Superiority Complex.

[Glass*Soul]

In response to the OP, I think that believing you have won God's favor gives way to a little bit of a superiority complex. However, that could be considered the case for any religion. I would bet that most people think they are the eyes-wide-open intelligent individual amongst an army of mindless sheep. The same arrogance applies to any atheist who thinks they can explain in full the origins of life based on our current scientific knowledge. The best and most honest answer to our origins has always been "I don't know."

The most convincing Christians that I've ever met are those who show true humility and admit that they DO NOT have all the answers. If someone isn't willing to answer "I don't know" to something they don't know, then it really throws off their credibility.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I am quite willing to say that there is much I don't know about the origins of life or of human beings. What I am not willing to say is that I know nothing about it, which is what it sometimes feels as though I am being asked to say. As a skeptic, I am also unlikely to fill in the gaps in my knowledge with any sorts of supernatural explanations.

I feel the same way about the quoting of scripture in our discussions here. I am quite willing to say that there is much I don't know about the scriptures. I have met scholars here and throughout my life whose knowledge far outstrips my own (I am thinking in particular of my OT professor). On the other hand, I am not willing to accept that I know nothing about the scriptures nor that my overview is so lacking as to be useless nor that my insights are entirely without value nor that my questions are unfailingly out of order. I am not willing to accept that someone making the supernatural claim of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit automatically has a broader, fuller or more subtle understanding.

If I were to find that Christians worldwide and from all walks of life and levels of education were inexplicably brilliant and inexplicably in agreement as to the scriptures, that might give me pause. I've not yet seen this. What I do see is that good education, a certain weight of life experience, and/or humble and inquiring minds do seem to produce good insights into scripture. When I see this happening, I listen. Whether or not they are Christians.

 

[razeontherock]

In the same way that I'm sure you can't choose to not believe in God, I can't choose to believe in him. I'm far from convinced.

I think that's a reasonable statement. What you can choose to do, is to spend time picking the brains of those who have real, first hand "know so" Faith, to see what makes us tick. I'll be the first to point out this is MUCH more effective in person, but in my experience the days of being able to do that are mostly behind us. e-mail (or forums like this) are just "too convenient."

There are so many factors affecting whether or not we believe in a particular religion.

Not trying to be funny here, but you do realize this is a completely different topic, right? It'd be much simpler to stick w/ the idea of believing in G-d, (or not) and then going from there. So far you don't, so isn't it sensible to leave religion(s) out of it?

Also, don't assume that being atheist means I automatically defend abortion.

I don't think he did, but it is a perfect example of how we actually can change our own morality or beliefs. I can tell you exactly what made me go from a very typical supporter of abortion "rights," to what might be considered a 'conservative Christian' stance on the issue; but in short, it's information.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm going to be completely honest: I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're joking by taking some of the things I said out of context or what.

There was one joke in there, but I don't believe I took anything out of context. If you disagree, you'll have to point it out. Better yet, point out what you need clarification of to comprehend.

 

[JohnCR]

I think that's a reasonable statement. What you can choose to do, is to spend time picking the brains of those who have real, first hand "know so" Faith, to see what makes us tick. I'll be the first to point out this is MUCH more effective in person, but in my experience the days of being able to do that are mostly behind us. e-mail (or forums like this) are just "too convenient."

Why do you think I'm here? I do it all the time in person with lots of different types of people who hold different beliefs. Actually, they start to get annoyed after awhile, so I usually stop after that.

Not trying to be funny here, but you do realize this is a completely different topic, right? It'd be much simpler to stick w/ the idea of believing in G-d, (or not) and then going from there. So far you don't, so isn't it sensible to leave religion(s) out of it?

I chose my words very carefully here. I meant to use the word "religion." I think the word "religion" best illustrates the fact that there are many different ideas of what God is. If you break it down into two groups, then you make it sound much more simple than it is in actuality.

I don't think he did, but it is a perfect example of how we actually can change our own morality or beliefs. I can tell you exactly what made me go from a very typical supporter of abortion "rights," to what might be considered a 'conservative Christian' stance on the issue; but in short, it's information.

Just making sure. I believe the line is rather fuzzy on abortion, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

 

[JohnCR]

There was one joke in there, but I don't believe I took anything out of context. If you disagree, you'll have to point it out. Better yet, point out what you need clarification of to comprehend.

Ok, here you go.

Wow does THIS ever reveal some important ground to cover!!



STOP! That's impossible. And for precisely this reason:



Do I need to "throw verses at you" to establish this?



So now you realize yet one more way Christianity is unique from all religions. Thanks for pointing that out! I had overlooked that one. Duh me.



Since the term has come up recently and is ongoing in a few discussions -

THAT is integrity!! Thank you. It isn't so rare among scientists, but almost non-existent in academia.

