing: if Heaven is really Heaven in the first place, it's a destination I believe ALL people will be overjoyed to reach. Case in point: if a person in Heaven spent their whole lives going by another religion, their expectations of the afterlife might have been like expecting a Ford Mustang...but they got a Ferrari Enzo instead. Heaven will trump all our wildest dreams, and will transform our very souls to the point that we won't consciously care about what's not there.

    That said, I believe some people will miss out on Heaven. The Bible states that Jesus will return soon, and that we are in the last days...but the delay is actually for the purpose of having as many people saved as possible. God is waiting for His people to turn to Him before the end, and I think that's a very loving thing to do.

    So who knows? If you get to Heaven, Sean, I don't think you'll nitpick the expectations you had of any kind of afterlife. I think you'll find something much better than you had pictured. I think it will be just the experience we hoped for after a life here on Earth that had its fair share of pain and sorrow. How can we endure that without a goal, a reward to reach? I believe Heaven is that goal...THE goal.
  • RollingC said on Jul 30, 2008....
    :^)
  • Fallyn said on Jul 30, 2008....
    speaking as someone who does not want to go to heaven.....here is why.

    i do not...at all.....want to live ....FOREVER no less.....in a place that does not change....cannot change.......has nothing bad happen ever........where nothing ever dies,

    can you give me ANY biblical version of heaven that is not totally completely stagnant sterile and unchanging.......forever? and ever and ever and ever?

    in all honesty.....i'd rather live my dismal little short life on earth ...even if that is ALL there is.

    oh...and biblically??? hell doesn't exist.
    according to revelation....pardon me if i can't quote verses...i haven't studied this in a VERY long time....but it was drilled into my head verse by verse since i was about 8. when jesus returns to gather the believers....and yes you can only be saved by faith.....not deeds. so...sorry ghandi.
    anyway.....i can't remember if all the graves are opened or just the graves of the believers, in any case...the believers are taken to heaven.....the unbelievers, or sinners....are left on earth with satan....who is like...chained to the earth or something........and while everyone is partying in heaven ....sometime later heaven comes down to make the earth new....and satan has an army with him.....well....needless to say...satans army of sinners and unbelievers is squashed......hence the burning lake of fire.
    in the bible if you read it it is clear that you don't "burn forever in hell" it is an "all consuming fire that burns everything up" and then the earth is made new....and everyone lives happily ever after.
    for ever and ever.
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2008....
    If you'll recall, Fallyn, there is the story of the rich man and lazarus, where the rich man dies and is burning night and day. He sees lazarus, who has also died, but he is in Heaven. In life, lazarus was a beggar and the rich man had all he wanted. The rich man asked for lazarus to give him water to relieve his torture, but was told that there is a barrier between both places...that one cannot cross over to the other.

    As well, a verse in Matthew speaks of hell, equating it with fire.

    Additionally, when the New Jerusalem appears in Revelation, there are those who rejected God and thus cannot enter, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    So yes, there is biblical basis for hell being a fiery place of torment.

    But Fallyn, you think of Heaven (and all of us do at some point) in terms of what life is NOW. You're used to the world...and it usually beats us down with sickness,  death, tragedy, rejection, and hardship. I think many people simply don't believe in Heaven because their own lives have been difficult to the point where they can't even grasp a positive outcome of any kind.

    I think beyond any hurts in the past from church, for you Fallyn or anyone else, you would want a happy ending to such sorrow. Why consciously reach for a finite, troubled existence as your preferred surrounding, when a peaceful, infinite experience awaits?
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2008....
    Quotes Lid, cus Biblically Hell don't really exist.  The closest you can get is the lake of fire where Satan and the Beast (Anti-christ I think) are locked for 1000 years.  But humanity as a whole is supposed to be saved as I recall.
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2008....
    You might want to brush up on your biblical studies, Sean.

    Lemme consult my (sometimes) reliable source known as Wikipedia. In the following you'll find the verse in Matthew I was referring to, the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and citation of "weeping and gnashing of teeth":

    "The New Testament depicts "hell", the place of eternal punishment, in a variety of ways. The most common term used for "hell" in the original Greek is γεεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. The term is however found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[12][13][14] Gehenna is most frequently described as a place of fiery torment (eg. Matthew 5:22, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-49) although other imagery is also used such as darkness and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (eg. Matthew 8:12; 22:13).[13]

    Besides this teaching in the synoptic gospels, the concept of hell is found in other parts of the NT although the term gehenna is not used. The Johannine writings refer to the destiny of the wicked in terms of "perishing", "death" and "condemnation" or "judgment". St. Paul speaks of "wrath" and "everlasting destruction" (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including "raging fire" (Hebrews 10:27), "destruction" (2 Peter 3:7), "eternal fire" (Jude 7) and "blackest darkness" (Jude 13). The book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where the reprobate will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever"(eg. Revelation 20:10).[15]

    The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the temporary abode of the dead (eg. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13).[10] Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one location to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous.[15][10] In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead."

    Upon looking at that, we have an idea that  that hell is not just a stereotype of hellfire and burning death; it's more.

    Further, Sean, don't confuse God's desire to see all saved with the reality that some people just will not accept Him. Who will suffer for a short time and who will suffer eternally? Who knows? But the real issue that we're getting away from is that we should consider that if Heaven exists on the basis of the Bible, so too does hell...and we should consider what things in our lives determine which one we would conceivably go to.
  • Fallyn said on Jul 30, 2008....
    the story of lazurus and the rich man was a parable....a story.
    in revelation it is saying what will actually happen.

    and sean....the god wants to save all of humanity....but there is a point at which all hope is lost for some. in fact there is a point where judgement has been made and declared and it's too late for anyone to change their minds either.

    and yeah.....that thousand years with satan...that's what i'm talking about......the good go to heaveen and the unbelievers and not good stay on earth with satan.........gnashing their teeth and and joining satans army because they realized the error of their ways and think they can fight god when he comes back to earth......which ...according to the ible it isn't even possible for them to win....and god only let satan exist in the first place to teach all of the rest of his creations.....yes there are other worlds out there (aliens) according to the bible......teach the rest of his creations that satan was wrong. "see! i told you he would lead them all to their doom"
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2008....
    Aliens? Other worlds? Can you find the verse for that? I'm not being skeptical or condescending when I ask that, because I have heard some crazy stuff in the Bible that I never expected, so I'm definitely curious.
    Anyhoo, I think curmudgeon did a great thing by posting this. It's real good discussion.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 30, 2008....
    Fallyn, I don't have time to read all of your replies, or anyone else's right now...so forgive me for that.  I will read them in depth later and respond appropriately...but something you said caught me.  "In revelation it is saying what will actually happen..."  Where in the Revelation, does it say that those things will "actually" happen.  Now, granted it says things will come to pass, but does it say that things will happen "actually" as written?  The term Revelation is synonymous with the Greek word apocalypse which means to be revealed.  Apocalyptic writing is known for its rich use of metaphor and encoded language.  So, which parts are "actually" going to happen?  Who's to say that they haven't, at least in part, already happened?  There's huge debate on how to actually interpret Revelation and the majority of Biblical Scholars do not presume to think that the whole book is talking about future events.  Some of the events would need to be in the future, such as the return of Christ...but not all of them have to be.

    Also, read in one of the posts stuff on heaven and hell.  All references to heaven and hell are metaphors.  How could Hell be both a lake of fire and the outer darkness?  That would seem to make little sense if they are taken literally.  Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven...and the majority of the time he was talking about it "here and now" as dwelling in the hearts of believers.  Now, he does occasionally refer to heaven as an otherworldly dwelling place...but again he uses metaphors to describe it.  Just some thoughts.  Again, I'll read the posts in full at some point tonight or tomorrow morning.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 30, 2008....
    Oh and for the record...just because I say they're spoken of in metaphor does not mean I am implying they don't really exist.  There are deep truths to the metaphors, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have wasted his breath.  But, I do not take the metaphor literally to mean that Hell is a lake of fire or that Heaven is a mustard seed.
  • silverwhisper said on Jul 31, 2008....
    curm, great post!

    the christian view of the afterlife is an exclusionary one, when you come right down to it, i've always felt. it all comes down to john 3: 16, which quoth:

    the bible (NIV) quoth:
    for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    in this respect, christianity is alone in the world's major religions, which generally tend not to address non-believers and their fate in the hereafter. some call it arrogant and i can certainly understand that.

    lidstrom, what's your view re: the tribulation? how christians resolve the concept of god's omnibenevolence with what revelations says will happen to the non-believers always interests me.

    ed
  • Fallyn said on Jul 31, 2008....
    lids, i'll find it at some point...can't promise soon though.....but i believe it's in genesis in the story of satan and his followers being expelled from heaven.....or it's in the story of Job. i'll have to find it.

    mulgere......i don't know that i was meaning. "actually as written" but "come to pass" does sound awfully close to that........i was merely pointing out that there is a difference in the bible between parables...and actual events......that had happened or were to happen.  a parable being a teaching story......by example.......and other events being a record of what had actually happened or a foretelling of what will happen in the future.
    there are "revelation seminars" sponsored by the seventh day adventist church......they are very very interesting if there happens to be one in your area. (highly likely at some point) they go through the nitty gritty of revelations and actually make a lot of factual sense.
    i've studied a LOT of christian belief systems supposedly based on the bible.....not in the recent past....but in my teens and early twenties especially.....if you want experts on the bible who've taken the time to actually completely just deal in facts within the bible......i haven't found another church that is quite as accurate biblically as the SDA's.
    as i've said before....it's not the church itself that turned me off to christianity.......it's my issues with god personally that i've had a problem with.


  • Fallyn said on Jul 31, 2008....
    lids...to continue my explanation.....it's the answer i've been given to why god let satan live if he knew the trouble he would cause..........
    it mentions something of "other worlds" or "other creations" i can't remember the wording specifically. .....that because satan was so close to god.....and very very well loved and exalted......so just killing him would lead others to question whether or not satan was right.....and may lead to more unrest.....so god let him live.....to show the fruits of his belief as being evil.
    this also has to do with the testing of job.

  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Fallyn, now I understand what you mean by "actually" but I will reply more in depth about some stuff later.   I have a busy day ahead of me.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 31, 2008....

    Sean -

    "You either choose to believe or you do not."

    I'm glad we finally agree on something!

    "If you found out tommorow that tax cuts for the rich were directly responible for the downturn in the economy, that Jesus himself appeared and declared that life begins at birth and not one second before, you learned that Bush has purposely rigged the market so that oil companies could make as much money as possible before the very last oil was pulled out of the earth would you still vote Republican because otherwise you couldn't be worthy of being a Republican?"
     
    Let me phrase this in a way that is more personal to me - suppose I find out that my pastors have been splitting up a portion of the money from the collection plate every week. Suppose I find out that one of them has been diddling a confirmand in the vestry on the first Sunday of every month. Suppose my church all of a sudden ditched the Trinity, started preaching from the Gnostic Gospels and my denomination officially branded Paul as some kind of sexist heretic and exised the Epistles from the Liturgy.
     
    Would I stop being a Christian if all these things came to pass?
     
    No! This hypothetical you've posed has to do with human acts contrary to the belief in the principles.
     
    BTW - there are many pro-choice Christians in the world, and there are many who probably do not see the abortion issue as central to their beliefs.
     
    The cost of Christian discipleship is enormous. So many people in Christian history - even today, have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, put to death for proclaiming what they believe. Even worse, wolves in sheeps clothing have ripped off believers, defrauded them, molested and raped their members. Yet we still believe becuase belief provides hope and solace and comfort when times are hardest. We stick with it because we are guided and challenged and exorted daily to consider the spiritual and ethical implications of our decisions.
     
    I don't root my beliefs in the examples other people set.
     
    Glad to see the discussion has grown! Thanks for contributing, everyone!
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Just to clarify a bit - I get into the cost of discipleship because your hypothetical question characterizes Republican ideals such as lower taxes as not being beneficial to the general public. Christianity understands that Christ's sacrifice was not personally beneficial to Christ (at least, not in any tangible worldly way), nor was Paul's ultimate imprisonment and execution beneficial for him, nor were the deaths of any of the martyrs beneficial for them, nor was any of the inter-denominational strife and extra-religious warfare beneficial for, well anyone, really.
     
    But we're not in it just for the benefits. We're just in it.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Not true in the least, ultimately you are in it to get into Heaven (least the majority of you are) that's not to say there aren't other aspects of it.  Which is why I phased the hypothetical not to say the Republican party was corrupt, but rather that the Republican Party was WRONG. 
     
    So are you in it because it is RIGHT and GOOD or are you in it because your in it?  Would you remain a Christian if Jesus Christ himself came down and said that Islam is the right religion? 
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Sean, you're completely missing the point. Could you assume for even a second that curmudgeon just laid it all out bare in most likely the best explanation I've heard in quite awhile?
    Can you separate politics from Christianity?
    Heaven is certainly the goal, but it's not about the ultimate destination. Salvation and receiving Heaven is not like buying cracker jacks just to get to the prize at the bottom, so to speak. The real lesson is to hone one's life to be Christlike - discerning in mind but compassionate in heart. I fully believe our lives here on Earth determine our destiny in eternity, whether it's in Heaven or suffering in the several descriptions of Hell.
    To that end, too many people take a "wait and see" approach about whether God is real, living lives as they see fit, not realizing that every day is a missed opportunity to understand that with God, they can fashion a destiny that involves a worthy struggle. Some struggle through life without a cause, and without a source in inspiration, just live for the sake of living. God promises and offers more.
    It's truly the richness and meaning of the journey, not just the destination at the end, Sean.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Sean - Please don't presume to know what I'm in this for. I'm not in it to get to Heaven. I'm in it because I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven has come near - here on Earth. God is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. God is a God of the living. What happens to me after death has ultimately less importance to me than how I live every single day.
     
    The outcome may or may not be what I "want" (assuming that what I want is what I call "good"), but I'm in it anyway.
     
    Lidstrom - I couldn't have responded any better than you did. Thank you!
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 31, 2008....
    To respond to your query about Jesus suggesting that Islam might be the "true way":
     
    In Luke 4, Jesus' first sermon (His First!!) is how Elijah visits the widow in Zarephath in Sidon despite the famine taking place in Israel. This angers the Jewish congregation so much that they want to push Him off a cliff.
     
    Jesus' recounting of that story is telling them that God favored a foreign widow over the Israelite widows.In other words - don't think you're all that, just because you claim to be children of God's covenant.  If Jesus were to come along and talk about how the followers of Mohammed are blessed by God even over His own disciples, it would be a stinging rebuke of the way Christs' disciples are doing things now.
     
