Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Job 33:6]

Depending on one's community, there can be social consequences of not following the norm. Many an atheist has a story of ostracization after deconversion.

I know. I disagree with this reality just as you do.

 

[Job 33:6]

If something transforms your life in a positive way then by all means, I would recommend pursuing it. When I say positive, I'm also referring to common ideas such as life, love, joy etc.

Are there things that have improved your life that you wouldn't recommend backing? Ponders your response*



Typically people have freedom to believe or not believe, unless they live in Iraq. But yes, of course there are people who are christian in name only. And of course if someone follows a faith that hurts them in some way, they're free to separate from it, and I'm sure id do the same.

While I think following a faith is fine, I don't think people being forced to follow a religion is fine, if this is your concern.




Often times missionaries help those who request help. Missionary work comes in all shapes and sizes. I wouldn't consider it disruption at all to build houses for impoverished children, not in a negative sense at least. And if they convert as a product of that, or even further are taught how to build their own houses and go and build for others, I think it would be hard to downplay these benefits.

Some missionaries I would agree though, go on irrational missions, such as the guy who visited that south American tribe who risked receiving diseases from the missionary that would have killed them, and they shot the missionary with a bow and arrow and he died as a result.

These kinds of missions, I would absolutely agree are negatively disruptive and I can't imagine I'd ever partake in. But these don't really change the more common case such as the one described above. Which seem worthy of support to me. But ultimately the goal is to love on others and to show others the love of Christ.That ought to be the root of the equation. Jesus gave us everything, the least we can do is give you a roof to sleep under.



Non religious ideas make no claim of unique correctness? tell that to Dawkins.

People are free to believe what they want, even as a Christian. But that doesn't mean that you have to go out calling the world wrong, same with atheism. Though some people choose to call others wrong, oftentimes in a distasteful way. Though this does go both ways.



I never said other faiths (or non faiths) that have transformed other's lives in a positive way must be wrong. Or at the least, not a wrong choice for them to follow.

And as I've said multiple times before, people don't trust in Christ because they have scientific proof of the trinity. I agree that no Christian is going to be in a position to demonstrate that the Christian way is the "true path", but I don't think that should stop people from getting behind something that they see has transformative power in ways that help them or others around them.

If you like red sauce on your pizza, pick the red sauce. If someone else likes white sauce, that's fine, good for them. You don't have to agree nor do you have to scientifically know which sauce is truly the best to support one or the other. And if the red sauce burns your tongue, then by all means, you can walk away from the red sauce and can try bbq. I would do the same.

But if a sauce is good and you experience it's benefits, seems rational to me to get behind it.

There's a book Ive read, written by a pastor, on the extent of Christ's love, even for non-christians. You might be interested in hearing about it or at least it's ideas on these kinds of topics. Maybe when I have more time, I can share. Imagine a case where a black slave has a white christian slave owner. He slave views the Christian faith as a terrible thing because she has learned it through an abusive master. She walks away from Christ. Even in these scenarios, it's feasible that Christ, so loving the world, would even seek to save this individual, even if they died as a non Christian. It's not up to man to decide who goes to heaven or who doesn't, nor would Christ want people to force one another into religions that oftentimes more than not, misrepresent his will for us. And personally I don't think Jesus would support missions trips that negatively impact a societies ability to survive. Even if you love those south Americans, if you bring diseases to them or they shoot arrows at you, you're probably doing something wrong with your mission and likely aren't carrying out Christ's will if you're risking everyone's well being for your own selfish feel-good objectives.

Another thought on this. I think there could be a contradiction if someone said "X religion is certainly true and Y religion is therefore certainly false, based on Z benefits I've gained from X". Then someone else of Y religion might say the same with X being certainly false.

But I don't think that either X or Y should make the claim of absolute truth. Saying I know X is true and Y is false is much different than saying that I believe X is true and that Y is false (or at least less true as is the case with a lot of religious views toward others).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That he didn’t see that his explanation solved nothing at all was most surprising.

