Successful Rebels to the End....

[FireDragon76]

Well I'll keep it very simple for you then...that way you can recognize we're talking about the same god. God tells you how you should live (no sex before marriage)...what you should do (accept Jesus as your personal savior)...and the rewards for it (a personal relationship with god, acceptance into heaven).

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A personal relationship with God or acceptance into heaven are NOT rewards for good behavior or "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". If this were so, then God's grace would be earned, and this is not what Christianity teaches, at least what I am familiar with when I go to church or read books on the subject.

You were able to ask god "why" regarding any of his "ad vice" and get a clear answer....from my years of asking believers "why" I've really only found out that I'm not supposed to ask why...and they typically don't.

See... you are taking Christian fundamentalism or extreme pietism/evangelicalism as an example and assuming all Christians operate in that manner. They don't. You are assuming authentic Christianity is legalistic, when in fact it isn't. Being a good Christian is not merely about following rules, in fact I'd say if that is all that is guiding a Christian in their life, they are sorely mistaken and in error. The Bible itself says the letter kills, the law brings death, but the Spirit gives life. You've let dead religion become your stumbling block, as it has for many atheists.

 

[znr]

Thief on the cross...he didn't have much time to worry about premarital sex or marriage, let alone earning grace.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A personal relationship with God or acceptance into heaven are NOT rewards for good behavior or "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". If this were so, then God's grace would be earned, and this is not what Christianity teaches, at least what I am familiar with when I go to church or read books on the subject.




See... you are taking Christian fundamentalism or extreme pietism/evangelicalism as an example and assuming all Christians operate in that manner. They don't. You are assuming authentic Christianity is legalistic, when in fact it isn't. Being a good Christian is not merely about following rules, in fact I'd say if that is all that is guiding a Christian in their life, they are sorely mistaken and in error. The Bible itself says the letter kills, the law brings death, but the Spirit gives life. You've let dead religion become your stumbling block, as it has for many atheists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A personal relationship with God or acceptance into heaven are NOT rewards for good behavior or "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". If this were so, then God's grace would be earned, and this is not what Christianity teaches, at least what I am familiar with when I go to church or read books on the subject.




See... you are taking Christian fundamentalism or extreme pietism/evangelicalism as an example and assuming all Christians operate in that manner. They don't. You are assuming authentic Christianity is legalistic, when in fact it isn't. Being a good Christian is not merely about following rules, in fact I'd say if that is all that is guiding a Christian in their life, they are sorely mistaken and in error. The Bible itself says the letter kills, the law brings death, but the Spirit gives life. You've let dead religion become your stumbling block, as it has for many atheists.

"A personal relationship with God or acceptance into heaven are NOT rewards for good behavior or "accepting Jesus as your personal savior".

You misunderstood...I simply used those as examples. They're meant as a part of the whole seeking god by following the bible business. I'm certainly not going to list everything that's supposed to entail. However, if that isn't how you get into heaven and get a personal relationship with god...then feel free to share what is the way.

"You've let dead religion become your stumbling block, as it has for many atheists."

Actually I haven't lol. If you'd like to continue with the "religion as an obstacle" analogy however, I'd say that I've removed it from my life entirely.

 

[Freodin]

Really?

Where?

"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

... He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there."

Here.

You cannot argue that people are going to Hell by their own free will and choice, and then lament that God let's them have it their way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I know because the Bible tells me so. It's a worthwhile goal to pursue because Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, he alone is Lord and judge of the world.

Other holy books disagree. So why pin it all to what the Bible says?

"What profit it a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

That's a non sequitur.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is not Christianity.

It might be your view of it, but that is not Christianity.

Based on the sample of posts I've seen on here, from people who call themselves Christians, it seems to infect Christianity as much as any other religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:17,18

That really doesn't answer my questions. In fact, my post might as well have been made in response to 2 Corinthians 4:17,18.

 

[FireDragon76]

You misunderstood...I simply used those as examples. They're meant as a part of the whole seeking god by following the bible business. I'm certainly not going to list everything that's supposed to entail. However, if that isn't how you get into heaven and get a personal relationship with god...then feel free to share what is the way.

Go read some Bishop N.T. Wright: "Getting into heaven" is not even the point of being Christian. "Getting a personal relationship with God" is 20th century evangelicalism, and not the only way to understand the Gospel.

To elucidate further... faith is a gift. That means there's nothing you or I do can do to earn it. The big message of the Gospel, of the historic Christian faith is not that we must seek after God, but God has sought after us. Not only has God sought after us, but he's given a preferential option for just the sorts of people that religion says shouldn't be sought: sinners, the outcast, the oppressed.

Really, I don't think many atheists here understand what they are objecting to. There's a great deal of difference between folk religion and religious upstarts like revivalism, and historic Christian faith.

 

[quatona]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A personal relationship with God or acceptance into heaven are NOT rewards for good behavior or "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". If this were so, then God's grace would be earned, and this is not what Christianity teaches, at least what I am familiar with when I go to church or read books on the subject.

So what is it that gets a person into heaven (or not), in the teachings of your church?

 

[FireDragon76]

So what is it that gets a person into heaven (or not), in the teachings of your church?

Re-read what I posted previously, especially about needing to read up on Bishop N.T. Wright's work on the New Testament.