What was the reason that made it impossible to win God's favor? What are you trying to establish by throwing verses at me? What did you think I realized that made Christianity unique from all religions? What integrity are you talking about?

 

[ephraimanesti]

I guess we have hit a roadblock then. What you consider a choice, I consider not a choice. In the same way that I'm sure you can't choose to not believe in God, I can't choose to believe in him. I'm far from convinced. There are so many factors affecting whether or not we believe in a particular religion. Given that most of these factors are out of our control (region, parents, etc.), I would not call it a choice.

MY BROTHER,

Perhaps it would be helpful for your to read the book of Acts. As Peter, Paul, and others spread the Gospel throughout the then known world, all of those they preached to had different--and mostly antithetic--religion, parents, cultures, etc. then those doing the preaching. Perhaps the greatest differences being between the Jews doing the preaching and the Gentiles doing the converting. Its a choice--they heard the Truth, accepted it, and changed their lives and their belief systems accordingly. This is these same process gone through by all who convert. It's a choice to follow the Truth.

Also, don't assume that being atheist means I automatically defend abortion.

Well, that wasn't my assumption--abortion just popped into my head as a prime example of a change in morality--although it is fact that the vast majority of those working to bring this horror into the mainstream and keep it there were and are atheists. Nothing personal was intended, but keep in mind Dostoevsky's insightful truism--"If there is no god, everything is permitted." i hold that many are lured into at least an affected atheism by the lure of this fact.

Reversing negative and positive, slavery would be another good example--the choice to begin to see slavery for what it was--a crime against our Creator Who created all men/women in His Image and Likeness--and act to put an end to it--by choice.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[razeontherock]

What was the reason that made it impossible to win God's favor?

Exactly what you said - so nobody could brag about it. For our species, G-d's favor is obtained only one way, and that is without merit. a free gift; exactly the opposite of "winning." The more you learn about it, the more you learn how overwhelmingly true that is!

What are you trying to establish by throwing verses at me?

The above point. Context John, context. All this was originally within comprehensible context, while here, "thanks" to our quote function, this is all dangling strings. You'll notice I haven't quoted a Scripture. Everything I'm saying to you IS Scriptural, just paraphrased to fit our conversation. If you need book chapter and verse, I can keep you going all day. And provide a great link to many different translations, as well as the original languages all in the same place.

What did you think I realized that made Christianity unique from all religions?

That part was my joke, but I never said YOU realized it. You made me realize it. Again, the first point here was that it's IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to brag about "winning G-d's favor." It simply doesn't work that way. If you can point out a different religion that operates that same way, go ahead. And I'll try to separate out their legalistic system of earning, vs Christ's free gift.

What integrity are you talking about?

Again, all of this is evident from context if you go back and look at my post you quoted here. The integrity of saying we don't have the scientific knowledge to fully explain origins. Yet.

 

[razeontherock]

I think the word "religion" best illustrates the fact that there are many different ideas of what God is.

I don't. Christianity holds more concepts of what G-d is than any of us will ever be able to comprehend in a lifetime.

 

[Glass*Soul]

MY BROTHER,

Perhaps it would be helpful for your to read the book of Acts. As Peter, Paul, and others spread the Gospel throughout the then known world, all of those they preached to had different--and mostly antithetic--religion, parents, cultures, etc. then those doing the preaching. Perhaps the greatest differences being between the Jews doing the preaching and the Gentiles doing the converting. Its a choice--they heard the Truth, accepted it, and changed their lives and their belief systems accordingly. This is these same process gone through by all who convert. It's a choice to follow the Truth.

Good evening, ephraimanesti. I hope you don't mind me joining in, but you've touched on something that has been buzzing around in my brain. It probably deserves it's own topic, though I'm not sure where I would put it. I have been wondering if Jesus meant his teachings to be a new religion per se or more something that stands along side one's beliefs, transforming them and fulfilling their potential. His insistence that he was not out to alter Judaism but to fulfill it interests me. Obviously he found his own tradition and scriptures authoritative and compelling (as well as regarding them as particularly fertile ground for his teachings), but when he spoke to the Syro-Phoenician woman he was both surprised and pleased by what she said and did not insist that she convert.

He seemed to imply that though Judaism was particularly fertile ground that the Gentiles would eventually come along in due time. As I recall in Acts and in Paul's epistles the question as to whether Gentile Christians needed to convert to Judaism was a hot topic and the decision that they need not do so eventually won out.

Just an idea and a total derail.

Sorry about that.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I don't. Christianity holds more concepts of what G-d is than any of us will ever be able to comprehend in a lifetime.

You and I were discussing this somewhere yesterday. I found myself wondering, as I took my walk this morning, if clinging to any of these facets (or shards as it seemed to me) of a God concept is something quite akin to the worship of idols or of many gods--if those doing so are following the same path toward making oneself available to or putting oneself into communion with the ineffable, whether they see it as such or not. (I say this without placing a value judgment on this particular path.)