As I already said, he accepts the possibility that life on Earth is of alien origin, but doesn't think it's likely - and he acknowledges that it wouldn't answer the ultimate origin of life. His preferred explanation is abiogenesis. So no surprises at all.

It’s an arbitrary division because no plausible explanation has been developed so the question deleted. Complex from simple is the theory.

It's not an arbitrary division as no arbitrary line is being drawn. It's just a description of a continuum of increasing complexity, from simplest to most complex.

The plausible explanation involves the expectation from abiogenesis that the earliest life would be simple, which is what we observe in the earliest paleontological record, and the theory of evolution, which explains the diversification of life with increasing time. Physics tells us that increasing complexity and order is favoured under suitable conditions, and the theory of evolution predicts that any such increase in complexity is likely to become established if it provides a selective advantage, which it clearly does in some circumstances.

The paleontological record does show an increase in complexity and diversity over time, exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. All the available evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, paleontology, and molecular biology is fully consistent with this explanation, and indicates with high probability that all current life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor. For over 150 years of studies both in the lab and in the field, each new discovery has confirmed the theory.

None of that is life but I know the evolutionists will never give up on hoping.

Abiogenesists will never give up hoping; evolutionists already have a well-tested, well supported, predictive theory that explains the diversity of life.

This is where fantasy is ruling the day and not science. Science requires observed in some fashion phenomena. But it is encouraging that you admit you’ll never demonstrate it scientifically.

That's an inaccurate view; the hypothesis being tested is that life on Earth could have originated through a process of abiogenesis.

Experiments (i.e. observation of phenomena) are being done to test this hypothesis by investigating the chemistry of environments likely to have existed on the early Earth. These have been surprisingly productive, showing self-organization and self-assembly of chemical cycles and molecules that play important roles in living organisms. IOW, the results so far are consistent with the hypothesis, but not yet conclusive.

The hypothesis will be accepted as correct when we can say that we have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that life on Earth could have originated by a process of abiogenesis.

This is a statement of faith not science. It cannot be demonstrated even in pieces. I’ve read a few papers on the matter and the intelligence that carefully planned the experiments required apparatus impossible in a spontaneous interaction.

The physics is a matter of fact, and it is also a matter of fact that living things take advantage of it. That it plays a role in evolution is also a matter of observational fact. Only the evidence for abiogenesis is incomplete, but we have already demonstrated that the physics really does favour the development of molecules and chemical cycles that play important roles in living things in the environments likely to have existed on the early Earth.

Obviously, intelligence is needed to perform such experiments, but the difficulty is in not knowing precisely which possible environments might have been involved, or how they might have varied over time. There's a vast 'landscape' of possibilities, and investigating each takes time. Fortunately, recent developments in AI systems are increasing our capability of investigating these possibilities by orders of magnitude.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If something transforms your life in a positive way then by all means, I would recommend pursuing it. When I say positive, I'm also referring to common ideas such as life, love, joy etc.

Are there things that have improved your life that you wouldn't recommend backing? Ponders your response*

I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't follow advice that transforms one's life in a positive way. I'm suggesting that your previous answer begged the question.

I have made mistakes that taught me lessons that improved my life. I wouldn't recommend others to make those mistakes (although they probably will, and may learn from them).

Typically people have freedom to believe or not believe, unless they live in Iraq.

There's a difference between believing and pretending to believe. Everyone has freedom to believe, whether they're allowed to act out those beliefs or not.

But yes, of course there are people who are christian in name only.

That sounds like a "No true Christian..." argument (it's also against forum rules to suggest that people who call themselves Christian aren't).

While I think following a faith is fine, I don't think people being forced to follow a religion is fine, if this is your concern.

No, that's not my concern (and pretending to follow a religion is not the same as following a religion).

Often times missionaries help those who request help.

Missionary work comes in all shapes and sizes. I wouldn't consider it disruption at all to build houses for impoverished children, not in a negative sense at least. And if they convert as a product of that, or even further are taught how to build their own houses and go and build for others, I think it would be hard to downplay these benefits.

I wasn't talking about beneficial works (although benefit is sometimes a matter of viewpoint).

Some missionaries I would agree though, go on irrational missions...