    God has been turning the tables on us since the very beginning.
     
    Would that make me turn from God? No. I'd just need to go back and figure out how to better follow the example of Christ.
     
     
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Once again the question isn't about turning from God, it's if God said you've been doing it wrong would you change to do it the way he said was right.  
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Yeah Sean, the idea is to follow God, with the resources of the church, fellow believers, and the Bible to hold us accountable. Lots of Christians "get it wrong" with parts of their lives, no matter how well they do with other areas.
    The reason the Bible has been effective over centuries is that it corrects and teaches practically. That's the standard by which we find out if we're doing things wrongly. Either we check it ourselves, or it's cited by others when we're in the wrong.
    By all means, the Bible is incredibly complex, yet while it can hash out complicated issues of faith, it can also spell out its message to the uneducated. The variety of perspectives from its authors give a different view of how God relates to man. It's a very valuable document because it not only chronicles ancient history or gives us good rules to live by...but that it speaks to the human condition and our spiritual souls that need feeding just as our body does.
    So in prayer to God, in the Bible, in church, in other loving believers, in random encounters, and even in tragedy, we learn God's will and intent for our lives, and that's how we know whether we are "doing it right."
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Sean - In a word, yes. I wasn't called to Christianity until rather late in life. If you would have told me I'd be thinking and writing and living the way I am now six years ago I'd have said you're nuts. I felt/heard the call and responded. My life hasn't been the same since.
     
    If God says it's all wrong, who am I to be dogmatic about it? If YOU say it's all wrong, however, I'm inclined to dig my heels in!
     
    Can I ask you a question - how do you have time to respond so prolifically? I enjoy bashing heads with you, but man, this is taking up a great portion of my day!
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2008....
    Desk job.  Feel free not to respond instantly you know.  :-P
  • lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2008....
    lol..Count me in on the desk job setting.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 31, 2008....
    "ultimately you are in it to get into Heaven."  I'm in it for my relationship with God.  Pure and simple.  I could care less about heaven...honestly!  I live for here and now.  The kingdom of heaven is within us all if we seek it.  I don't need to die and experience it.  I live it, or at least try to, every day.

    "Would you remain a Christian if Jesus Christ himself came down and said that Islam is the right religion?"

    Sean, if Jesus Christ actually came down I guess there would be some tangible evidence for his divinity, wouldn't there?  And being that I am a follower of Christ, I would go wherever he leads me.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Jul 31, 2008....
    "it's not about the ultimate destination. Salvation and receiving Heaven is not like buying cracker jacks just to get to the prize at the bottom, so to speak."

    lidstrom82, you are right on.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 06, 2008....
    hey lidstrom, i had a question for you. :>

    ed
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 06, 2008....
    Hey silver! You can ask on here or through a personal SC message, whichever works better for your question. I'll just be here doin' my work thing!
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 06, 2008....
    o, it's a simple question--at least in the asking? how do you resolve the problem of god's omnibenevolence and what's in revelations? :>

    ed
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 07, 2008....
    I think I understand the question, but let me ask clarification.

    You're asking how God's perfect goodness, aka omnibenevolence, can be reconciled with the Book of Revelation? That's a very good question. It's not just Revelation...lots of people wonder why or how God can be good, when some HARSH stuff happens on His watch.

    Can you give me a few examples of things in Revelation that you have in mind? It can be a confusing book to discuss because of the heavy metaphor, and I want to make sure I address the things in Revelation you're thinking of.
  • RollingC said on Aug 07, 2008....
    @ Lidstrom....I'm not questioning omni-benevolence of God in any way shape or form but can you interpret some of the things in Revelations?  There's quite a bit that I wonder about.
     Rc
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 07, 2008....
    As a quick intro before I look hardcore into Revelation, the apostle John had a revelation about the end times, which are generally accepted as all the days since Jesus' resurrection and ascension to Heaven, which will culminate in His return.

    The Book of Revelation is, in effect, the entire account of the vision John had. It is a book that has been very controversial...some sects of religion have tried to decipher it, even going so far as to boldly predict an exact date for Jesus' return.

    But the point of Revelation is to explain enough to humanity to let us know how the Antichrist will appear, but more importantly how to resist him. It is a glimpse of what will come to pass. However, what we get out of Revelation is NOT knowing when or how things will end. It's reinforcing a belief in Jesus Christ so that, when calamities hit and the Antichrist reveals himself, we all will have an anchor in Jesus that keeps us from falling to the will of the Antichrist.

    Why would that be such a big deal? Let's just say that between God's love for us, and Satan's hatred for all things God has created (us being at the top of the heap), we're caught in the middle between who we'll serve. Do we reflect in our lives what we think is the essence of God? Or do we divide, question, destroy, and exert a negative influence over others more often than not? I don't believe you have to believe in the devil to do exactly what he wants you to do.

    All this makes it imperative for every person on earth to consider what they believe spiritually about themselves, and the world around them.

    I'll let you guys know when I've looked into Revelation more. :) The thing about the Bible is that it's so deep, it takes more than a lifetime to grasp. I generally find that those who feel they "get it" or know all there is to know about it, are mistaken. The good news is, there's more, and it is life-giving.
  • RollingC said on Aug 07, 2008....
    :^)
    Rc
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 08, 2008....
    I've read Revelation a few times, but haven't studied it in depth. What I get from it is ultimately a vision of a world united, at peace - ultimately a world where humanity's relationship with God and within humanity itself is in harmony.
     
    The vision of the new heaven and the new earth (Rev. 21), the meticulous description of the gleaming city of light, these things circle back to genesis and the description of the tabernacle and temple - God's home on Earth. Here is a vision of the new way - it looks a lot like the original way.
     
    I always found it notable that John's vision depicts a city, not a countryside.
     
    We tend to focus on all of the trial and tribulation in Revelation and ignore the vision of peace when all is said and done. The vision of God's justice comes into question precisely because of this focus on the negative.
     
    It seems to me that to attempt to write a vision of the end of history that did not include human suffering would not only paint God as one-dimensional - how can God possibly be just and good without the existence of injustice and "ungoodness" - it would portray the divine-human experience rather naively.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 08, 2008....
    That's one of the better (though truncated) explainations of Revelations that I've read. Good job Cur.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 08, 2008....
    Yeah cur, great job! The nature of humanity's imperfection has caused brutal consequences over known (and unknown) history, and Revelation paints a picture of the ultimate culmination of God's plans to bring all to Him. Under the new heaven and earth, the dangers of nature are removed, fruit grown from trees near the New Jerusalem will be used to heal the people, and anyone left outside, it appears, are only outside because they do not wish to follow God. Anyone who does, though, will have the peace that God promises in Revelation.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 08, 2008....
    lidstrom, i'm referring specifically to the tribulation. :>

    ed
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 08, 2008....
    silver - again, focusing on the tribulation without seeing the light at the end doesn't do justice to God's...justice.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 08, 2008....
    from your POV, sure. curm, tribulation states that god created the vast majority of the human race with the express knowledge that he would be consigning them to eternal torment. because that's what the tribulation is: the select few being rescued as the rest of the world goes quite literally to hell.

    reconciling that with anything remotely resembling omnibenevolence is more than mildly tricky. this is a pretty significant stumbling block, wouldn't you say? frankly, your answer leaves me wholly unsatisfied as i believe you're turning a blind eye to the countless millions who god created knowing full well there was never any chance that they would ever be anything but fuel for an infinite fire at the end times.

    let's say the 144000 figure quoted in revelations is taken metaphorically rather than literally--you hardly strike me as a fundamentalist, after all. let's say the figure was provided to indicate "very, very small number of people".

    that still leaves almost all of the 6 billion people on this planet right now, and all the billions through human history, out in the cold, no?

    ed
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 08, 2008....
    You bring up good points about the tribulation, silver, especially about the nature of this problem. It indeed is not easy.
    With that said, don't hang your hat on the 144,000 figure of those saved. Revelation goes on to explain another group of people, too numerous to count, of all nations, tongues, and cultures, praising God. That group is more indicative of those saved than the 144,000.
    About the tribulation...it is one attempt of interpretation of the Book of Revelation; it is not the widespread, accepted view of the end times for the Christian church.
    Therefore, I don't find that view of most of the 6 billion people on earth, right now, and all those in the past, are left in the cold. That's a stab in the dark, silver...not by you, but more so what the "144,000" number train of thought would lead us to think. I don't find it very accurate at all. That's what we get for trying to understand metaphor!
    And that's what curm is trying to get to - focusing on the destruction to come means that we are dreading a possible, horrible death...and not focusing on the one thing that can meet us after death - salvation by Jesus. If you're firm in what you believe, you really don't have anything to lose, no matter when or how you died. If I get caught in the calamities to come and get murdered by the antichrist himself, I know that ultimately, God will avenge my death, and the deaths of all the saints and martyrs.
    As far as omnibenevolence, that is a very tricky thing. If you were God and created humanity to love them and share all you created with them, and you knew that one million people would love you, and 2 million would reject you no matter what you said or did for them...given all that, what would you do? Kill them on the spot because they would disobey? Or perhaps you'd refrain from creating humanity at all, because a portion of them would never follow you?
    If life truly is a gift, then I am glad for the time I have. Maybe some people are a lost cause, and God knows that. But if He's giving us time to turn back to Him, not giving up on us, then that gives a very viable reason (backed up by the Bible) how God could be all knowing and all loving, and yet still there will be people who will suffer because of their own conscious decision to defy God.
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 08, 2008....

    Silver - I'm not ignoring the tribulation, nor am I minimizing the suffering. I'm saying that we can't question God's justice unless we take the full story into account - and that means looking ahead.

    The more I read through Revelation, the more I see the Old Testament - The Seven Plagues (Exodus), the fall of Babylon (Ezra), the 144,000 (Isaiah, the Stump of Jesse).

    If you're going to question God's justice (or benevolence), a far more astute question is why God would put the children of the Covenant through all that?!?

    I mean, forget the non-believers for a moment. Abraham's people went through some real hard times! Generation after generation, their populations were starved, conquered, oppressed, exiled, enslaved, decimated, you name it, they went through it. If anything, God is far more cruel to God's own people than to anyone else, considering the suffering they endured. The point of it all is that even through all the suffering, the anger, the forgetfulness, the arrogance, they kept turning back to God

    In Revelation, John is foretelling the hard times the Christians will go through as well, which of course they did, even through the fall of the Roman Empire and beyond. Unless we hold on to that vision of what can be - that light we know is on the other side of those big storm clouds - indeed, better to throw in with the Beast. At least you get to have some fun while God sorts out which 144,000 to call up.

  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 08, 2008....
    Ok, so I did not read all as it is really late and I am tired and there has been a lot written, but I need to write on what I have read thus far.  First, we talk of tribulation as if it is a period that is to happen and forget that it has happened and continues to happened.  Go to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Centuries and tell the Christians there that they haven't suffered the tribulation.  Tribulation by definition is:

    1. Great affliction, trial, or distress; suffering
    2. An experience that tests one's endurance, patience, or faith.

    Could this not apply to anyone who has suffered and/or died for their faith?  Jesus suffered tribulation as did Paul, John, Peter, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Andrew, Thomas, Simon the Zealot, etc.  All of these people suffered and most of them died for their belief in Jesus.  How about Martyrs throughout the centuries...did they not suffer tribulation.

    ON THE ANTICHRIST - where in Revelation do you hear of the Antichrist?  Caution to those who want to pull out Revelation 13 and beyond.  In those chapters you hear of "the Beast" not the Anti-Christ.   Antichrist is a term that is exclusively used in the letters of John (i.e., 1 John).  It is never used in Revelation.  People assume that the Antichrist mentioned in John is that of the same ilk as the Beast in Revelation.  But that could be a mistake.

    In 1 John 2:18, the author writes "Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come."  and also 1 John 4:3 "But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here."

    Many scholars understand this to be the author's reflection against those in his group who left as a result of theological differences.  The author of the text writes, "These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us. But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you His Spirit, and all of you know the truth. So I am writing to you not because you don't know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist." (1 John 2:19-22).  In context, it is not clear that the antichrist of 1 John is the same as "The Beast" of Revelation.  Also, Beasts in apocalyptic writings (such as that of Daniel and Revelation) typically represent nations/empires as opposed to individuals.

    Well, I am tired and I am sure that I am forgetting something, but I will leave it here for now...lol!  Good night all!

  • silverwhisper said on Aug 09, 2008....
    lidstrom: what's the scriptural citation for that other passage of revelation? i'd like to see that passage for myself. as to whether or not the tribulation is/isn't the predominant interpretation: the largest american congregation is the southern baptist convention. i know the baptists believe in it, esp the fundamentalists in their number--and we both know that's not a small percentage, either.

    curm: with respect, i believe that revelation is addressing the whole of humanity. indeed, christianity (john 3: 16) is predicated upon the redemptive power of the sacrifice of jesus to have life eternal--if i do not believe that christ died to expiate the sins of humanity, i cannot call myself a christian, now can i? therefore, all i'm saying here is that those who do not have life eternal will perish. that's necessarily the flip side of john 3: 16, and revelation is simply building on that, AFAICT.

    ed
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 09, 2008....
    Silverwhisper: True.  But all Christians believe in the tribulation.  The question is not does tribulation exist, but when and how does the tribulation exist.  Fundamentalist Southern Baptists and those that follow their theology believe in a 7 year tribulation that only those who don't believe in Jesus will suffer.  The Christians will have been "raptured" in order to avoid the tribulation.  During that 7 year period more and more people will come to know Christ, but will have to endure great suffering on account of the Antichrist, the false Prophet and his cronies.

    But, where can you find that in any one book in the Bible?  Is it in Revelation?  If so, please tell me where the widespread rapture of Christians is to be found in that book.  I have read it many times and have yet to come across it.  If one wants to say that the Rapture is in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and/or in Matthew 24, how is it that we tie that into what the author (a different author) of Revelation is saying.  Paul's letter to the Thessalonians does speak of the rapture to happen at the end times, but that verse much more parallels with Revelation 19...which is post-Tribulation.  As for Matt. 24, this verse neither confirms nor supports the pre-Tribulation theory.  Also, Jesus' return is called the 2nd Coming...but if he sneaks down "like a thief in the night" to steal away all of the not-so-good "Good" Christians to spare them from the Tribulation, then really his second coming becomes his third coming.  Also, what makes today's generations of Christians worthy of being raptured to avoid suffering?  Paul wasn't that lucky.  None of the apostles were that lucky.  Nor were the early martyrs.  Nor was Joan of Arc, or Tyndale or Servetus or Luther.  Each of these and more suffered great tribulation.