Sorry. I'm the derail queen tonight. Not sure why.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Good evening, ephraimanesti. I hope you don't mind me joining in, but you've touched on something that has been buzzing around in my brain. It probably deserves it's own topic, though I'm not sure where I would put it. I have been wondering if Jesus meant his teachings to be a new religion per se or more something that stands along side one's beliefs, transforming them and fulfilling their potential. His insistence that he was not out to alter Judaism but to fulfill it interests me. Obviously he found his own tradition and scriptures authoritative and compelling (as well as regarding them as particularly fertile ground for his teachings), but when he spoke to the Syro-Phoenician woman he was both surprised and pleased by what she said and did not insist that she convert.

He seemed to imply that though Judaism was particularly fertile ground that the Gentiles would eventually come along in due time. As I recall in Acts and in Paul's epistles the question as to whether Gentile Christians needed to convert to Judaism was a hot topic and the decision that they need not do so eventually won out.

Just an idea and a total derail.

Sorry about that.

MY BROTHER,

i think you will probably get a lot of different answers to your question, and it would, indeed, warrant a Thread of its own.

My opinion is that Jesus did indeed come--as the Messiah--to fulfill Judaism, and in so doing allowed it to morph into something new--Christianity. Perhaps a good analogy would be a caterpillar fulfilling the old in the cocoon and beginning the new as a butterfly.

i do not think that Jesus Himself knew before His Resurrection what the ultimate outcome of His ministry would be, although obviously His Father did. Jesus' Apostles and Disciples appear, from reading Acts, to have tried to hang on to their "Jewishness" for as long as possible but eventually it became obvious that Judaism, with its focus on works, was incompatible with Christianity, with its focus on Grace.

ephraim

 

[scraparcs]

MY BROTHER,

i think you will probably get a lot of different answers to your question, and it would, indeed, warrant a Thread of its own.

My opinion is that Jesus did indeed come--as the Messiah--to fulfill Judaism, and in so doing allowed it to morph into something new--Christianity. Perhaps a good analogy would be a caterpillar fulfilling the old in the cocoon and beginning the new as a butterfly.

i do not think that Jesus Himself knew before His Resurrection what the ultimate outcome of His ministry would be, although obviously His Father did. Jesus' Apostles and Disciples appear, from reading Acts, to have tried to hang on to their "Jewishness" for as long as possible but eventually it became obvious that Judaism, with its focus on works, was incompatible with Christianity, with its focus on Grace.

ephraim

Is the butterfly no longer a caterpillar?

I realize upon further reading that this isn't radical or new, but sometimes I have to stop and remind myself that Jesus was a Jew and Jesus wasn't out to found a new religion.

 

[razeontherock]

I think this is completely on topic, in the sense that the Bible is plainly understandable if you're willing to really get into it. Some wonderfully valid points here:

I have been wondering if Jesus meant his teachings to be a new religion per se or more something that stands along side one's beliefs,

Ding ding ding!! I say seeing as what He went through, He'd be appalled at anyone trying to follow Him and thinking of it merely as a "religion." What he gives is life, and His teaching are to be at the top of our belief system. Most of daily life He never taught about!

if clinging to any of these facets (or shards as it seemed to me) of a God concept is something quite akin to the worship of idols or of many gods--if those doing so are following the same path toward making oneself available to or putting oneself into communion with the ineffable, whether they see it as such or not.

This is a valid tangent to what I was saying. The Bible makes it plain He has always revealed Himself to mankind, so I find it difficult to imagine any belief systems are totally bereft of the Divine. But what I was saying is within Christianity itself, even broken little "shards" will lead to an ever bigger picture. Take the burning bush, for example; meh. As we learn to connect the dots we realize all the shards are connected ...

 

[Glass*Soul]

I think this is completely on topic, in the sense that the Bible is plainly understandable if you're willing to really get into it. Some wonderfully valid points here:



Ding ding ding!! I say seeing as what He went through, He'd be appalled at anyone trying to follow Him and thinking of it merely as a "religion." What he gives is life, and His teaching are to be at the top of our belief system. Most of daily life He never taught about!



This is a valid tangent to what I was saying. The Bible makes it plain He has always revealed Himself to mankind, so I find it difficult to imagine any belief systems are totally bereft of the Divine. But what I was saying is within Christianity itself, even broken little "shards" will lead to an ever bigger picture. Take the burning bush, for example; meh. As we learn to connect the dots we realize all the shards are connected ...

Yes. The connection is us.

 

[Insubres]

If people can't understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit then it throws out all the claims of being converted by reading the Bible, especially for churches that believe the Holy Spirit isn't imparted until Baptism. You can't have both.