These kinds of missions, I would absolutely agree are negatively disruptive and I can't imagine I'd ever partake in. But these don't really change the more common case such as the one described above. Which seem worthy of support to me. But ultimately the goal is to love on others and to show others the love of Christ. That ought to be the root of the equation. Jesus gave us everything, the least we can do is give you a roof to sleep under.

If people need and want a roof to sleep under by all means supply one - no strings attached (unless it's a tarp ). But some anthropologists suggest that whether missionary work does more good than harm overall is quite a fine judgement and depends largely on cultural values, because missionaries have an agenda and set out to help people in ways that will help achieve that agenda, which often involves assuming that they know what is good for people, hence the colonial paternalism criticisms.

Non religious ideas make no claim of unique correctness? tell that to Dawkins.

I think you misread me; I was making a contrast - there are potentially transformative non-religious views that make no claim of unique correctness.

People are free to believe what they want, even as a Christian. But that doesn't mean that you have to go out calling the world wrong, same with atheism. Though some people choose to call others wrong, oftentimes in a distasteful way. Though this does go both ways.

I never said other faiths (or non faiths) that have transformed other's lives in a positive way must be wrong. Or at the least, not a wrong choice for them to follow.

I'm talking about common religious views, not about you specifically.

There's a book Ive read, written by a pastor, on the extent of Christ's love, even for non-christians. You might be interested in hearing about it or at least it's ideas on these kinds of topics. Maybe when I have more time, I can share. Imagine a case where a black slave has a white christian slave owner. He slave views the Christian faith as a terrible thing because she has learned it through an abusive master. She walks away from Christ. Even in these scenarios, it's feasible that Christ, so loving the world, would even seek to save this individual, even if they died as a non Christian. It's not up to man to decide who goes to heaven or who doesn't, nor would Christ want people to force one another into religions that oftentimes more than not, misrepresent his will for us.

And personally I don't think Jesus would support missions trips that negatively impact a societies ability to survive. Even if you love those south Americans, if you bring diseases to them or they shoot arrows at you, you're probably doing something wrong with your mission and likely aren't carrying out Christ's will if you're risking everyone's well being for your own selfish feel-good objectives.

Sadly, the fine words of a probably mythical hero appear to be honoured more in the breach. One of the reasons I dropped the religious baggage of my early years was the realisation that the fine words, rituals, ideals, and beliefs made little difference overall except, perhaps, affording some a mild sense of superiority as the 'chosen'. My later secular friends turned out to be every bit as good, bad, or indifferent, without the trappings of belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Depending on one's community, there can be social consequences of not following the norm. Many an atheist has a story of ostracization after deconversion.

Love your neighbour as yourself (unless they're atheist?).

 

[SelfSim]

The physics is a matter of fact, and it is also a matter of fact that living things take advantage of it. That it plays a role in evolution is also a matter of observational fact.

The physics of abiogenesis, (ie: pre-biotic chemistry), might be a matter of (theoretical) fact, but during that phase of the process, there is no life to 'take advantage of it'.

This differs from the Evolutionary phase, where more complex life assemblages are able to 'take advantage' of functional substitutions and deletions .. and in fact, it does.

That is, the 'physics' in each of those phases, is itself, distinguished by such functional differences. These differences are important considerations when designing experiments/test apparatus in potential pre-biotic environments.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't follow advice that transforms one's life in a positive way. I'm suggesting that your previous answer begged the question.

Not sure what you're getting at.

I have made mistakes that taught me lessons that improved my life. I wouldn't recommend others to make those mistakes (although they probably will, and may learn from them).

Something you wouldn't do again doesn't really fit the bill here. Although I appreciate your thinking outside the box.

There's a difference between believing and pretending to believe. Everyone has freedom to believe, whether they're allowed to act out those beliefs or not.

Sure...

That sounds like a "No true Christian..." argument (it's also against forum rules to suggest that people who call themselves Christian aren't).

I'm just referring to people who culturally are Christians who don't actually believe in Christ. I'm not referring to people who claim to believe but just act differently than I do.