    One of the more leading interpretations of Revelation is that it was written by John of Patmos (not necessarily the Apostle).  He get's the name "of Patmos" because in Rev. he states that that is his place of exile.  The debate of authorship is not a new one as Revelation almost didn't make it into the New Testament Canon. 

    Anyway, this John (whether he is the Apostle or not) was writing to people in his day and age about stuff that was relevant to them.  He wrote and Apocalypse, which is encoded writing.  It is encoded so that unintended readers (such as the Romans) couldn't pick it up and understand it.  Those who to whom John was writing would have been able to read the text and understand it's secret meaning.  Apocalypse is the Greek word for Revelation and it means "revealed."

    Let's take the number 666.  People have been guessing for centuries what this number stands for and who it represents.  People have suggested Hitler and the like.  But many scholars tend to have a different understanding of this number.  One of the more prominent theories is that 666, as numerology is hugely important in apocalyptic writing, stands for Kaisar Neron , aka Nero.  Now, at the time of Revelation's writing, Nero was long dead; however, he represented the worst of the Roman empire as he had launched a terrible and bloody persecution against Christians...and was the direct result of the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome.

    Here is why many scholars (historical critical scholars) feel this way.  The author states: "Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is 666..." (Revelation 13:18).  If you take the Greek letters that make up Kaisar Neron and use the corresponding Hebrew letters along with their assigned numerical value you end up with the number 666.  This may seem confusing, but the Hebrew language did not have a number system.  Each letter represents a number.  So here is the calculation:
    • Resh = 200
    • Samekh = 60
    • Qoph = 100
    • Nun = 50
    • vav = 6
    • Resh = 200
    • Nun = 50
    200 + 60 + 100 + 50 + 6 + 200 + 50 = 666

    John, according to many scholars, was referring to the Emperor of Rome when using the number 666.  Christians in that day and age were not allowed to buy or sell anything, they were not permitted to meet and worship unless they openly and publicly made sacrifice to the king of kings and lord of lords.  That, of course, was the emeror's title and it is no mistake that it ends up as being Jesus' title in Revelation.  Now John wasn't  referring only to Nero, but was using Nero (through 666) as a representative for all Roman Emperors.  The emperors considered themselves to be living gods and demanded worship from all their subjects.  When the Christians refused they were forbidden to buy or sell anything and were driven underground where the risk of being caught and beaten or killed was high.  This is not to say that Revelation has nothing to do with the future...it does.  But it has just as much to do with the past.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 09, 2008....
    hey mulgere, thank you for the in-depth discussion of Revelation, and the points you bring forth. It offers a lot of clarity to a book that's not easy to understand.

    silver, in Revelation chapter 7, it mentions the servants marked with the seal of God, from the twelve tribes of Israel -each with 12,000 people, times twelve, equaling 144,000.

    And then in chapter 7, verse 9, right after this, it says:

    "After this I saw a vast crowd, too great to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language, standing in front of the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes and held palm branches in their hands. And they were shouting with a mighty shout, 'Salvation comes from our God who sits on the throne and from the Lamb.' (Jesus)

    Then an elder asks John who the people are clothed in white. John says that the elder knows better than he would, and the elder says, "these are the ones who died in the great tribulation. They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white."

    Let me clarify, silver. I am not questioning the Tribulation as far as what the widespread church believes, I'm sorry that I didn't explain that very well. :) I don't question the Tribulation, but I do question the Rapture. I got my terms mixed up.

    Why? Well, think of it this way: if a number of people too great to count in the verse above died in the tribulation, why would God whisk away a special number of people in a Rapture event? In other words, when the great tribulation started, why would some be taken up in the Rapture, while countless others were left to die in it? It' s a question that begs the rapture to be explained in Scripture, and as mulgere says, we've yet to find it.

    It is established that sinful man cannot dwell with God unless made clean and spotless by Jesus; therefore, the crowd of countless people in Revelation, who are standing in front of the throne in front of the Lamb, aka Jesus, are people who died on earth in the great tribulation and have reached the destination of worshiping Jesus.

    How long is the tribulation? Good question...could be the last years of the End Times, could be the entire time between Jesus' resurrection and when He returns. Honestly, I personally believe that some of Revelation has already come to pass, because these are the End Times. I can't say exactly what point we're at now in the book of Revelation, but as Jesus could return at any moment, and the Antichrist could be revealed in subtler ways than we think, the point is to turn to God BEFORE those things come to pass.

    One more thing to consider - the dragon in Revelation is clearly referred to as Satan, or the devil...and the beast rising out of the sea, whose fatal wound is miraculously healed, is who I believe to be the Antichrist. A second beast comes up from the Earth, and requires all who "belong to the earth," aka all who praise themselves or things rather than God, to worship the beast from the sea. I believe this second beast to be the false prophet of the Antichrist.  The above is from Revelation chapter 12 and 13, and as far as Satan, the antichrist, and the false prophet...

    "And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast - miracles that deceived all who had accepted the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur." Revelation 19:20

    And then...

    "Then the devil, who had deceived them (the nations of the world), was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." - Revelation 20:10

    Sounds pretty intense for punishment, perhaps..but then again, Satan openly declared war on God's people in Revelation 12:17. Not a smart thing to defy the Creator of the universe.

    Several destructions come upon the population of the earth in Revelation, weeding and pruning those who have followed the devil, or the antichrist. I believe these serve the purpose of opening the eyes of the survivors to turn to God in order to avoid the remaining wrath.

    How can people know about God in the midst of all this? I believe the answer lies (and has remained) in the book we've been quoting all this time, the bestselling book of all time...the Word of God. 
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 09, 2008....
    "How can people know about God in the midst of all this? I believe the answer lies (and has remained) in the book we've been quoting all this time, the bestselling book of all time...the Word of God."

    Yes, the Word of God and this Word is spoken in more ways than just the obvious way.  In John 1, the author writes that the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us...this was in reference to Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God.  Jesus, when he came said that his followers would be sent the Paraclete (which is Greek for comforter, intercessor and/or advocate).  The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit and Jesus encouraged his disciples and followers not to fear persecution.  He said that the Holy Spirit would be speaking through them and that they would not need to know what to say in response to judges, rulers, etc.  The words that would be coming from there mouths would be God's Words not their own.

    Now, when I read that passage in Mark 13:11, I see witness as another means of conveying God's Word.  Jesus was not just instructing the 12 who were to be come the Apostles...rather he was teaching his disciples who were much larger in number.  There were the 12 disciples, they were the inner circle so-to-speak, but they were not, by far, the only disciples Jesus had.  Jesus was instructing them to go into the world and teach the good news (Matthew 28)...making disciples of all who choose to listen to the message.  Those disciples were supposed to do the same...etc.  And the Holy Spirit would be speaking through them, it would not be them speaking.

    Now some could say, "How convenient, say anything you want and no one can refute you because 'The Holy Spirit' said it."  But anyone who says that is largely missing the point.  The Christians were not the one's in power, they were the oppressed...the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God/Christ amongst his people...God has never failed his people even when they are suffering tribulation.  Tribulation is always caused by people, not God, and it is always directed at those who refuse to conform to society as a result of their faith.  God's presence is always with us.  Now with that said, through his suffering and constant passion for Christ, Paul was a witness of the Word of God.  He was a "living and holy sacrifice" (Romans 12:1).  So were the other apostles and there disciples and all who have denied themselves, picked up their crosses and followed Jesus.

    Tall order?  Sure, but what an honor to be a vessel for the living Word of God.  People will know God in the midst of Tribulation because of Christians' witness of God's presence amongst us.  Because of God's Words being lived, not just spoken or read, but lived by those who are God's witnesses!
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 09, 2008....
    By the way, lidstrom, you are welcome and I wanted to shout out an AMEN to you too while I am at it.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 10, 2008....
    WOW mulgere...just wow. That is some mighty great stuff you said there. 
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 10, 2008....
    Lidstrom: Your comment is appreciated.  All praise be to God my fellow thoughtful Christian dude!
  • RollingC said on Aug 10, 2008....
    Thank you.  You're inspiring me back to reading the Bible again. I hope to learn yet again to live and to love. There was always a message for me when I read it before. I look forward to more inspirations. 
     
    Amen
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 11, 2008....
    Silver - "therefore, all i'm saying here is that those who do not have life eternal will perish. that's necessarily the flip side of john 3: 16, and revelation is simply building on that, AFAICT.
     
    Again, you're judging this based on a negative focus and not on the whole picture.
     
    Even so, is it your feeling that because you don't accept Christ, God is somehow unjust that you shall not likely be among the 144,000? Is the United States unjust because certain benefits are conferred upon its citizens and not upon those who aren't?
     
    It's YOUR choice to accept Christ or not. The invitation is open to everyone. I don't see the sense in crying foul if you knowingly refuse it. The forecast is for rain. You're headed home. You can get on the bus, or you can walk. If you walk, will you blame God when the rain comes and you get wet? Why does it have to rain when so many people get wet, catch cold and maybe even die as a result? What kind of "good" is a God who makes it rain, especially when I don't want to take the bus?
     
    Judgment is predicated on everyone making a choice, one way or another.
     
    You may ask why you won't be one of the 144,000 even if you've lived a morally "good" life, or why there has to be a separation, especially among those who've never heard of Jesus Christ (actually, there are few places on the planet where this is true anymore). As you point out in John 3:16, simply living a moral life isn't the entire point. "All who believe in Him shall not perish;" Neither is salvation merely a reward for faith. Salvation also entails responsibility - we are saved for fulfilling God's will for God's People on Earth every bit as much as we are saved from the coming judgment.
     
    Given that standard, I may not be among the 144,000, either. Most Christians will also be left out, given that there are two billion of us now.
     
    I guess I don't require assurance of salvation from whatever tribulation may come (great points, mulgere) because at this point I'm focused on how I live my life in the present. I've been through tribulations and God has seen me through every one. Though I may die and be condemned, I still believe that God will be with me.
     
    Revelation utlimately reiterates the belief that God will see us through even the most violent, destructive, and most overwhelming of struggles. 
     
    Yes, I understand, this is unsatisfying, because you're focused on those left out. I'm unsatisfied with God's response to Job on the question of suffering. But for myself, that's not grounds for severing the relationship.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 11, 2008....
    Yo curm, check out my quotation of Revelation chapter 7, verse 9...it all but establishes that there will be MORE than 144,000 saved, because a countless number of people who died in the tribulation are mentioned. It is right after the breakdown of the 144,000, 12,000 each coming from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 11, 2008....
    RollingC: I think we all definitely have work in the living and loving department.

    lidstrom: You are correct. 144,000 is a symbolic number.  I do not want to put words into Curm's mouth, but I do think he is meaning to take the number literally, but is rather just using the number since it is found in the book we are discussing.  You are right though, that is certainly not a number to be taken literally as some people do.  144,000 is a reference of 12 tribes of Israel times 12,000 people per tribe.  12 is one of Revelation's author's favorite numbers.  He also refers to the 24 elders.  Well, 24 comes from 12 (tribes) + 12 (apostles).  His other favorite numbers are 3, 4 and 7.  Knowledge of Ancient-World Numerology is certainly a huge factor in deciphering Revelation.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    The 144,000 is not a symbolic number, it is a literal number.  It however is clealry not the total number of people who are going to be allowed into heaven as Lid as pointed out.  It is instead a number (seemingly from amongst the Jews though to be fair there wasn't a distinction between Jew and Christian at the time this book was written) that will be chosen from amongst the tribes of Isreal.  It is not the total sum of those allowed in.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I'm not sure why 144,000 are set apart from the countless number that died in the tribulation, but it does seem odd that the careful explanation of that number, from 12,000 people per tribe of Israel, would end up being a figurative number. I think an influence behind thinking of 144,000 as figurative is because people consider it the total number of people saved (which it isn't), and simply want it to mean more people...religious skeptics would certainly point out how awful that would be: if God is so great, why are only 144,000 people saved out of the  billions that have ever lived?

    I think the best way to go is for us to read Revelation at that point and see if we can discover the purpose those 144,000 were set apart for.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I'll go re-read but I've never seen any reason in the Bible to think that when a specific number, location or action is mentioned that it means anything but that.  If it says 144,000 it means 144,000.  If God meant a lot he would have said "as many as stars int he sky, pebbles of sand on the beach, blades of grass in the field, leaves in the forest.  Etc.  When God means LOTS and LOTS he seems to say LOTS and LOTS.  I don't recall why the 144,000 were set apart for a special purpose though and again it must be stressed that Jews and Christians may very well be interchangable (or it could refer specifically to Jews.) it's one of the difficult parts of translating prophesy is you have to weigh "these guys didn't know what the future held" against "these guys are talking about future events and must have known what would happen"
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Good point man, I know that just as God set the tribes of Israel apart from the other peoples and nations on Earth, I wonder if the 144,000 were set apart for a special purpose as well. I tend to believe that the number is literal...it makes me wonder - were they the saints? Martyrs? People who were blameless in God's eyes and placed on Earth to aid other believers during the tribulation? Those are all guesses, by the way. But you're right Sean, numbers tend to be either exact, or a metaphor is used to convey a gigantic number.
    One other thing is to consider the dimensions of the New Jerusalem that descends at the end of Revelation. A city that size could easily hold a multitude of people, much more than 144,000, and much more capable of holding "countless numbers."
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 12, 2008....
    While I appreciate all of the detailed analysis, I'm not so concerned as to what the exact number in Revelation might be. I was trying to bring home the point that God will choose who God chooses. The number may be larger or may be even smaller than we think, or the cutoff may indeed be 144,000. That part is not up to me.
     
    What is up to me is how I live my life in relationship with God and with my neighbors. What have I been saved for is a bigger question for me than what shall I be saved from.
     
    The world has been though many, many tribulations since the writing of Revelation. Quite frankly, the world had been through many many tribulations prior to the writing of Revelation. And the world will in all likelihood go through many tribulations after we all are gone.
     