 

[Riski]

If people can't understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit then it throws out all the claims of being converted by reading the Bible, especially for churches that believe the Holy Spirit isn't imparted until Baptism. You can't have both.

You can have both while you are a Christian, if you decide sometime in the future to stop being a Christian that right will be removed. (as most ex Christians here will testify)

We have been told so many times that you need to be a Christian before you can understand what it means to be a Christian, in other words you must believe before you can believe, to believe the impossible is possible you must first believe that the impossible is possible, to accomplish all of that it would be beneficial to be either very young and grow up with it or somehow acquire the ability to put your common sense on hold for the rest of your life.

 

[Wicked Willow]

It would be very interesting to me to compare interpretations of Scripture with you, to find out what you consider worst or best. The only people that have ever been able to keep up with me have a Phd in divinity, and usually only reveal that after lengthy discussion by asking me if I had attended their degree program. Please note I have 0 background that you value.

I doubt that. You may not have attended college courses on the matter, but you've obviously devoted some time and energy to pursuing the subject - as have I, in spite of having no affiliation with our department of theology. (OR some Christian church, for that matter. Although *technically*, I'm still registered as a Lutheran, courtesy of a childhood baptism.)

I caught up to the 8 pages I missed on that thread, and only responded a little to keep it simple(r). I found one thing I consider to be an error, and noted it.

That's the ONLY thing you disagree with re: Duckybill's posts? Hmph. I must confess that I'm a little disappointed in you. Apart from his poor biblical exegesis, he promotes a kind of spiritual Stalinism that is utterly atrocious, and strikes me as profound blasphemy.

I'm not good at putting words in people's mouths, but it appears your only real issue is being confused about Divine Judgment, as if G-d could somehow choose what is and is not Just.

Eh? Nah, that's not my only *real* issue with poor scriptural exegesis. There are many more than just that, although the claim that eternal torment qualifies as "justice" by any conceivable standard strikes me as downright atrocious.

Immutable Truth doesn't work that way! The law of sin and death is part of the world we live in, as anybody can plainly see with their own 2 eyes.

Ah, we're taking certain premises for granted once more? I see.

That's what the flood is all about; you know, the part where he "repented Himself that He had made man?"

How can an omniscient being regret its deeds? That's like deliberately planning a failure, and then complaining about it.
For me, this speaks of your religion's distant roots in proto-semitic spirituality, a time when Deity was conceived of as far more human, far less exalted, and far more concerned with keeping the human population in check. We have corresponding myths in the writings of neighbouring peoples, where the deities find that Man has grown too numerous, and that the clamour of cities disturbs the peace of the gods.

This brought G-d's Covenant w/ us past the blood sacrifice instituted w/ Adam and Eve, to the second step. (We're at the 4th step now, with full access behind the veil, into the Most Holy Place) Salvation is G-d's plan, not our doing! Everything He has done has been to deliver it to our door. This is all plainly evident in Scripture, and needs no "grounding whatsoever in history, cultural studies or scriptural exegesis."

And yet, you'll find hundreds of different interpretations of scripture, even within Christianity. People who believe in Predestination. People who believe in free will. People who believe in "once saved, always saved". People who believe that you can fall away. People who believe that the unsaved will simply be annihilated. People who believe that Hell is a perpetual state. People who believe that descriptions of hell are figurative. People who believe that Hell is a literal lake of fire. People who believe that heaven and hell are both God's Presence, experienced by the saved and the sinner, respectively. People who believe that hell is merely the absence of God. People who believe that it is our disembodied souls that are taken to heaven or hell, the instant we die. People who believe that we'll lie dormant until Judgment Day, to be called forth in our re-awakened bodies. People who believe that the Heavenly Jerusalem is a literal place with literal streets of gold and literal crowns for those who have excelled in life. People who believe that the book of Revelation is deeply symbolic. I could endlessly expand this list if I wished to do so.

And the thing is: virtually ALL of these positions can be backed up with Scripture, one way or the other. Jonathan Edwards's spider-burning ogre-god is in many ways just as scriptural as Martin Luther King's benevolent Father in Heaven.

So how is it that you, Mark, and our many apostate Christians have missed this?

I have a question for you: if God wants all to be saved - do you think it possible that He might FAIL?

 

[ephraimanesti]

I have a question for you: if God wants all to be saved - do you think it possible that He might FAIL?

MY SISTER,

Unfortunately--YES. God's will is not the deciding factor--that is the domain of our freewill, and He will not impinge upon it given, as mentioned before, that Love to BE Love must be offered freely.

Salvation = oneness with God. That cannot be forced, only freely chosen.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Riski]

Salvation = oneness with God. That cannot be forced, only freely chosen.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Have you ever wondered why you believe as you do?

 

[Key]

Have you ever wondered why you believe as you do?

Everyday.. I question my beliefs, and if you thought that being a "Christian" was a one time choice, I have some very bad news for you.