No, that's not my concern (and pretending to follow a religion is not the same as following a religion).

Hm ok. I'll see if I can figure out what you're saying.

I wasn't talking about beneficial works (although benefit is sometimes a matter of viewpoint).

Ok...I'll continue to read into your posts to understand your concerns.

Some missionaries I would agree though, go on irrational missions...

Ok.

These kinds of missions, I would absolutely agree are negatively disruptive and I can't imagine I'd ever partake in.

Ok.

If people need and want a roof to sleep under by all means supply one - no strings attached (unless it's a tarp ). But some anthropologists suggest that whether missionary work does more good than harm overall is quite a fine judgement and depends largely on cultural values, because missionaries have an agenda and set out to help people in ways that will help achieve that agenda, which often involves assuming that they know what is good for people, hence the colonial paternalism criticisms.

It all depends on the missionary. Christ gave without strings attached, so do many (though not all) missionaries. If people take their gift and don't convert or walk away with their gift and don't care to say thanks, that's their choice and this happens often . It's not like crusaders are going to hunt them down like "you will love Jesus!" Beating their heads with a Bible although perhaps this has happened somewhere lol.

I think you misread me; I was making a contrast - there are potentially transformative non-religious views that make no claim of unique correctness.

Ok, like say, giving free covid shots? No religion attached to this kind of free gift. I would agree that such cases exist in which people give without saying that...another form of giving is wrong? It's a gift without necessarily saying that other "givers" aren't necessarily as good as myself? Maybe you could elaborate on your thoughts.

My thought is that, if it is transformative in a good way, why not boast of the source which inspired it?

I'm talking about common religious views, not about you specifically.

K. I know what you mean, though "common" is a fluent word. Depends on where you go. If we're talking about the Taliban, I'd absolutely agree. But I think it's fair to say that many Christians, though not all, and likely a minority, wouldn't go as far to say that Christianity is bombproof evidentially true and that everything else is false.

Sadly, the fine words of a probably mythical hero appear to be honoured more in the breach. One of the reasons I dropped the religious baggage of my early years was the realisation that the fine words, rituals, ideals, and beliefs made little difference overall except, perhaps, affording some a mild sense of superiority as the 'chosen'. My later secular friends turned out to be every bit as good, bad, or indifferent, without the trappings of belief.

In my experience, and I have to be honest here, I've seen noticably more significant giving, caring, supporting, and otherwise what I would consider "good attributes" of my saved family and friends than my unsaved family and friends. Is this a 100% rule of life? Absolutely not. There are many Christians in the world, I'm sure, that are every bit as broken and sinful as anyone of any other faith. It certainly is not a rule. But just my experience.

 

[Job 33:6]

"People trust in Christ not because they've found scientific evidence for the trinity, but because his teachings have transformed their lives for the better (at least in their opinions)." -me

"That's fair enough, but rather begs the question, as you have to have already followed Christ's teachings in order for them to have transformed your life" - @FrumiousBandersnatch

"If something transforms your life in a positive way then by all means, I would recommend pursuing it." -me

"I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't follow advice that transforms one's life in a positive way. I'm suggesting that your previous answer begged the question."@FrumiousBandersnatch

Just taking another look at this comment.

Is it begging the question if you learn an idea from your parents, you carry that idea out, it transforms your life, and then you thank or your parents for transforming your life?

Just trying to understand specifically where you don't agree here.

Maybe you think that anything that isn't scientifically confirmed, if accepted as a conclusion or a cause without evidence for it's own existence, is begging the question?

Or maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The physics of abiogenesis, (ie: pre-biotic chemistry), might be a matter of (theoretical) fact, but during that phase of the process, there is no life to 'take advantage of it'.

This differs from the Evolutionary phase, where more complex life assemblages are able to 'take advantage' of functional substitutions and deletions .. and in fact, it does.

That is, the 'physics' in each of those phases, is itself, distinguished by such functional differences. These differences are important considerations when designing experiments/test apparatus in potential pre-biotic environments.