    Still, so long as people ponder the scriptures and proclaim the good news, the vision of the City of Light, the hope that one day all humanity will live in harmony with God and at peace with itself, will remain.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I largely agree with you, curm. The reason behind the detailed analysis is 1) because silver asked about God's omnibenevolence as related to the tribulation, and 2) because we want a better understanding of the Scriptures.
    This is where I think the 144,000 number is important to distinguish, if possible: some people might actually be turned off toward following God if they are told or think that only 144,000 people in history will be in Heaven. We know this to be false, because the next verse after this accounts a countless number of people from all nations and tongues in white robes, who died in the tribulation and are now praising God.
    If I thought about being a Christian and figured that all but 144,000 were screwed, I'd think twice. THAT is why it's important to define what this is...because although your own knowledge is good enough for you to believe, curm...others may get hung up on numbers that imply a strict, almost impossible standard to live up to to GET to Heaven. That's not the case, but it's easy to misinterpret the 144,000.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Sean, are you claiming to be a Biblical Scholar, or to have studied such scholars?  If you think that a literal 144,000 is the only valid interpretation then I don't know what to tell you. Revelation 12:3 says "Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads."  Would you presume to interpret that literally?  The literalist cannot escape that apocalyptic writings are not meant to be taken literally.  Rather, they are encoded.  Numbers in apocalyptic writing almost ALWAYS, if not ALWAYS, represent something other than themselves.  The number 666 is a good example of that.  Also, The Great Whore of Bablyon is another example:

    A mysterious name was written on her forehead: "Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World." I could see that she was drunk--drunk with the blood of God's holy people who were witnesses for Jesus. I stared at her in complete amazement. "Why are you so amazed?" the angel asked. "I will tell you the mystery of this woman and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns on which she sits. The beast you saw was once alive but isn't now. And yet he will soon come up out of the bottomless pit and go to eternal destruction. And the people who belong to this world, whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made, will be amazed at the reappearance of this beast who had died. "This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief. "The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer, is the eighth king. He is like the other seven, and he, too, is headed for destruction. The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast. They will all agree to give him their power and authority. Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because He is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And His called and chosen and faithful ones will be with Him." Then the angel said to me, "The waters where the prostitute is ruling represent masses of people of every nation and language.
    (Rev 17:5-15 NLT)

    This text is not talking about a literal number of Kings or a literal beast with a literal prostitute riding on it.  It is not talking about a literal number of horns on top of the beasts head.  The most literal number to be found here is the seven hills from which the prostitute rules.  Those seven hills represent ROME and you would think that to be obvious except that the translators have made it such.  The original Greek can be translated to mean mountains.  Now, while Rome is the city on seven hills, it is not the city on seven mountains.  This ambiguity, while not as impressive as some of the other symbolism in Revelation, is still a sign that the author was writing something that was meant to be encoded for only certain audiences to fully understand.  This is also a part of the problem with modern interpretations of the book. We are so removed from the time it was written that a lot of the interpretations of the symbolism can only be conjecture.  666 is the classic example of a number that was probably obvious to a few "wise" ones in John's world, but is now uncertain to us.  I think the Nero theory makes the most sense, but again, who's to say.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I'm claiming to be someone who has read the Bible multiple times, and even "read" some of the more literal translations from the original languages.  The fact is that we are debating over a fairy tale, I'm doing to the benefit of pretending it's actually real.  At that point there is absolutely no reason to believe that 144,000 means anything but.  When the Bible is speaking in metaphor it makes certain to be obvious about that.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Sean, a fairy tale that should be taken literally?  Interesting.  The fact is that it is in your interest to interpret it literally because that makes it all the more easy to debunk.  I have read, multiple times, the Origin of Species.  But that no more makes me a expert on Darwinian evolution than your multiple readings of the Bible makes you a Biblical Scholar.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Well to be fair the Origin of Species is badly outdated.  You should try something less than one hundred years old.  So unless there is a NEW more accurate Bible then your comparasin is assinine at best.
     
    Also most people translate the Bible literally all the way up until it become inconvienient to do so.  Then it suddenly becomes metaphor.  But for the sake of entertainment give one good reason why the 144,000 shouldn't mean just what it claims?  144,000 who are somehow set aside for a special purpose.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    By the way Curm.  You are right.  God chooses whom God chooses. That is all that counts in the end.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Also most people translate the Bible literally all the way up until it become inconvienient to do so.

    Sean, this just furthers your agenda.  Where do you pull your stats from?  How do you know how the MAJORITY interpret the Bible.  Is the majority you speak of the majority of evangelicals, the majority of mainline denominations, the majority of roman catholics?  Or are you lumping all of these groups and more together?  It is awfully presumptuous, and non-evidential I might add, for you to throw around over-reaching statements that fall under their own weight.  Also, your example makes no sense.  The Bible, according to you, IS AN OUTDATED fairy tale.  Yet, it is convenient for you to make like it isn't so that, in the end, you can knock it down and say that it is. Come on, man!  If you want to check out Biblical Scholars, like REAL Biblical Scholars--not just people blogging opinions on the internet--look up people like Stephen Harris, Frank J. Matera, I. Howard Marshall (an evangelical Biblical Scholar), etc.  These are the people to be reading if you sincerely take an interest in Biblical Scholarship.  But I am guessing that you don't have a genuine interest in scholarship...just in debunking the Bible altogether.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Hmm...I think we're just starting to get into the point where curmudgeon was right...getting into a battle over whose sources or beliefs are "right and "wrong", and how to interpret things "correctly" is going to get us off focus. Mulgere, to Sean the truth is that the Bible is a fairy tale. To us, the truth is quite different: that the Bible is only a fairy tale to people who consider it such. It's only as vital to us as we allow it to be. If Sean wants to be a big fish in his own pond, then so be it.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    The Bible is long since debunked.  The work that is left is rediculing those who believe in it to the point that they no longer control the world.  I mean America, odd how most industrial nations are secular. 
     
    Just because it's a bunch of fairy tales doesn't make it any less interesting btw.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Well Sean, when radical Islam forces open the door into the western world, left ajar by an increasingly secular society, you'll get your wish of the Bible's lessened influence, and receive the Koran instead. :)
    That is, of course, unless America holds fast to its principles and upholds its religious freedom.
    Plus Sean, you are a smart guy, but I have to be honest - even if the Bible's influence ebbs, it will outlast the lifetimes of its staunchest critics, including you. Besides, ridicule doesn't work as well as other methods of discussion or persuasion. The Bible has impacted many people's lives much more than mockery ever can, and that's why the Bible endures.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Sean, I am amazed at your complete unwillingness to see the irony behind your statements.  If you are interested in how the supposed fairy tales are interpreted, check out some of the names I mentioned above.  But even if I were to cede that the entire Bible, including the Book of Esther which mostly recounts historical fact (about Xerxes and the Persian Empire of the time...of course from a Jewish perspective) and makes no mention of God AT ALL, that does not debunk what you ultimately want to debunk.  Now, lets for the sake of argument say that you are right...that the bible is, in its entirety, a bunch of fairy tales; I still say that fairy tales are often written to convey some sort of inherent truth.  The fairy tales themselves might be silly when taken literally, but there are truths behind them that are far less silly.  So, even if you are right, and I do not for one minute consider that you are, your conclusions do not lead, logically, to the Bible being untruthful.  Unfactual and untruthful are two different things.  Now, the Bible has all forms of styles and writings in it.  Some of the stories are written to be fairytales, some parables, some poems, some history, some law, etc.  To ignore the major differences book to book let alone section of book to section of book is crazy.  The new testament largely represents a people in correspondence with eachother on the topic of human beings relationship with God.   The Gospels make for only one part of the New Testament, Revelation makes for a small fraction...the majority of the New Testament are letters.  Now are you going to call letters "fairy tales?"  If you want to turn to the Gospels which parts would call fairy tales?  Perhaps the miracles.  Perhaps some of the historical inconsistencies?  If you would do this, would you do it at the exclusion of the historical consistencies?  Would you call the existence of Pontius Pilate, or King Herod, or Herod Anitpas, or the Pharisees or the Sadduccees?  Would you call the existence of Jesus a fairy tale?  Or the existence of his followers who were quite convinced of his messiahship?  Or the fact that Rome saw him as a threat of insurrection?  Or the fact that he was crucified?  Now if you are one of those who deny the existence of the historical Jesus, or entertain such an idea, then this debate is over because there is historical evidence of Jesus' existence (and not just Josephus).  Anyway, again even if it were all fairy tales as you like to think, that does not mean that it does not convey truth.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I agree lidstrom...the fact is that ridicule is something you do toward something you fear.  If the Bible was something you knew to be fairy tales, it wouldn't be worth the breath in ridicule.  The fact is that many people find truth with in the pages of the Bible and that scares some people.  But the fact that some people are scared and irked by that does not change the fact that many people do, and will continue to, find ultimate truth with in the pages of the Bible.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Well the only tool that has been shown to be more effective than redicule is mass murder.  Europe got it's shit together practically over night.  Too bad they swung too far but hopefully they'll find their way.  Also wether or not it's influence will outlast it's critics is a matter of what you consider it's influence.  If you are saying we'll still be celebrating Christmas and Easter 500 years from now I'm inclined to agree.  If you're claiming that 30 years from now we'll still be denying gays the right to marry, that we'll be debating evolution vs creationism vs creationism 2.0 (ie. Inteligent Design) I highly doubt it.  So it deepens on your POV.  The Bible endured because any opposition to it was put to the sword, or worse all th way up until terribly recent times.  Same reason that Islam has endured.  Say what you want about "Western" values but I'll be damned if Europeans don't wage a damned good war.  Historically Europe and the west have only lost a handful of wars to non western nations.  (and some of those are up to debate like Vietnam.  We had less casualties and held more land than the enemy in the end, but we left and thus "lost"  Similar to what seems will happen in Iraq.)  Even in America both the slaves and the indians were forcibly changed from their native religions to that of their conquerors.  Make no mistake, if the predominant religion in England had been Norse when the US was formed and the sun never set on the English Empire then everybody would worship Thor and fear Loki.  Anyway.
     
    I would go as far as to call Jesus's existance period a fairy tale.  But I don't have to.  There is terribly little point in such an attack because you can't prove a negative, you just prove that there aren't any direct references but he was in a backwater provence.  It's like if Jesus popped up today in New Guinea, he could live there for 35 years and be put to death pretty much without anybody ever hearing about him.  A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  It is obvious that the Bible has many historical references, and in many cases is actually historic (Just like the Trojan War actually happened but I remain skeptical about Achilles, or that this war was actually fought of a woman and not over, gold, land, a river, a port, something of worth.  *I mean that in the least sexist way possible btw*)  But the Trojan War being factual doesn't validate Greek Mythology nor does the Battle of Thermopolie (300 the movie) validate the existance of Hercules as the ancestor of the Spartans.
     
    I completely agree that great beauty and great morals can be found in fairy tales.  Particularly in fables.  The boy who cried wolf, the ant and the grasshopper, the tortise and the hare, the Gingerbreadman, even the three little pigs has important morals to live by.  A story being fictional in no way diminishes from the value of the messages held with in.  Jurrasic Park is fiction but it's still a cautionary tale that just because you can doesn't mean you should.  (Terminator and the Matrix are similar cautionary tales I would argue) "With Great Power comes great responsibility" Spiderman's Uncle Ben.  I could go on but I'm begining to bore myself which is rare. Point is that a story being a story doesn't detract from it's usefulness as a teaching tool.
     
    In all due respect MH are wrong, and even make my point in your post.  I normally would say no, you don't redicule things you fear.  You stay away from things you fear and mock things that can do you no harm.  So maybe you're right maybe the Bible does scare me.  As well it should.  I could talk about historical wrongs done in the name of the Bible but what's the point?  There is none.  Let's talk about right now. 
     
    Let's talk about the fact that AIDS prevention that involves condoms was cut off because Christians can't support birth control.
     
    Let's talk about how many years behind we are getting in medical research because we can't experiment with stem cells.
     
    Let's talk about how many children die each year because if God cared he'd spare them and if not he's calling them.  (Which to be fair is always one of the subjects I leave alone because I don't have a good argument either way.  It does seem to hold to logic that if you have faith you should be healed.  You shouldn't need to use science, but then assuming he has ultimate control why did he let us discover x,y,z but then apparently he isn' tin complete control because he let us discover abortions.  Whatever makes my head go spinny cus it's just a dog chasing it's tail debate.)
     
    Let's talk about the fact that around the world (with America as an arguable exception to the rule) religion=poverty, secular=prosperity. 
     
    Let's talk about the fact that by it's very nature religion discourages questions and because of this slows progress (though this is only really true when the two but heads.)  A good example is pork.
     
    In the old testament (and to Jews and Muslims) pork is unclean, you don't eat it.  Now we know today that there is a common sense reason for this, pigs have worms that are difficult to kill without proper cooking methods.  It was important to keep people from eating pork for their own good.  That wasn't true even 2000 years ago.  We'd learned enough about cooking meet that Jesus pretty much said knock that shit right out your head (I don't feel like quoting directly at the moment) but the rules had changed.  How many other rules that are in the Bible no longer logically apply to our world because of advances we've made?
     
    You can of course side with ALIEN and interpret "if your right eye causes you to sin tear it out and I say to you if you look upon a woman with lust you have already adultered in your heart" as looking at beautiful naked women is ok because I believe in Jesus and I'm weak and uh. . .uh . . .uh that's not literal.  It means uh. . .uh. . .uh.  It means I hate it when non-christians try to tell me what in the Bible!  That's what it means.
     
    I wish we could blame the philosphy of let who is without sin cast the first stone on Christians, but honestly christians don't seem to have much trouble pointing fingers, its liberals who are screaming that George Bush can't criticize China's mass murder of baby girls, a policy of infantcide can't be criticized because. . .we're less than perfect.  But atleast that someone else's fault though the philosphy is the same.
     
    So yeah maybe it does scare me, as any time you get enough people together living their life based on falsehoods that they can control MY life.  Who was it that that is largely respected for having Bush in office.  Give you a hint, it wasn't agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Hindus, Buhdists, Jedi, or Taoist.  I'll even narrow it down and say it wasn't wiccans.
     
    Oh and there is no reason to believe that a world ruled by fundamental Muslims would be any worse than a world ruled by fundamental Christians.  Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Hunts mean anything to you?  Fact is that the only reason Christians aren't like that today is that  half of the people claiming to be Christian are just that.  Claiming to be Christian.  Going to Church on Easter and Christmas doesn't make you a Christian.  I go more often than that *it's simply not worth the fight I have to through not to spend an hour or two two to three times a year in chruch.  Even though I find it grossly disrespectful it doesn't physically hurt me so or anybody else so whateve* a few more pick and choose what they want to believe and when (ALIENated stands out for this) and then there are real believers but aside from the occasional election they are so grossly out numbered as to be harmless.  But a TRUE Christian majority has historically been just as caustic as Islam and both are benign when there are enough non believers to say.  BWAhahahahaha, you believe the world is 6000 years old?  Go sit in the corner and think abou-bwahahahahaha!  Dino-ha-dinosarus were put in the ground to confuse us and make us not believe?!  Bwahaha!  No please stop it hurts, laughing like this hurts.  My cheeks'll be sore for hours!
     