 

[bhsmte]

Re-read what I posted previously, especially about needing to read up on Bishop N.T. Wright's work on the New Testament.

Are there people who disagree with NT Wright's personal interpretation of the NT? I would imagine there are. You see, when you start with a bunch of stories, that have no way to objectively show they are reliable, you are already starting off at a disadvantage. People of other religions, agree with their holy book as much as you agree with yours, or the interpretation of the same you choose to cling to.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are there people who disagree with NT Wright's personal interpretation of the NT?

Sure, there are people that disagree with him. But Wright is a respected New Testament scholar in academia, meaning his work is peer reviewed. And it joins a larger consensus of Christian academics and theologians that agree the biblical message is not some kind of "cargo cult" about where you go when you die.

A good book discussing N.T. Wright's views, and contrasting them with Dr. Marcus Borg's: http://www.amazon.com/The-Meaning-Jesus-Visions-Plus/dp/0061285544 . I found the book very helpful, and I don't necessarily see Borg's ideas as adversarial to Wright's. My point is that neither sees the Christian life as about "going to heaven when you die". So asking what my church teaches about "how to go to heaven": it's just not relevant to my spiritual life. My religion teaches us that heaven came down to us.

You see, when you start with a bunch of stories, that have no way to objectively show they are reliable, you are already starting off at a disadvantage.

None of us have objectivity, that sort of thing went out with Postmodernism.

People of other religions, agree with their holy book as much as you agree with yours, or the interpretation of the same you choose to cling to.

I'm not out to denigrate other faiths. I'm defending real Christian beliefs against your caricatures and misrepresentations. It's dishonest to build up straw men to attack, when you don't show much evidence of being familiar with the breadth of Christian religion- it's not a monolithic entity.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, there are people that disagree with him. But Wright is a respected New Testament scholar in academia, meaning his work is peer reviewed.

A good book discussing N.T. Wright's views, and contrasting them with Dr. Marcus Borg's: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Plus): Marcus J. Borg, N. T. Wright: 9780061285547: Amazon.com: Books . I found the book very helpful, and I don't necessarily see Borg's ideas as adversarial to Wright's. My point is that neither sees the Christian life as about "going to heaven when you die". So asking what my church teaches about "how to go to heaven": it's just not relevant to my spiritual life. My religion teaches us that heaven came down to us.


None of us have objectivity, that sort of thing went out with Postmodernism.



I'm not out to denigrate other faiths. I'm defending real Christian beliefs against your caricatures and misrepresentations. It's dishonest to build up straw men to attack, when you don't show much evidence of being familiar with the breadth of Christian religion- it's not a monolithic entity.

When NT historians apply the historical method that historians use to determine the credibility of what happened in the past, the method helps to add objectivity, but there still could be some bias, if one uses the method to loosely or possibly to sternly. Observing how historians come to their conclusions and what evidence they put more credence to, is another filtering method to get as close to objectivity as one can.

Most NT historians, will state; portions of the NT are credible history, but large portions of it, can not be confirmed as credible using the historical method.

Therefore, many NT historians, call the NT, a work of theology, vs a work of credible history.

Which is another reason, Christians belief what they do, on their faith of the theology presented.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

When NT historians apply the historical method that historians use to determine the credibility of what happened in the past, the method helps to add objectivity, but there still could be some bias, if one uses the method to loosely or possibly to sternly. Observing how historians come to their conclusions and what evidence they put more credence to, is another filtering method to get as close to objectivity as one can.

Most NT historians, will state; portions of the NT are credible history, but large portions of it, can not be confirmed as credible using the historical method.

Therefore, many NT historians, call the NT, a work of theology, vs a work of credible history.

Which is another reason, Christians belief what they do, on their faith of the theology presented.

To say the NT is a work of theology is to state the obvious.

No disagreement on my part with that conclusion.

But to say that since it is a work of theology that therefore it is not credible as a historical document is another matter.

Is that what you are arguing?

If so, why? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

SO well stated, thank you. That's how have I it in my mind, but couldn't quite articulate it as you have.

It isn't to say Lewis wasn't a brilliant man. He was. But, anyone can school up on the Bible. It's a book that one has to take an immense leap of faith to believe, like frankly, I once did as a Christian.

But, objectively stepping back and viewing the book, much of what I read made no logical sense, had no evidence to support it, and required my blind obedience to its word without questioning it.

Becoming an ''expert'' in theology, not even sure what that means. lol Does it mean you are good at memorizing a religious book that is not factual and promoting it as truth to others?

I want you provide me with a good argument as to why I should not believe the New Testament is Inspired by God. Do so in the form of a debate proposal in the appropriate forum if you will.

Thanks.

 

[BL2KTN]

I want you to give me one good reason why I should not believe the New Testament is Inspired by God. Do so in the form of a debate proposal in the appropriate forum if you will.

That debate already occurred and I already won it. I had more than one or a dozen reasons, and I included the Old Testament as well.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That debate already occurred and I already won it. I had more than one or a dozen reasons, and I included the Old Testament as well.

I want to debate Deidre.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes, we're all aware you want to debate.

 

[variant]

Yes, we're all aware you want to debate.

He specifically told me he didn't want a debate earlier.

So, just Deidre. Or, just on his terms.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

He specifically told me he didn't want a debate earlier.

So, just Deidre. Or, just on his terms.

Just Deidre for now