Yes, I've no argument with any of that - which is why I said, in respect of abiogenesis, "physics really does favour the development of molecules and chemical cycles that play important roles in living things"; clearly, at that point, there were no living things, just molecules & chemical cycles that could potentially play a role in future life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure what you're getting at.

It's not important - I was pointing out that saying that people trust in Christ because "his teachings have transformed their lives for the better" doesn't explain why they trusted his teachings enough to follow them in the first place (i.e. before their lives were transformed).

I'm just referring to people who culturally are Christians who don't actually believe in Christ. I'm not referring to people who claim to believe but just act differently than I do.

At this point, I left out a 'quote' start code, so your next two 'Ok' responses are to what you said in your previous post - apologies, entirely my mistake! (I've gone back and corrected it). Fortunately, you were Ok with what you'd said!

Ok.
...
Ok.

It all depends on the missionary. Christ gave without strings attached, so do many (though not all) missionaries. If people take their gift and don't convert or walk away with their gift and don't care to say thanks, that's their choice and this happens often .

Indeed, it would be great if that ideal was always the case, but there have been sufficient adverse reports of the results of missionary activity to cause serious concern - some jurisdictions have even made it illegal. Some ex-missionaries now accept that it was a mistake, and some have called it cultural imperialism. Perhaps it's to do with the kind of people involved, their motivations, and perhaps their cultural naivety...

Ok, like say, giving free covid shots? No religion attached to this kind of free gift. I would agree that such cases exist in which people give without saying that...another form of giving is wrong? It's a gift without necessarily saying that other "givers" aren't necessarily as good as myself? Maybe you could elaborate on your thoughts.

No, I'm not sure how giving free Covid shots is relevant - I meant that non-religious ideas, worldviews, philosophies, practices, etc., can be transformative in similar ways to religious ideas and worldviews.

My original point: "...there seems to be a contradiction in believing a religious view - that claims to be the uniquely correct and only true path - because its ideas have transformed your life, while knowing that untold numbers of other people have had their lives transformed by the ideas of a different and conflicting religion that may also claim to be the one correct and true path, and still others have had their lives transformed by non-religious ideas that make no claims of unique correctness."

My thought is that, if it is transformative in a good way, why not boast of the source which inspired it?

I don't have a problem with that, in appropriate contexts.

...I think it's fair to say that many Christians, though not all, and likely a minority, wouldn't go as far to say that Christianity is bombproof evidentially true and that everything else is false.

That's a bit hyperbolic, and it is interesting how people cherry-pick from the scriptural buffet or interpret to their preferences, but in my early Christian education, there was a strong (biblical) thread of "it's my way or no way" in the words of Christ himself. Maybe the reported words of Christ don't have the weight that I was taught they have - in contrast to his reported resurrection...

In my experience, and I have to be honest here, I've seen noticably more significant giving, caring, supporting, and otherwise what I would consider "good attributes" of my saved family and friends than my unsaved family and friends. Is this a 100% rule of life? Absolutely not. There are many Christians in the world, I'm sure, that are every bit as broken and sinful as anyone of any other faith. It certainly is not a rule. But just my experience.

There could be a number of reasons for that - sample bias, where the 'saved' people you know have 'better' attributes than average and/or the 'unsaved' have 'worse' attributes than average (IOW chance variation); and/or an in-group preference bias where one tends to view as 'good', attributes that the ingroup has just by sharing the group properties (shared activities, opinions, & beliefs, closer sympathy, closer empathy, views on life, etc); and/or the ingroup/outgroup confirmation or attribution bias where one tends to see the 'good' things the ingroup does as representative and the less-good things as excusable or unintentional, and the 'good' things the outgroup does as unintentional or exceptions, and the less-good things as more representative.

It's easy to make hasty generalisations from personal experience, but we tend to do it because it's the only direct evidence we have. There are also likely to be considerable differences between what happens at local scales, and what happens at a country-wide scale (neighbourhoods vs states).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just trying to understand specifically where you don't agree here.

As I said, it isn't really important - I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that the general statement you made begs the question. The specific example of following what your parents taught you is fine.

Maybe you think that anything that isn't scientifically confirmed, if accepted as a conclusion or a cause without evidence for it's own existence, is begging the question?