     
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I haven't read you in full here Sean...but a mere skim is enough to find some ridiculous and unwarranted statement.  Who said I believe the world is 6,000 years old?  Oh, I get it, everyone takes the Bible literally right?  Wait, what book, what chapter and exactly what verse does it say that the Bible is 6,000 years old?  Bwahahahahaha???  The evil laugh isn't becoming for someone who wants to seem REASONable.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    I will be reading you in full by the way, I am just currently busy being daddy...lol ;^)
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Are you guys done sniping at each other?
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    It's not sniping lidstrom.  I just get a bit put off when I read the most extreme argument put out as the majority opinion in order to "show" knock something down.  To do such is either utterly dishonest, or naive...one of the two.  To claim that the only way to interpret the Bible is literally or to claim that "the majority" of people interpret it that way is simply false.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2008....
    We're actually being rather polite.  I stil lhave most of my claws in even lid. 
     
    Actually the Bible doesn't give an age for the earth, it was devised by calculating the ages of all of the patriarchs.  The Bible is exact on how long each of the ancient Patriarchs lived (and is it Numbers or Deuteronomy, it's been a few years right now) actually covers all of the who begat who.  Let's double the "accepted" Christian number.  Well at least then we are older than Mesopotamia and the first completely provable civilization.
     
    Wait what about the Flood?  We know for a fact that such a thing never happened.  It is likely that there was a localized flood in the Middle East which when your entire world is an area the size the Texas it could SEEM like it was the entire world but it wasn't and the fact that it wasn't would probably become obvious.  Course the Ark is a metaphor right?  It means, lets pick something rediculous.  It meant right books about animals so they would never be forgotten as man kind flooded the earth and over hunted them!  I got it!  :-P.
     
    Oh on the original point though I think nearly everybody agrees that at least assuming the Bible is accurate (Revelations in particular) yes an atheist can get into Heaven assuming he's a good person what ever that happens to mean.  He just has to wait for the end of the world.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Okay, now I've read you in full Sean.  And trust me, I understand your position quite well.  Guess what, I know it scares you that anyone could blindly believe in something.  And I know that it scares you that anyone could manipulate people by holding them captive to "blind" faith and using religion as a tool to control people.  I understand the fear factor in that because it scares me too.  That is how I know.  But with that said, it scares me just as much that some one could so vehemently and blindly use atheism in the name of "science" or whatever as a tool to do the same.  Listen, I do not deny that Christians have done, and continue to do, bad things.  But let's not forget that this is not necessarily a religion thing.  It is a human thing.  Look at how vehemently we debate of these issues.  Lidstrom is right, it comes to a point when we've ceased to be civil and we start sniping each other because we disagree.  And yet, we have largely remained civil being that we aren't calling each other names or assassinating each other's character.  People continue to do bad things, evil things, regardless of whether they believe in God, organized religion, atheism, or whatnot.  

    Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Hunts mean anything to you?

    Sure!  Does Communist Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Tietman Square, China killing off Tibetan monks as well as China killing off Chinese Christians, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc. mean anything to you?  It is a false premise that the world would be better without religion.  We can sit all day and list all of the terrible things that religion has done.  But we couldn' even begin to see an end to listing all of the good Christianity alone has done, let alone anyother religion.

    On most of your points, I actually agree with you.  Do you even know how many Christians support Stem Cell Research? Same-Sex Marriage? Open-Borders? Women's right to choose?  You cannot lump all Christians together on any issue.  There hasn't been true Christian unity since Jesus was crucified.  The only unity any Christian has ever had with the next is that Jesus is the Christ and the center of their devotion.  Even with the early apostles there were debates over issues.  Paul often disagreed with James and the Christians centered in Jerusalem.  Jewish Christians had it out on many issues with Gentile Christians and vice-versa.  It is false to act as if all, or a majority of, Christians believe anything.  Firstly, it is often true that the minority speak the loudest.  In history this is true as the majority of Christians were poor and powerless in Europe.  The few powerful rulers, who used Christianity as a way of dumbing down the masses, are an exception to the many devout followers of Christ throughout the centuries.  Unfortunately, that exception caused much damage.  And you, and everyone, have a right to be angry about it.  Damn it, I am angry about it!  But that doesn't mean I am angry at Jesus, or that I disavow his teachings because some who claimed to be his followers were actually meglomaniacal villains.

    I also agree with you that if you only go to church once or twice a year, you are wasting your time going at all.  Sure many who consider themselves Christians are largely missing the point of Church altogether...and are largely missing the point of Christianity altogether.  I could say the same thing of those who used atheistic communism as away of establishing totalitarian dicatorships.  They largely missed many of the points Marx made.  Not to mention, that Marx was largely mistaken in some areas of his philosophy.

    Jesus' point on pork was more spiritual than it was practical.  He was battling the legalism of the Pharisaic community.  He was stating that what comes out of a person is more damaging to the person than what goes in.  Perhaps the Pork issue had been resolved (I am not sure if that is the case or not) and they were holding on to tradition for the sake of holding on to it...but Jesus was stirring the pot with his speech, not giving dietary advice.

    Let's talk about the fact that by it's very nature religion discourages questions

    It's not a fact that RELIGION (broad-sweeping) by its very nature discourages questions...quite the opposite.  Jesus encouraged questions.  "Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you" (Mat 7:7 NLT).  Surely, if you have read the Bible multiple times, you would have noticed that the Bible is filled with people asking questions.  Demanding proof.  Pleading for signs.  Questioning God's existence (atheism is not new).  And through all of this, God is patient and understanding. 

    It is a fact that some extreme elements of RELIGION, using fear as a tool, have utilized religion in a way that has kept people from asking questions.  That I could agree with.  But tell me that some extreme elements of atheism haven't done the same thing.  I would say that atheism by its very nature discourages questions.  That would be silly and false.  My knowing that to not be true would make it downright dishonest.

    I am not sure, Sean, what turned you so vehemently against religion.  I have a hunch it isn't stem-cell research, science class, or the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 of which the majority of the accused were devout Christian.  Perhaps it was some personal experience that did it.  God knows I have had my share of them.  I too had turned away from religion as a result of sour experiences.

    No matter what others have done to attain power, they all sorely missed what true power is.  True power, as displayed first by God through Jesus Christ, is the power of forgiveness.  There is no power greater that forgiveness and/or unconditional love.  Humans always have, and always will, fail at that.  The power we seek, ultimately, is no power at all.  That is the Truth I find in the Bible.  I was recently watching the Phantom of the Opera with my kids...the movie version of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical.  Christine could've chosen to hate the Phantom for the rest of her life, as could've Raoul, but they forgave the phantom.  All that the Phantom did to attain power over Christine Daae, the manipulation, the murder, etc. paled in comparison to her single act of forgiveness.  To me that is the message of the Bible...as Jesus puts it better:

    "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." (Mat 22:37-40 NLT)

    Loving your neighbor, including your enemies, is considered equal to loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.  This is what God wants most of all.  People to love each other as he loves us.  There is nothing there forbidding us from questioning, or forbidding us from seeking, or forbidding us from thinking.  This is not a mutually exlcusive New Testament commanment either.   Jesus was quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures when saying the above statement.  Something tells me that this is not what you object against...what you object against is the misuse of religion, or the potential misuse of religion.  And in that we have solidarity.  But that is not a reason to abandon religion.  It is a reason to humble myself before using God's name.

  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Oops...What I meant to say 5 paragraphs from the bottom, is that I WOULDN'T say that atheism by its very nature discourages questions.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 12, 2008....
    Okay, so back to the topic.  I think Curm's original point is correct...God chooses who God chooses.  In character with who I understand God to be, I do think many will be saved by the Grace of God.  This can be supported by Scripture.  God is loving, merciful and forgiving...anyone excepting that from God will not perish.  I firmly believe that.  I am by no means a universalist...but I am an inclusivist.  I think Revelation more than points to inclusivism...and toward many, not all, being ultimately saved in the end.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 13, 2008....

     

    1. We have remained civil, hell even me and ALIEN are usually civil, even when I’m calling him a sheep and he’s calling me a dirty liberal baby killer I’m still 90% sure that if he was neighbor he’d invite me over for a beer and then we’d debate whether NFL was more entertaining that WWE and we’d agree to watch the Super Bowl and Wrestlemania but the rest of the year we’d settle on some tv show we both didn’t hate.  :-P
    2. The fact is that there is a reason why I pointed out a number of destructive beliefs that have their root in Christianity.  I’d like to add on pretty much any South American culture + Catholic values on BC=poverty as a provable equation btw. 
    3. Half of the things that atheists are connected to, Russia, North Koria, Cuba, Tietman Square weren’t done in the name of atheism and thus can’t be compared.  All of the atrocities I named were done in the name of Christianity and some for very little other discernable reason.  No land was gained by the Salem Witch Hunts, you could at least argue that the Inquisition solidified power but it’s a bit of a stretch.  So the comparison is lost.  It’s like saying that modern African American culture isn’t toxic because well white people have killed people too or because there is in fact Barrack Obama and Bill Cosby.  You have to talk about the overwhelming majority.
    4. I take the same argument against your paragraph on Christians who are for liberal social issues as I do when people tell me that the Islam isn’t evil.  I’ll believe it when the next time there is a comic depicting Mohamed that there are MUSLIMS coming out en masse to defend the comics as free speech.  At best the silent majority vociferous (I like that word) claim that you are making suggest the majority at the very least doesn’t tacitly agrees.  My personal opinion is that the silent majority doesn’t think they are wrong, they just believe that the minority is stronger in their faith.  Kinda like Jews that eat pork, they know what they are doing is “wrong” they just don’t give a shit.  Which for me labels you as a hypocrite or a coward if I’m in a good mood.  So I’ll believe that there are Christians even approaching 40% who support the things you claim they do when they start screaming down their insane brethren.  Until then, just like Muslims the majority isn’t taking action for a reason.  Logically have to assume it’s tacit approval.
    5. There really isn’t  point to atheism other than arguably the uplifting of mankind.  Spiritually atheists are decended from the deists of old who believed that there was a God who created the world and then walked away to do something else.  And that was because they didn’t have better answers.  That’s not to say that Marx didn’t have points to be made I’m just saying he didn’t invent nor did he control atheism.  My point here was that there are loads of people who claim Christianity but aren’t (and the same can be said for Islam particularly in the United States) who would more accurately be described as agnostic (and I don’t really believe in agnostics because technically we are all agnostic, nobody knows or can produce solid evidence one way or another) or atheist.  So I wonder what the “actual” numbers of Christians would be if it weren’t unpopular to be atheist/agnostic.
    6. I disagree that Jesus wasn’t giving dietary advice.  And I think the difference in dietary choices between Christians and the other two Abrahamic traditions supports that I’m not alone in this.  Which isn’t to say there wasn’t or might not have been a deeper issue there, (it’s been a while since I read that particular verse).  I really think that sometimes people spend more time trying to twist what Jesus said into something very complex.  He was trying to communicate with “simple” beings.  When he was speaking in metaphor he tried to make it clear.  Take this bread for it is my flesh and this wine for it is my blood.  Silly ideas of substantiation aside this was obviously metaphor.  So in short he may have been talking about something else ALSO but he was clearly saying that this is ok and there was/is a health issue from undercooked pork.  This was a tradition like circumcision that has its roots in sound health issues.  Many of which are no longer valid and some of which weren’t even valid in Jesus’s time.
    7. While I disagree with your point on religion and questions and quantifiable proof I’ll cede that Jesus wasn’t one to discourage questions.  It’s something that has happened to most if not all religions since then.
    8. I would argue that Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi aside loving thy enemy and that other stuff is a suicide pact. Which is fine if you believe there is a reward for you in the afterlife but not if you believe in the “real” world.  The fact is that the religious party that is dominated by Christianity is more likely to live and die by the sword and the side that rejects Christianity (more often as both parties are primarily “Christian”) are the ones who are apt to talk it out and turn the other cheek.  I never could make heads or tails of that.  The people who are sure there is a Heaven are the ones who are going to fight and the ones who don’t would rather not fight.  I suppose logically that makes some sense, I don’t think I’m getting 72 virgins or to sit at the right hand of God when I die.  I don’t want to die.  Religions nearly all of them are focused on getting to a good afterlife.  I suppose looked at that way it makes something that resembles sense.  Not really.  My point is that while I reject that part of Jesus’ teachings there aren’t enough people practicing that for me to be worried.  Kinda like I’ll vote for Ron Paul even though he wants to return to the Gold Standard.  It ain’t happening so no fears.  I could argue that religious people are more likely to fight and die but that would be a stretch even for me.
    9. I agree with your basic view of Revelations btw.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 13, 2008....
    Sean, I agree we've been civil...no doubt.

    Half of the things that atheists are connected to, Russia, North Koria, Cuba, Tietman Square weren’t done in the name of atheism and thus can’t be compared.

    You cannot be serious about this.  Why would Stalin, Marx, etc. care if religion was brought into communism if it wasn't for their dogmatic atheism?  I mean come on.  If you were caught with a Bible or in any religious function of any sort you were shipped to Siberia or worse.  It is highly disingenuous, or naive to think that there hasn't or isn't dogmatic atheists out there who wouldn't do the same or worse damage that dogmatic theists.  Dogmatism is never good no matter who is dogmatic.

    Second, your either/or...black/white thinking is about as narrow as anyone can get.  In number 4 and beyond (I am writing this as I read through) you are setting up a false dichotomy saying that you either believe this or your a liar/hypocrite.  Making fallacious arguments is not a way to wisely debate anyone.  I don't think the liberal Christians are quite as quiet as you'd like to believe...it is just that the vocal minority (the extreme conservative Christians) get the media play...because it is sensational to show the extreme...not so sensational to show the reasonable middle ground.  That is why any debate shown on TV between atheists and Christians is always between the Dawkins and Hitchens types vs. the Denton and the Falwell types.  So you are clearly not think through on this issue and are certainly setting up a false dichotomy.

    Your point in number 5 isn't clear to me.  You don't believe in agnostics because we are all agnostics?  Hmmm.  Intellectually, I only believe in agnostics because we are all agnostics.  Anyone, making any claim that oversteps the boundaries of what they know is doing so with faith.  That is plain and simple.  But we've been down this road and I am almost certain that there is no resolution to it.  It is also true that there are atheists that are not truly atheists.  Of course, Dawkins' writes off these people as liars...hardly a reasonable position, but then again, who's to say that Dawkins is reasonable.