No, science has no particular relevance. The suggestion that people follow a set of ideas because those ideas have transformed their life is, as it stands, begging the question because it implies the transformation is the reason for following the ideas, i.e. it's causal - but it necessarily comes after following the ideas, i.e. it's the effect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?

That sounds reasonable - what is there about Jesus to follow other than his teachings (I presume that includes his example)?

 

[Phred]

That sounds reasonable - what is there about Jesus to follow other than his teachings (I presume that includes his example)?

That's correct. Christians make a big deal about how being a Christian isn't just about making a decision. It's about having "a relationship with Jesus Christ." Of course, you can't have a relationship with a dead guy. They want you believe he's alive and communicating with people through some magical, mystical conduit.

If this were true then people would come out of the rainforest and tell us about Jesus. That doesn't happen. The only people who follow Jesus are those who have been told about him by others who have been told about him by others. There is no magical conduit.

Not to mention Jesus would punish those who do horrible things in his name. That never happens either. It's always "after you die." You'll be punished "after you die." You'll go to hell "after you die." Or you'll go to heaven "after you die." You know, when nobody can confirm what actually happened.

It's a scam.

 

[Job 33:6]

That sounds reasonable - what is there about Jesus to follow other than his teachings (I presume that includes his example)?

If you have a teacher who informs and guides a person and that person benefits from that guidance, would that not be sufficient to back that teacher?

I don't think there really needs to be more to Jesus to require backing or supporting him.

 

[Job 33:6]

.
Not to mention Jesus would punish those who do horrible things in his name. That never happens either. It's always "after you die." You'll be punished "after you die." You'll go to hell "after you die." Or you'll go to heaven "after you die." You know, when nobody can confirm what actually happened.

Well that's not what Christianity teaches. Many people are punished by God, both believers and non-believers alike. At least no pastor that I've worked with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you have a teacher who informs and guides a person and that person benefits from that guidance, would that not be sufficient to back that teacher?

I don't think there really needs to be more to Jesus to require backing or supporting him.

Sure - but, as I said, what else is there other than teachings and example when the teacher has been dead for ~2,000 years? and in what sense do the dead need backing or support?

 

[Phred]

Well that's not what Christianity teaches. Many people are punished by God, both believers and non-believers alike. At least no pastor that I've worked with.

I'm sure you think so. I see horrid people do horrid things and simply walk away. Shall we start listing molesting priests and televangelists? How about Politicians?

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure - but, as I said, what else is there other than teachings and example when the teacher has been dead for ~2,000 years? and in what sense do the dead need backing or support?

Not sure I understand the question. This is like asking what else is there other than teachings of Carl Sagan after he has died. Why have a poster of Einstein on your wall if he's dead?

Do we need more reason to "spread the good word" beyond the value in the word itself? Or to follow that word?

I don't think so.

The reason is that, these concepts have transformed people's lives for the better. They in and of themselves are of value. And whether or not God exists beyond Jesus, it is its own topic.

But you said "sure", which seems to imply that it would make sense to follow Jesus or, at least follow the words of Jesus, given that they've bettered your life. Hm, so you're agreeing with me?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure I understand the question. This is like asking what else is there other than teachings of Carl Sagan after he has died. Why have a poster of Einstein on your wall if he's dead?

To remind you of his amazing teachings.

What confuses me is your explicit distinction between following Jesus' teachings and following him: "maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?"

You also mentioned backing or supporting someone whose teachings have helped you. I can back and support the teachings and ideas of Einstein, Sagan, or Jesus, and I can encourage others to do the same, but I don't see how I can back or support them - they're dead, beyond my backing or support... Similarly, I can follow their teachings, but I can't follow them - they're not going anywhere or doing anything new.

It's probably just a language thing...

Do we need more reason to "spread the good word" beyond the value in the word itself? Or to follow that word?

I don't think so.

I agree, the word should be enough.

The reason is that, these concepts have transformed people's lives for the better. They in and of themselves are of value. And whether or not God exists beyond Jesus, it is its own topic.

But you said "sure", which seems to imply that it would make sense to follow Jesus or, at least follow the words of Jesus, given that they've bettered your life. Hm, so you're agreeing with me?

I'm agreeing that it makes sense to follow the words, teachings, ideas, etc., of Jesus - if you find that beneficial.

 

[Job 33:6]

To remind you of his amazing teachings.

What confuses me is your explicit distinction between following Jesus' teachings and following him: "maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?"

You also mentioned backing or supporting someone whose teachings have helped you. I can back and support the teachings and ideas of Einstein, Sagan, or Jesus, and I can encourage others to do the same, but I don't see how I can back or support them - they're dead, beyond my backing or support... Similarly, I can follow their teachings, but I can't follow them - they're not going anywhere or doing anything new.

It's probably just a language thing...

I agree, the word should be enough.

I'm agreeing that it makes sense to follow the words, teachings, ideas, etc., of Jesus - if you find that beneficial.

Ok, well thanks. And ya know, I am the first to say as well that if someone follows the teachings of Jesus or ideas, and let's say they read scripture and they are convinced that they should start killing first born babies and sacrificing lambs and things like this, that, I would recommend that if this is the case, they're probably better off not following scripture.

It's unfortunate that the Bible isn't like a 1 million page super technical guidance manual for life. People work with what they have I guess. And people pick different guidance manuals, and pick at ideas.

I may have mentioned this before but I once heard a pastor describe this hypothetical scenario where a slave had a Christian slave master. And through this hypothetically abusive slave master, the slave came to know Christianity as something of an atrocity. So the slave flees away from christian teachings.

From a Christian perspective, some conservatives might say that this woman maybe ended up dying an atheist and in which case, wouldn't she hypothetically go to hell? But this scenario would actually make God or Jesus out to be basically a tyrant. So many pastors have looked at this and have alternatively said that, well, in:

John 3:16
Bible Gateway passage: John 3:16 - New International Version

Jesus hypothetically died for all of humanity. When he was attacked and arrested, he took time to even heal the injured Roman that came to take him away (that had been injured by the apostles in their struggle). Jesus didn't say, this person attacked me so I'm sending him to hell, rather he loved even on that individual.

So going back to this hypothetical slave, Jesus, in accordance with who scripture describes Jesus to be (even if you don't even believe he existed), Jesus would seek out and save even people who didnt accept him during life for similar reasons among others.

So if someone today picks up scripture and is disgusted and they see pastors scamming people or maybe they see priests molesting children etc. And they turn away from Christianity, I would trust that if God is as described at least in the new testament, that these people would be saved just as any one else would, while it is the priests or the scammers, though they may be believers, who ought to be concerned about salvation.

It's about a walk with or in Christ moreso than about what people call themselves.

But as always, I don't necessarily expect anyone to believe Jesus existed given the lack of scientific evidence. Or that he was divine in any way. So it's all just a thought exercise for these forum discussions.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm sure you think so. I see horrid people do horrid things and simply walk away. Shall we start listing molesting priests and televangelists? How about Politicians?

I don't know about you, but I continually see molesting priests doing jail time.

Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they won't be punished by God (in a Christian view).

As a matter of fact, let me think about this.

Hebrews 12.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 12 - New International Version

I am surprised I remembered this passage but let's take a look:

In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.(I) 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart(J) when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,(K)
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”[a](L)

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children.(M) For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline(N)—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits(O) and live!(P) 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.(Q)


Here, even in scripture it suggests that if you aren't suffering, then you're probably doing something wrong in your life with Christ. If God isn't causing you pain, you may not be loved.

There are actually a lot of versus similar to this in scripture. The entire book of lamentations is all about suffering of Christians, book of Job etc.

And this is the same for sinners as well.

But scripture never says that in our worldy life that we absolutely will be punished even if we sin. Nor does it say the opposite that if you walk with Christ that you won't be punished. Or I guess disciplined is the nicer word used when God causes believers pain, while seeking to shape them for God's will.

But yea, anyway, scripture never says that these hypothetical sinful Christians will or will not be struck down while on earth. That's just not how scripture is worded.