    Anyone following the teachings of Jesus Christ, recognizes that TRUE Christianity isn't the popular way.  Jesus himself taught, "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it" (Mat 7:13-14 NLT).  So, again Sean, you are largely mischaracterizing TRUE Christianity.  Also, just as it is true that just because a majority of people believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that God actually exists...the same can be said that just because (provided you are right, and I believe to some extent you might be) the majority of people (outwardly or in the closet) don't believe in God, doesn't make atheism true either.  So, your argument really leads nowhere.

    No Sean, what is supported is that some people interpreted Jesus to be giving dietary advice, but not all.  In Mark, largley written to Gentiles, the passage is found this way:

    Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," He said, "and try to understand. It's not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart. " [Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.] Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowd, and His disciples asked Him what He meant by the parable He had just used. "Don't you understand either?" He asked. "Can't you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer." (By saying this, He declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes.) (Mar 7:14-19 NLT)

    In Matthew, it is presented this way:

    Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "Listen," He said, "and try to understand. It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth." Then the disciples came to Him and asked, "Do You realize You offended the Pharisees by what You just said?" Jesus replied, "Every plant not planted by My heavenly Father will be uprooted, so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch." Then Peter said to Jesus, "Explain to us the parable that says people aren't defiled by what they eat." "Don't you understand yet?" Jesus asked. "Anything you eat passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer. But the words you speak come from the heart--that's what defiles you. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander. These are what defile you. Eating with unwashed hands will never defile you."
    (Mat 15:10-20 NLT)

    Nowhere does Matthew (who is writing to a Jewish Community) write that it is okay to eat whatever foods you want...that no foods are unclean.  Mark's interpretation of the very same teaching is different.  Even if Jesus was making a dietary statement, that was only a secondary point.  He was mostly questioning the authority of the Pharisees on spiritual matters, who, as the disciples had rightly noted, were offended by his teaching.  Also, Sean it is pure intellectual snobbery to think that people 2,000 years ago were any less complex than we are today.  People have never been simple (no matter how underdeveloped the are or were).

    Thanks for ceding that and I am not in denial that such discouragement has taken place.  But can't you say that people like Marx and Stalin were pretty beat on allowing questions as well?  Again, this is not a religion thing as much as it is a human being in search of power thing.

    Loving thy enemy is about the "real" world and living in it.  Even if doing right kills you, it certainly isn't a waste doing what is right.  Love is right!  Love is not passive either.  Sometimes, love is stepping up and telling someone to step down.  We have a weird notion of love in America, but love is not about all holding hands and singing kum-bay-ah.  Jesus teachings were not conventional, but deeper than conventional wisdom.

    The fact is that the religious party that is dominated by Christianity is more likely to live and die by the sword and the side that rejects Christianity (more often as both parties are primarily “Christian”) are the ones who are apt to talk it out and turn the other cheek.  I never could make heads or tails of that.

    Okay, I am lost here.  Name one seriously Chrisitan group, large enough to be significant who is living by the sword right now.  Don't  name people in the past.  Don't name people who have strong opinions you don't like.  Don't name people you could see doing such a thing provided the right circumstances.  Name christians who are actually living by the sword right now.  I can name people who reject Christianity and religions in general who are living by the sword right now.  Let's see, Cuba, China, Russia (who are still largely atheistic because of their communist past), etc.  Now, I am not claiming that these people are right or wrong in their "swordplay", but come on!  You cannot tell me that you believe this stuff!

    People who truly believe in a Heaven are the ones, like Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr or Dietrich Bonehoeffer, etc. who actually live heaven out here on eath...the ones who bring the kingdom of heaven to those in need of hope, help and love.  Do many live this way...no...but that only makes us question who truly believes in heaven...vs. who wants to attain some selfish reward such as living forever on a puffy cloud-like beach.

    Thanks for informing me about the Revelation thing ;^)...and good debate as always Sean.

    Sorry Curm for getting off topic. |B^D






  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 13, 2008....
    1. Dogmatism isn’t good no matter what, that is obvious.   There is nothing in the teachings of atheism (or even teachings of atheism to begin with) that dictates anything.  Its like blaming science for eugenics.  At best you can claim that without science there would be no such thing (I would argue that the Bible shows plenty of examples of the Jews going through great lengths to marry one of their own but that’s another issue) there is nothing about being pro-science that demands you support eugenics.  Depending on your religion we’ll use Islam for this one as it is easier.  There are teachings about the other religions.  To answer one of your later points and to clean this up slightly.  Marx and Stalin were atheists but that is hardly what defined them.  Torquemada however was defined by his Christianity.
    2. The world is generally pretty black and white unless you purposely convolute things.  You’re right if I choose to debate any random subject with a “Buffet Style” Christian you’ll never win.  Because they believe what they want when they want.  I’ve met “Christians” who don’t believe in the immaculate birth because it’s impossible.  The creation is a either a complete fabrication or a super gross over simplification and so on and so forth.  It starts wandering into Flying Spaghetti Monster terrirtory.  You can only debate against people who have a line in the sand. 
    3. Intelectually we are all agnostics.  You and I agree on this.  There for the “faithful” and the atheists are truly separated by which section they choose to believe.  Those who claim to be agnostic are (imx) made up people who just don’t care to take part in the debate and people who don’t believe but are hedging their bets so to speak.
    4. Without a doubt number of believers have nothing to do with truth.  I was merely musing as to how many people should be categorized as Christians vs people who claim to be Christian and wondering how that would in turn effect the numbers.  Like or not we are a “Christian” nation, they make up 80+% of the population.  Everybody else combined doesn’t equal half the number of Christians yet many of our policies don’t reflect this which lends credence to my there are lots of people who claim to be religious and aren’t.  It  wasn’t meant to lead anywhere.  Sometimes I ramble.
    5. I see your point about what goes into you cannot defile you.  However in times past this simply wasn’t true.  (Hell E.Coli exists today).  I kinda ceded this point to you though.  I mean logically you could extend the same logic to drugs.  (Sake of argument, not actual argument btw)
    6. It’s not snobbish to acknowledge that we understand the world more completely than they did.  We understand the world more completely than our parents did/do.  It’s a fact.  Besides when I said “simple” I was comparing the infinite knowledge of God to the “limited” knowledge of human kind anyway.  Assuming God is real I would hope he would communicate to us in terms that we are capable of understanding.  The same way you and I do when talking to a child, or speaking to someone who is outside of our chosen area of expertise.  I’m certain that I could pick a subject that I am knowledgeable in and talk in terms you can’t understand just as I’m certain you could do the same to me.  I’m sure you’re profession has certain terminology that is unique to it.  I’m also positive that you could “dumb it down” so I could understand things.  I reject the notion that God would choose to primarily communicate with us by speaking in riddles we can’t hope to unravel.  Course I’m assuming God is benign not sadistic.
    7. “Name one seriously Chrisitan group, large enough to be significant who is living by the sword right now”  The United States of America led by the Honorable Commander in Chief George W. Bush.  *Also China isn’t atheist by the large they just aren’t Christian.  Their religion plays directly into their culture, which in turn leads into their addiction to gambling.*
    8. I highly doubt that MLK lived Heaven out on earth.  If I didn’t know what you meant vs what you said I’d be offended :-P.  Those people STROVE to bring heaven to earth.  I would argue though that (while I don’t know BG’s religious beliefs nor do I care atm) that those who follow the dollar have done as much if not more good.  How many people would you guess that Mother Theresa helped and inspired?  One million?  Two million?  Do you think it rivals the number of people directly helped and inspired by Bill Gates?  Who ACTUALLY did more good, who’s fed more people, who’s given more shelter to people?  Which one is villianized?  This is a side topic, though still related since Jesus (inadvertently or not) started the concept that money was evil.  Again while I think he said EXACTLY what he meant that’s not the point at the moment.  The point is that the philosophy can be traced largely to him.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 13, 2008....
    A little insight here as a sidenote to the discussion you guys got going on (notice how civil it suddenly gets when you call people on it :) ...
    The Apostle Paul declared that the LOVE of money is A root for all kinds of evil. People whose Bible knowledge is rusty think that JESUS said that money is THE root of ALL evil, which some Christians take to mean that they should be allergic to money. Not true! Be prosperous, but give a sacrificial portion to God, since He gave you life and a body to work with to make that money in the first place.
    Here is something to remember: Jesus Himself knew better than you do, Sean, about how many hypocrites there are. There will be people who get to Heaven and say "Lord, Lord" and list off all their good deeds in life, and God will plainly say "You did not know me"...
    Truthfully, hypocritical Christians do not weaken the core values of Christianity, nor lessen the impact of the GENUINE Christians. I say this because God Himself let His people know this in the Bible. People can believe all the right things, but if they do nothing out of love, then they have nothing.
    Mother Teresa invested her time and effort and livelihood and blessed many. Bill Gates has lots of money and puts much toward great causes. Can we tell the difference? Well...it's hard to do without knowing them both well.
    A woman once gave her offering to God, giving all she had - less than half a penny's worth. Again, it was all she had. Other people came up to give, and they were wealthy. They put all kinds of money in there, much more than the woman. But here's the difference: what they gave was a drop in the bucket to them - it was really no offering at all. Jesus actually called this to the attention of others: in God's eyes, the woman's offering was worth MUCH more than the amounts given by the affluent people. The point is, if you're pinching pennies from God to keep for yourself, He will know.
    So it could be that Bill Gates and other billionaires give out tons of money that most of us will never see in our lifetime, but yet if it's a drop in the bucket for them, it's no true offering to God. God calls us to give sacrificially, because it helps to temper us against being wasteful with our money.
    Think of all the stories of people who won the lottery, and it was the worst thing that ever happened to them. What do we do to hold ourselves accountable? It's all about the condition of our heart. It could go either way with all these rich people in the world. Some give to look good, some give to make a genuine difference; some give amounts we think are big, but it's an afterthought for them...others give till it hurts because to them, their money is really God's anyways when you think about it.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 13, 2008....

    Lid:

    I acknowledge that Jesus either didn't say that directly or didn't mean it.  It hardly matters, it was translated as such by enough of his followers that even if it was just a poor choice of words on his part it's still his fault. 

    That philosphy is one that I reject.  How much good you have done should not be measured by how much you hurt yourself in the process.  That is rediculous (particularly when you factor in that it takes money to make money and this was as true 2000 years ago when you needed to be able to afford to fund a caravan to India to sell spices as it is today when you need to be able to afford an oil rig if you are going to drill for oil) notion.  The number of people that woman fed with her half cent doesn't equal the amount fed by the other man.  Again how many jobs has Bill Gates created directly (Microsoft, Xbox, programmers, artists, PR, etc etc) and indirectly (Gamepro Magazine, Geek Squad to trouble shoot for you) how many more jobs does he make possible/easier do you use a computer at your job?  Does it matter if it's 1%, 10% (the "accepted" tithe) or 98% and he keeps only enough to subside on?

  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 13, 2008....
    Let me spell it out, Sean: Jesus didn't say it, Paul did. You were wrong, and not understanding it/misinterpreting it doesn't make it a poor choice of words. This is where your wisdom ends.

    And as for your 2nd paragraph, I think you just got on a high horse and rode off into the sunset. If you want to be wise, listen before you jump to conclusions.

    Giving sacrificially doesn't mean starving, missing your bills, or putting you in financial dire straits. Some people give till it hurts (figurative, bro), some people give 10%, some people give what they can. Bill Gates has done much, but he's only successful because God allowed him to be. What Gates does with his cash demonstrates what he believes about God. Don't you see that faith is real issue here, and not money?

    And by the way, I work on a Mac :)

    What you don't get is that God doesn't see a poor person's offering as less than that of a great person's, although you do. Gates gives us computers, which help, but it goes both ways: computers are a bad thing for compulsive internet gamblers, porn addicts, sex predators, and shopaholics. What people do with computers is their choice, and they are accountable to God for that.

    I am honestly glad that God doesn't think less of someone who doesn't, or can't, give as much to society as a Bill Gates. That is the greatest treasure of belief in Jesus Christ: that the least of us have just as much worth as the greatest millionaire. And it means even more if we have, at one time, been very much the least.

    It is arrogant for one to conclude that because they can't comprehend God, there is no value to His Words. That is not true wisdom.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 13, 2008....

    AARGH! 

    1.  You are wrong, Jesus did infact say it, it's whole rich man, camel, eye of a needle statement.  The only question is wether it was misinterpreted misapplied what not.  Which I've already ceded so I don't bloody well understand why you are still harping on this point.

    2.  Once again the poor woman who gave all she had was lifted above the rich man who did more good.  She was already starving and she gave away what she had.  She was already in financial straights.  What she did makes no more sense than two thousand years earlier when starving Greeks would burn food to ask for rain to grow more food.

    I reject the notion that there is a God, there for Mr. Gate's sucess is his own fault.  You work on a Mac.  Bloody hell.  Well then for you Steve Jobs, but my point remains :-P

    3.  My point actually is that it is backwards to think equally of one who doesn't or can't as it does someone who can and does.  Particularly those who CAN and DON'T.

    I'm not even sure what your last sentence meant so I'll skip it.

  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 13, 2008....
    Thanks for the response man, let's clear this up a bit since I think there's some miscommunication here.
    1. Jesus did speak about how it's easier to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. You are quite right about that...as far as money being a root for all kinds of evil, that was a totally different verse, in one of Paul's letters to Timothy. To my knowledge, we were discussing the verse about money being a root for evil.
    2. One thing you must understand is that the woman who gave what she had would be blessed by God in more ways than just having enough to live on. The point of life is not to have a bunch of material wealth, or even giving it away. Having a ton of things should give no man more worth or self-respect than the next person. Money? Influence? Sure, some have more than others. But the worth of a human being is the same in God's eyes. And I'll be blunt: that's worthless to a person who has what they need. However, a loving God is priceless to someone who needs help to survive. Just because you are not personally desperate, Sean, doesn't mean that no one else is.
    3. Sean, this part is really mind-blowing: in the Bible, God explains that His Word will not register with those who do not follow or seek Him, even though He makes Himself available to be known by mankind. He also explains that for people who favor wisdom that humanity has accumulated over the years, and champion that over every source of knowledge, God will be incomprehensible to them. I see that in you. But that doesn't make you dumb. It just means that by the wisdom you operate on, understanding God is a closed door to you.
    And that brings me to my last point: do not be arrogant about what you know, or your confidence that God isn't real; by your own choice, you have chosen not to understand Him, and so you will continue not to understand Him. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you honestly sought Him, you'd know better what we're talking about, because it's not that I'm some supersmart guy. I'm just pointing you to God's Word.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Amen lidstrom!
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2008....
    1.  We're really arguing semantics here for some dumb reason.  I've said several times that Jesus may or may not have meant exactly that phrase but that human beings may have misinterpreted it.  It's like if I were to quote Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech and use it as a reason that we shoudl blind everybody.  And say a century from now everybody walks around poking each others eyes out because MLK said he hopes his children grow up in a world where they aren't judged by the color of their skin.  He still said that, it has zero relationship to what has come of it but that doesn't actually change what was said.
     
    2.  Income, influence, respect.  These are the measures of a man's worth.  Granted there are exceptions to this rule (see lottery winners) but they seem more often than not to prove what happens when a man has more money thah he's worth.  It just runs away into the hands of someone who is worthy.
     
    3. I have sought, I spent several years trying out different religions.  I felt empty for a long time until I realized that I am all that I need.  Now I just can't understand why so many people can't figure out the simple truth of that.  Why they can't respect and love themselves.  Why they cling to ancient fairy tales to give them the strength that should come from inside them and would if we aren't taught from birth that we aren't mighty.  That we shouldn't be proud of ourselves, that we shouldn't judge others.
  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 14, 2008....
    1. Paul talked about the love of money. I say this definitively and you're like "Well, whether Jesus said it or not..." What's the confusion? Are you listening?

    2. What would you say about a person who has no income, no influence, and commands little respect from others? Would you say they are worth-less? A person could be lacking in all those things and yet still have something to contribute, just as people could be lacking in all three things and be a harmful person to others. It goes both ways.

    3. I respect your journey to research and test religions. To be honest with you, if all Jesus was was a fairy tale, then people would regard Him in the same vein as Cinderella. No, there are personal experiences and accounts of something more than just an ancient fairy tale, or mythology. Anyone who dismisses Christianity as a fairy tale is clearly not taking the whole thing into account. Could be that you asked the right questions, but you came to the wrong answer, Sean?

    Why do I say that? Again...if you're the master of your own ship, there's no room for God, and He'll never be real to you. That makes it darn easy to disbelieve in a God you won't make time for.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2008....

    1.  They both said it, but Jesus said it first then this deciples ran off and interpreted.  Then for the last 2000 years (give or take) we've been interpreting what they said.  None of this removes the camel and needle.  It's not even debatable.

    2. Yes I would say that a person with no income, influence and isn't respected by anybody is worthless.  They are probably worse than worthless they are probably parasitic.  But we've become conditioned to believe that these people should be allowed to leech off the rest of us.  It's true there are some people who have money and are harmful to the rest of us but they aren't the norm.  The norm is that most people simply don't care about other people but by virtue of improving our own lives we improve the lives of those around us.  It takes a very specific malicious nature to improve your own life to the detriment of those around you.  It's like smiling and being cheery and bringing down the mood of the room.  Sure the Joker or Lex Luthor could pull it off but most of us lack that level of evil.

    3.  There are personal experiences with Buhdism, Jedi (it's the third largest religion in the UK), Scientology and paganism. 

    I made time, he's not there.  You made time, lacked the inner strength to captain your own ship and submitted to your imagination.  At least from what I can tell from the majority of your opinions you don't just blindly follow the other sheep like you're supposed to.

  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Sean, I read all of your comments and honestly, I'm perplexed.  I don't even know where to start.  First, on your comment about Black & White.  Things get convoluted on their own.  This world is not completely Black & White.  We are intellectually unsure of many things.  Stuff gets confused and blurred in this life without us purposefully convoluting anything.  I sense your argument goes something like this.  "I believe Christians (and other religious groups) to be crazy. Fundamentalist (Black & White) Christians are absolutely off their rocker.  I can debate them and show them to be off their rocker.  Therefore, anyone who is more reasonable than that group aren't REALLY Christian.  Therefore, I really don't have to deal with them...they don't count."  Now, that's some thin ice to be walking on...but unfortunately, the ice gets even thinner than this.

    Fundamentalism and/or literalism is a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  It rose up with the incline of Modernism.  The modernist movement a movement in which the church at large started to understand things through the lens of modern thought, science and discovery.  Fundamentalists rose up against this movement and used the Bible, and its interpretation, as a means of doing battle against the Church.  They called for an strict and literal interpretation of the Bible that was not called for earlier.  Sure, you can argue that people have interpreted the Bible literally before this point...yes...but not in the same way.  The Bible was understood literally to the point of what people new to be true.  There were certain resistances in the church over Biblical interpretation...such as when the Galileo pushed the not-so-new idea that the Earth was not the center of the Universe but rather that it circled the sun.  Trying to resist such knowledge was certainly a detriment to the Church.  But, without that said, it was the same Church who openly encouraged science.  It was the Muslims, too, who made great advancements in Science.  Yes, there were moments of resistence; however, the resistance came because the Bible seemed to corroborate the way things looked (because it was recorded by people who wrote what they observed...the sun rises and sets, the stars circle the sky, the earth doesn't seem to be moving...etc.)  So, the same observations written in the Bible were being observed (as they still are today by the naked eye) by the people in Galileo's time.  Capernicus and Galileo shook the foundations of what people THOUGHT they already knew and there was resistance.  So maybe you can look at the birth of science being at odds with religion from this point on (thought it wasn't largely at odds, but at points at odds).  But this certainly wasn't the case because of a fundamentalist, B&W movement.  No, the Bible was never thought of as being need to be entirely literal until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  To ignore this is to ignore the nearly 2,000 years of debate on scriptural interpretation.  It is to ignore Justyn Martyr, Arius, Athanasius,Cyril, Nestorius, Michael Servetus, Augustine, Irenaeus, Julian of Norwich, and many many more who had much less than literal interpretations of the Bible and played significant roles in helping define the doctrines of the church.

    Not all of the people mentioned were viewed to be favorable.  Some of them were considered heretics and what not, but the debates/controversies that each of these people raised pushed the church to further define itself and its understanding of Scripture.  There were great schisms, people were exiled, Servetus was killed for not believing in the Trinity.  Why didn't he believe in the Trinity?  Because like Arius (who lived in the 3rd century CE) Servetus didn't believe that the Trinitarian doctrine was supported by the scripture.  Sure he saw "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in the new Testament...but what he objected to was that the Trinitarian Doctrine claims that the father, the son and the h.s. are of the same essence.  Where does it say that in the Scriptures.

    So, orthodox Christianity was not holding (in the 3rd Century or in Servetus' 16th century) a literalist/fundamentalist interpetation of Scripture.  Not just in this doctrine either.  The issue for these people was the AUTHORITY of scripture in relation to the AUTHORITY of the Church.  This debate came to a crest with Martin Luther who claimed that unless it was stated in the Bible, it could not be made a doctrine.  It was never on whether or not the Creation should be considered literal or not, but rather, should we hold people to accountibility.  Should the church have the power to make rules that are not expressly scriptural?

    There is a difference here from what you seem to be arguing.  You seem to be arguing that ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS have had a Black & White/Literal interpration of the Bible...anyone else is just convoluting things to make it impossible to debat them.  But HISTORY proves this to be the furthest thing from the truth.  ONLY MODERN CHRISTIANS have started making a huge deal on LITERAL interpretation.  Even the author of 2 Peter recognized that scripture cannot be taken literally:

    But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day" (2 Peter 3:8 NLT).

    You could substitute that with "a day is like a trillion years to the Lord, and a trillion years is like a day."  But that is unnecessary because 2 Peter 3:8 is a late 1st century or early 2nd century example of a Christian not literally interpreting scripture.  I think enough has been said on this to more than adequately prove what I am saying.

    You have implied, or it seems that you are implying, that True Christians are those who are stuck in the B&W understanding of scripture.  If you can knock them down, you've got everyone else because they are simply compromising their beliefs in order to not look foolish in today's times...or whatever else you might think of middle-ground Christians.  I realize these aren't your words...so if I am wrong in my assessment, by all means correct me.  To me, this kind of thinking is like saying that True Muslims, or Muslims who are really following their religion (this may actually be more representative of what you are saying and is what I mean by the word true), are those who strap bombs on to their chests or fly planes into buildings.  Even those Muslims who were up in arms in Denmark do not, by all standards, represent a majority of Muslims.

    To say that if you really follow Islam through you would be a suicide bomber is as grossly incorrect as saying that those who do not understand the Bible or key issues from a fundamentalist perspective aren't following their faith. That cannot be supported, period.  There is nothing to corroborate that.  A century and a half of Biblical interpretation, which is not as wide spread as you'd like it to be, pales in the 2,000 year old history of Biblical Interperetation.  Ignoring 1,850 years of history is certainly not the best approach to being accurate.  You have to be able to look at the big-picture not pin-point some moments with in the vast history.  Here's my last words on this, Literal interpretation is not the same thing as Biblical Authority.  It does not logically follow only a Literal Bible can be an authoritative one.  That is fallacious.  Literalism is not necessary for Biblical Authority.

    I AGREE THAT THE 80% is Erroneous.

    Saying that we are in Iraq on some sort of Holy War is ridiculous.  Yes there are religious elements to it.  I realize that our bumbling president unwisely used the word "crusade" but that largely was a verbal blunder blown up into something its not.  But let me cede that George Bush brought us to war for his own administrations evil, diabolical religious agenda.  I am no die-hard Bush Supporter...I am against alot of his policies.  Let's say that you are right.  What people don't understand is that George W. Bush is a United Methodist.  A huge majority of the United Methodist Church leaders and clergy petitioned the president protesting his decision to go to Iraq.  They pleaded with him not to make such a decision.  They condemned him for not upholding the teachings of Christ as understood by the United Methodist Church.  The UMC is anti-war.  Here is the UMC position in their Book of Discipline:

    ¶ 164 I says, "We deplore war and urge the peacful settlement of all disputes among nations.  From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate God's loving purposes for humankind....We urge the establishment of the rule of law in inernational affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs.  We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel. We acknowledge the agonizing tension created by the demand for military service by national governments. We urge all young adults to seek the counsel of the Church as they reach a conscientious decision concerning the nature of their repsonsibility as citizens.  Pastors are called upon to be available for counseling with all young adults who face conscription, including those who conscientiously refuse to cooperation with a system of conscription.  We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription..."


      So, George Bush went ahead into a war that was not supported by his Church.  To say that the war in Iraq is a unified group of Christians on an unholy crusade to rid the world of (what exactly, terrorists or heretics?) is ridiculous.   Well that is all for now as a nasty storm is about to rage.


  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I'm sorry Sean, I think you're losing it a bit here. "Eye of a needle" = Jesus. "the love of money" = Paul. 'Nuff said.

    I'm certainly glad that your opinion of a person's worth is not the dominant opinion of the world - lots of people who are down on their luck or oppressed would be seen as "leeches" when really, they need another's compassion. God gives that...your line of thinking doesn't. I'm going with God on that one.

    What I do know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that apart from my imagination, I was surrounded by people who didn't need a reason to value and love me, who didn't want anything in return, and appreciated me for who I was. The reason they did so was because they were inspired by God. That's not something you observe in a lab, but it's no less significant. The question goes from "what can you do for me?" to "what can I do for you?" when you live genuinely for God.

    And I think I'll stick with that.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2008....

    @lid:  I’m just going to whatever on the Jesus vs Paul money issue.  I’ve explained it on a Sesame Street level and you insist that McHammer didn’t sample.  Next you’ll be absolutely adamant that Power Rangers bears no resemblance to Voltron.  So whatever.  The philosophy of money=evil has nothing to do with Jesus.  Nothing at all.  You win.  I’m bloody well tired of that circle.

     

    Your basic philosophy is communism.  Which is suicide.  We know it to be suicide.  It’s really frightening that people who claim to value their souls more highly than their bodies or their bank accounts treat their bank accounts and bodies with more respect than they treat their souls. 

     

    Oh btw I don’t think my opinion in this case is part of the minority.  I just think most people are very quiet about what they think for obvious reasons.

     

    M-H

     

    Name an issue that isn’t mostly black and white if you don’t start bullshitting?  Abortion? Nope it’s very black and white is it okay to prevent a life from coming into existence for the convience of the parents.  Everything else on that issue is fluff.  Partial Birth Abortions?  Make up less 1% so why talk about them as a reason against.  What if I was raped, or had sex with a relative?  Again they make up less than 1%.  Why are we discussing this?  It’s like arguing that murder should be legal cus you might one day need to defend yourself against a guy on PCP.  It’s bullshit and the actual issue is very cut and dry.

     

    I had already mentioned that the Church and Science were friends until relatively recently.  I would like to point out that I live in the twenty first century and what they did in the say seventeen before it doesn’t much matter anymore and just because people have been convoluting things for years doesn’t make it any less true. 

                I do believe that True Christians have beliefs that can be found in the Bible.  I’m even willing to accept stuff that isn’t canonical if you want.  I’ve nothing in particular against Gnostics (nothing more than what I hold against all religious people anyway).  My opinion on Islam btw is that until the silent majority steps up and smacks down the estimated 1-10% that are crazies they are can all accurately be described as crazy.

                The Christian Right is a large part of what managed to get Bush into office.  How responsible for the empowerment of a man must you be before you can be held responsible for the actions of said man?  Particularly when we have the option to pull him out.  Name one seriously Chrisitan group, large enough to be significant who is living by the sword right now.  Don't  name people in the past.”  Quoted from you.  The criteria wasn’t if there was a holy war, it was if a Christian group was living by the sword.  Are you seriously denying that we are living by the sword, right here and right now?

                I don’t see the Right calling for his impeachment, I don’t see the right out there marching with Cindy Sheehan (disrespectful bitch, if there is a God I hope he has a special torture for that harlot.)  I don’t see it, infact what I see is that a year after they disagreed with him they put him right back in office.  Tell me when do I get to hold them responsible for their part in Bush’s legacy?  Do I have to wait for them to actually sign slips of paper, do I need to put a mark on their forehead or their right hand?  Your criteria for being able to hold a group responsible for its actions are so terribly narrow that I’m not sure you could ever hold any group responsible for anything only individuals.

                If you want to debate that there are other ways to interpret the Bible I don’t disagree (though I believe that when it was meant to be a metaphor they make it clear.  Hell even in the verse you quoted they  not only said it was a metaphor but they explained the metaphor!) there is plenty of things that are open to debate. 

                You’re not incorrect that for the most part I don’t waste too much energy on “middle” Christians because there is little point.  When one of their stations is over run they just change clothes and pretend that they were on your side all along and it’s those other whackos you need to be worried about.  Why not just by pass all of them and take down the whackos?  If you’re a Christian who believes in evolution, who doesn’t hold back science in the name of some twisted morality (stem cells), if you don’t have a draconic opinion of sex that is actually provably damaging (no birth control of the Catholics, the cutting of funding for condoms in Africa where HIV is rampant) *this isn’t even expressly supported by the Bible but it is a “Christian” belief*.  While I’m pro-choice (and the lines are pretty clearly religious with a few detractors from each team) I’m willing to let you be pro-life and not get lumped in with the rest.  Unless your that loon andora spouting off about using the Force to convince a baby to go back to Soul land and wait for another body.  I guess if she was Hindu that might make sense. . .anyway I digress.  What is the point of attacking people who are usually harmless.  Granted I believe that anybody who is religious is just a single hair away from being a zealot, you just need to see the right statue cry blood or find Mary in your Cinnabun *don’t pretend like every few months one of these two things don’t happen* but it’s not like smooth talkers haven’t taken over people’s minds before.  Though I question if it could happen under “good” conditions.  You can talk about Hitler and Stalin but they both rose to power in impoverished nations.  Hungry people are easily swayed.  So are cold people.  I’d be curious if either of them could come to power in modern day America.   Where as recently as the 60’s we were hesitant to put a Catholic in office because he’d be the Pope’s puppet.  Maybe it wasn’t a legit fear but it was there.

                I’m supposed to be bored and calling you stupid by now.  But I’m not.  Weird. I guess if I want to call somebody stupid I’ll just go explain that the Mayan Calender ends December 12, 2012 which will coincide (approximately) with the President after next and that Barrack is obviously the antichrist because everybody likes him.  Actually maybe I shouldn’t touch that cus that subject REALLY pissed me off.

  • lidstrom82 said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Dude...Sean...I went all Sesame Street level on it too. One guy said one thing in one verse, another guy said one thing in another verse. If that's not the issue you're referring to, say so. You could save yourself a lot of frustration just by clarifying.

    What you do not understand is that God honors those who honor Him. He loves everybody equally, and does not play favorites, but He has compassion for those who suffer. What if a God-honoring person is murdered while trying to bring the Word of God to a hostile nation? That might seem worthless, but remember that the same was true of early Christianity under the Roman empire (Nero, anyone?). Our American nation might be VERY different if the early Christians did not risk life and limb to preach truth and a different kind of freedom.

    Using politics to understand God is like selling a bicycle to the owner of a Lamborghini. The bike has wheels, and yes it can get you around, but by its very definition, a bike will not beat a sports car (except in gas mileage :) .

    The love of God transcends nations, languages, empires, wars, and time itself. How, then, is it suicide, or communism, to give your life (by your time, your work, even your death) for a cause that is greater than the persecution you face? If Jesus died for the entire world, and believing that brings you the gift of Heaven, what is it worth to be imprisoned or executed by people or a regime that will itself pass away someday?

    A man is no fool who loses that which he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.
    That's what it means...God is worth dying for to genuine Christians, and they understand that everything we value so much in life - power, influence, money - will not follow us when we die. So then, the meaning and purpose of life is not tied to worldly things, but rather to attain the goal of Heaven by bringing God's love to the nations.

    How's that done? Well in this particular case, and I don't mean offense by this, Sean...it's presenting a loving worldview just as stubbornly as you present yours :)
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Sean, Lidstrom is right in this.  It is not that money, or having money, is bad or evil.  Jesus was noting that the Rich Man cherished his money more than he did the will of God.  That if it came down to furthering the Kingdom of God in the world, or possessing all of his material wealth, the odds were great that he would choose his material wealth.  Communism, as you are thinking of it, was not what any Christian endorsed.  You are right it is a frightening venture that has proven to be a bad, bad thing.  The early Christians lived socially/communally, sharing all with everyone rather than hording there own personal belongings, because they had no other choice.  They didn't have to set up a government with someone in power in order to force it.  Rather, the "someone" in power took away all there rights to buy and sell.  They were being hunted by those who didn't want the "atheists" (ironically) from bringing down the empire.  They were called atheists because they refused to worship the emperor as God.  Anyway, they were forced into living that way as a means of survival.  There survival depended on communal living.  Now, Paul, too was not telling people that money was evil.  Paul was a tent-maker and worked among the people he was ministering to in order to live.  At the time Paul lived there wasn't an outright persecution of Christians in the empire.  They were persecuted, but it wasn't state endorsed, but more localized.  Making money was never a bad thing.  What Paul said, as lidstrom points out, is that the LOVE OF MONEY is AT THE ROOT of all evil.  Not the making or saving of money, but the LOVE of it!  If serving God called you to sell your belongings, minus what you need to subsist, would you choose your money over God.  Do you love your money more than you love God.  That is the issue.  It is a mischaracterization to say that Paul or Jesus were against money in and of itself.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I will read you in full, Sean, but I have to reply to this.  There is more to life than hot topic American issues.  Abortion, stem-cell research...etc.  There are more than two-sides to the issue...but that is not what I am talking about anyway.  I am talking about life in general...not political talking-points or hot button issues.  In life we are presented with many, many issues that are not always so clear.  But like the fundamentalist Christians who won't bend their minds a little to see beyond themselves and their beliefs, I don't think you are going to budge on this either.  So, live a black and white life if you think you can.  But this notion of B&W is what causes the majority of violence around the world, whether it is for religious or no-religious reasons.

    It’s like arguing that murder should be legal cus you might one day need to defend yourself against a guy on PCP.

    Sean, this is bull and you know it.  This is a false analogy, as well as a Straw man argument.  It is also setting up yet another false dichotomy.  Either you believe life is black and white, or you don't.  That isn't true.  I am not saying that there are no black & white issues or that there is no such thing as black & white...I am saying that there is not ONLY Black & White and that sometimes its hard to tell whether a choice is a "cut and dry" as you seem to think all of life presents.  It is mis-characterizing my argument (in order to make my argument foolish) which is typical of Straw men arguments.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I would like to point out that I live in the twenty first century and what they did in the say seventeen before it doesn’t much matter anymore

    Sean, this is convolution at its best.  Do you honestly thing that history has no affect on you?  Are you kidding?  Where do your atheist beliefs and/or arguments stem from.  Did you think of them yourself.  Many of the arguments I hear you put out are arguments that started in the supposed "Age of Enlightenment".  You aren't going to claim your beliefs to be completely original and unaffected by anything in the past.  I could say the same thing to you.  Shit, there have been no Christian Holy Wars for centuries, so why discuss them now?  That has no affect on me now!  I mean come on Sean.  You have been pulling out Christians have done this, Muslims have done that quite a bit.  If it had no affect on you, why bother talking about it now.  Humans convolute...including you...You see "cut and dry" differently than the person next to you does.  Sure on some issues, there is a consensus on cut and dry...but that, by no means, indicates that the majority of issues life throws at us are cut and dry.  You say that murder is illegal.  This is true.  Murder should be illegal.  A consensus is there.  Ah, but what is murder?  Some people see the soldiers in Iraq as murderers for killing people over there.  Others think that such killing is just to prevent larger-scale killing and murder.  And this is just scraping the discussion on "murder."  The way you see things is NOT necessarily the way the rest of the WORLD should see things.  I hate to break that to you. ;^P
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I understand that the religious right is responsible (in part) for the re-election of Bush in 2004...I'm not so sure that is the case in 2000 as Gore technically one the popular vote.    But, the UMC is not part of the "Religious Right."  They are a part of the "Religious Left."  I am not denying that we are living by the sword, but that it is an concerted Christian effort.  Remember, the congress and Senate passed the move to go to war. Is everyone who voted for that a Christian.  Don't cry "false pretenses!"  This doesn't help your argument because the Christians can cry that too.  There was not a single Christian, to my knowledge, that said let's go fight this war for Christ.  I was hearing, let's go fight this war to remove WMD and fight Terrorism there rather than here.  We can debate the foolishness of this war, but that does not make it a "Christian" war.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I don’t see the Right calling for his impeachment, I don’t see the right out there marching with Cindy Sheehan (disrespectful bitch, if there is a God I hope he has a special torture for that harlot.)  I don’t see it, infact what I see is that a year after they disagreed with him they put him right back in office.  Tell me when do I get to hold them responsible for their part in Bush’s legacy?  Do I have to wait for them to actually sign slips of paper, do I need to put a mark on their forehead or their right hand?  Your criteria for being able to hold a group responsible for its actions are so terribly narrow that I’m not sure you could ever hold any group responsible for anything only individuals.

    This is presuming that United Methodists voted for him.  Oh I get it.  True Christians can only be on the "Religious Right."  Black & White, right?  This is a joke Sean.  You are also, Sean, assuming that ONLY the Religious Right voted for Bush.  Again, it's not that Black & White.  It is a false and hasty assumption.

    When one of their stations is over run they just change clothes and pretend that they were on your side all along and it’s those other whackos you need to be worried about.

    This is false and is ad hominem at that.  They aren't pretending.  People can see both sides Sean and can change positions.  That neither makes them pretenders or disingenuous.  In fact, in some cases, it makes them Wise.  I stick that won't bend, breaks.  Of course, that is what you want.  You want non-bending Christians because they are easy to break...but that is pretty disingenuous...don't you think?

    Granted I believe that anybody who is religious is just a single hair away from being a zealot, you just need to see the right statue cry blood or find Mary in your Cinnabun *don’t pretend like every few months one of these two things don’t happen* but it’s not like smooth talkers haven’t taken over people’s minds before.

    Did you ever think that you could be a bit over-zealous in your beliefs.  You don't have to be religious to be a "zealot".  You just need to be fanatically committed to your position.  Come on Sean.  Your examples are quite funny and amusing to a point, but there comes a point where I just scratch my head and wonder what exactly your angle is.
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2008....

    I'm gonna quick respond to your last part and I'll get to the bulk of things later.

    Of course the past has an effect but just like you said I can't summon up the Crusades or the Inquisition as a reason why Christians are evil (though I only bring them up as examples of what can happen anyway) I don't see how you can use mideval Christians as proof that Christians are good and sane.  We live today and have to deal with today.  It can be useful to understand the how and why of things but the truth is that unless it's something we can go back and directly effect who really cares?

    Women's Sufferage-->Prohibition----->The Mob/Mafia= Women's Suffrage is bad.  All the steps are true (though you can debate that without WWI there would have been enough men in the country to vote down Prohibition so you could argue that a lack of men is what happened which sounds just as sexist and mysogynistic. No one would argue today that women's right to vote has had a negative overall effect on society *very few actually.  I could probably debate that just based on simple supply and demand if women didn't work men would get paid more and we wouldn't have familes with both parents working just to make ends meet.  But that would largely be me playing the Devils Advocate*

    So you poingint out that two, three, four, five hundred years ago Christians didn't do x,y,z I still ask who cares?  They do it today and I've pointed out several.

    Also killing =/=murder.  Just because people are capable of over thinking something doesn't make it so.  Just like no matter how much I might hate taxes, taxes are not theft or burglarly despite the fact that they are taking what's mine, against my will and giving it to others.

    Also when the world disagrees with me the world is wrong.  :-P  The world is wrong on a lot of things, some of which I hope to fix someday and some of which I'll just ignore and hope they go away.  Like I hope if I ignore pepparoni and Pepsi long enough people will stop thinking they are appropriate choices for the only food and drink to be available at a gathering.  Yeah I know my chances of hitting the lottery, getting struck by lightning in doors while getting laid by a decade worth or Playmates of the Year is higher than the chances of pepparoni and pepsi going away but I can hope right?

  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I'm not using the early or medieval Christians to show that Christians are sane, Sean.  I am clearing up the numerous misconceptions you have laid out against both Christians of past and present.  
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Yes, Sean, you can hope...by all means, don't stop hoping :^D

    But, listen...what I am saying is that the fundamentalist, Religious right may be doing things one way, but I am saying that even in the HERE AND NOW, not all Christians are doing it that way.  AND THEY ARE EQUALLY CHRISTIAN, since they are more true to the Spirit of Christianity!  I can't cry foul against the whole for the sins of a few.  And believe me, Christians DO fight vehemently with each other over the issues.  Perhaps, being out of the Christian world, you don't recognize that...but it is a fact.  Don't think that Christians sit quiet while people misrepresent what they believe.  Again, the majority ISN'T silent...they are just not heard.  That is because of media sensationalism...but I don't need to rehash this do I?
  • SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2008....
    I still think that GW getting elected stands as a stark reminder that whatever argument you guys may or may not be having behind closed doors when all is said and done you'd rather follow the fundies than the atheists.  Which I say the same thing about Islam, that until I see a million Muslims take to the streets to defend freedom of speech I'm going to stick to the belief that no matter how many claim to be on my/our side that they'd still rather side with Osama than with America.  Just because I prioritize my enemies doesn't mean I'm friends with the last group that needs to go down.
     
    Honestly if there were more scientologists here I'd be bashing them, preferably with heavy objects.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 14, 2008....
    Sean, that is bullshit. Come on!  So because a majority of people chose Bush over Kerry (as if he was a great choice) it had to do with Liberal Christians siding with the Fundies.  That is unsupportable.  The results are not indicative of a liberal/fundie collaboration.  That is unwarranted and unfair speculation.
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 15, 2008....
    The arguments are not behind closed doors.  Check out the following web site:

    That is just one of the many organizations actively supporting a liberal candidate.  They are not disingenuous, they are SERIOUS.  Liberal Christians are just as active in the process as Conservative ones.  The reason it seems "behind closed doors" is because you never hear of their cause.  The media wants you to think that every last Christian is a "Pat Robertson" or "Jerry Falwell" fundamentalist in the same way that Hollywood wants you to think that all Christians are Catholic...(seriously, ever notice how Christianity is always displayed as R.C. in the movies...there's always the Father, the sign of the Cross, Holy Water, confessional, big cathedral like sanctuaries...anyway, I digress).  The point is that you cannot always go on what you "SEE" as being the Truth, Sean.  But, I suppose that would be a challenge for you, would it not?  You can't see God, or see evidence for God, so there must be no God.  You can't see REAL liberal Christians, or evidence to support REAL liberal Christians, so there must be no liberal Christians.  That logic does not follow.  It is fallacious.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 19, 2008....
    i just wanted to bump this in my conversations so i can get back to it in the future, when i have time to read all the comments since my last one--i don't have that time just now but don't want to lose this in the mists of the mid-teens of my my conversations pages. :>

    ed
  • mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
    Ha ha.  I look forward to the time when you have time, Silverwhisper B^D
  • RollingC said on Sep 15, 2008....
    :^)

Comment on "Can an Atheist Get into Heaven?"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

We are Taliban ( Wishful) of Peace and love and Taliba-E- Elm ( Student of God’s Wisdom)...
Are we (Ajmal Mehdi & Adam Mehdi) new salve in American educated society ?...