Im worried

[Scuba Pete]

Well thanks to both of you!

 

[Todd]

For a while now i have been a preety strong aethiest.
I currently have been reading works of plato and socrates and other famous philosophers and started asking myself, should i really give up on faith? I've been thinking about going back to temple(jewish) with my family and start worshiping again. I only have been thinking about this because i also asked the question, what if your wrong Eric? About the afterlife. I thaught when you die well you just die, but picking up these works and just thinking much more about it i face the possibility that im wrong, and come my death what then?


Any of you have suggestions for me?

Well, I read a lot of posts in response to your post. I'm not going to guide you in any direction. If I were you, I would just pray that God reveal himself to you as God. I could be wrong about religion, and others could be wrong about religion as Duet so elouquently put, but I would expect that if you ask, God would reveal himself in one way or another. Hope that helps some.

 

[s2a]

Hello lilithu,

You said:

s2a, you've quoted from the bible exclusively to support the exclusivist position, even tho you obviously don't hold that view. And you did it in response to NetDoc's post where he rejects the exclusivist position. The only two logical inferences that I can draw (and I'm sure you'll tell me if I missed one) is that you either think that NetDoc is being insincere in his views or that he is mistaken/not a true Christian.

OK. Here is what you missed, and why your drawn inferences are both inherently mischaracterizing and flawed.

NetDoc said (post #24, to Michel) in preface to the one I addressed (#27):

"It is my firm conviction that we all possess pride: a sin. This pride causes us to say and do things to find favor with our friends and companions. No one is perfect, except for Jesus."

Note the "absolutivity" (I just made that a new word ;-)) of his claims.

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective. How is that to be inferred as a biblically derived, "exclusivist" position/claim? From NetDoc's second claim stating that "No one is perfect, except for Jesus". From what reference work is this claim derivatively sourced? The New Testament of the Bible, methinks (ex. Hebrews 5:5-10).
"No one...except..." is most certainly a prefaced, "exclusivist" claim, and proffered as partial foundation in establishment of (a biblical) source regarding his prior claim ("ALL pride is sin").

It would seem to me, that adherent "followers of Christ" would primarily follow the teachings/instructions/proclamations/commands of their own professed prophet and Savior at the forefront of their core beliefs (Obviously, many self-professed Christians operate from their own "interpretations" of Scripture, predicated upon their unique/personalized "revelation").

Jesus is accounted to have said in John 14:6; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.".

Is His an "exclusivist" position/claim, or does it suggest "other paths" to God and salvation are equally merited and valid? What exceptions or exclusions does Jesus allow/provide/allude for as "alternate means" of ultimate redemptive salvation anywhere in the New Testament?

When Jesus is quoted as saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me...", is there some equivocation in that claim, or some aspect of shared power as ultimate "authority"? I deem a claim of "All authority" (as being His "exclusively") as "exclusivist" regarding any other claims of legitimate "authority". Do you read this differently (this is not intended as a rhetorical question)?

I retain no concerted personalized interest nor motivation in impugning NetDoc's sincerity or piety. But dogmatic concepts of inherent sin, when associated with claims of ultimate perfection (embodied by Jesus Himself), certainly leads one to reasonably conclude that the claim is in fact, premised to an "exclusive", Christian-based perspective.

I have merely cited relevant C&V that suggests that an equivocal perspective regarding salvation and redemption is not supported by the words of Jesus as accounted in the Bible. Self-professed "followers of Christ" are certainly left to "interpret" these passages however best such may suit their current proclivities and sensibilities. I will leave accusations/imputations of unorthodoxy, hypocrisy, and heresy, to any adherents as may be pleased to do so for, upon, and within themselves. I have no dog in the fight.

It seems, from my perspective anyway, that you've chosen to believe that "true" Christianity is only exclusivist and incompatible with tolerance and even acceptance of other faiths.

My "belief" has no ties to the claims of Christianity. But I would assert that the words of Jesus of the Bible are most certainly "exclusivist", intolerant, and incompatible - in acceptance of other faiths (as are quite often argued amongst the various sects under the encompassing rubric of "Christianity" itself - even within online forums ;-)). Self-professed Christians are more than welcome to espouse more "liberal" or accepting views than those of their own prophet, if His rather unequivocal position makes them feel uncomfortable or unjustly intemperate towards other's beliefs.

There are certainly some Christians who would agree with you, but I wonder why you agree with them.

I don't. I retain no inner conflict of necessitated resolution between matters that I must accept on faith alone, versus those that are subject to freethinking reason and evidentiary fact. Your perception of my "agreement" with one perspective or the other is a false choice, for I consider all the biblical claims of supernaturalistic existence/cause/effect as pure bunk. To suggest that I'm "taking sides", or "favor" one proscribed set of biblical "interpretations" over another is manifestly silly, and inaccurate to boot.

"Who's right?" is not a question that plagues or perplexes me regarding the conflicting claims and interpretations that either affiliated/organized sectarian Christian groups or singular individuals may offer regarding their own particular "exclusivist" claims of "truth". I don't care, because I think they're ALL "wrong".

My interest/concern has been - is today - and shall continue henceforth tomorrow...not in questioning (or falsifying/disproving) the "what" of what people believe, but rather the "why" - of "what" - they believe (and proclaim/espouse/insist) to be "true".

My provision of the relevant biblical C&V merely serves to illustrate the inconsistency of a personalized claim of acceptable subjectivity (regarding "alternate paths" to God, or of expressed disinterest that others might pursue such 'paths" without purposed/commanded proactive intervention from all self-professed "followers of Christ"), when Jesus Himself expressed an unequivocal, "exclusivist" mandate of faith in Him.

The implied "why, of what you believe" question is thusly put forth and provided accordingly, and why I leave my previously lent observation to confidently stand as it is...

"I guess it does matter to an authoritatively commanding Jesus as to who's determinedly "right", and who is not...and what His followers are instructed to do about that.

[It's neither inattentiveness nor purposed mischaracterization to accurately infer/observe/conclude that self-professed "followers of Christ" should consider their own beliefs as "right ("correct", "true")"; and determinedly conclude adherents of any/all other beliefs as, "wrong". Hey. It's right there, straight from their professed prophet's mouth (who is revered a tad more than a mere "gift horse").]"

 

[lilithu]

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective. How is that to be inferred as a biblically derived, "exclusivist" position/claim? From NetDoc's second claim stating that "No one is perfect, except for Jesus". From what reference work is this claim derivatively sourced? The New Testament of the Bible, methinks (ex. Hebrews 5:5-10).
"No one...except..." is most certainly a prefaced, "exclusivist" claim, and proffered as partial foundation in establishment of (a biblical) source regarding his prior claim ("ALL pride is sin").

ONLY if our said sin would exclude us from heaven and ONLY if the only way to avoid that is belief in Jesus as savior. Neither one of which did NetDoc say. He may or may not believe either of these things - I don't want to put words in his mouth - but your infering that his position is exclusivist assumes both of those conditions. I myself am perfectly willing to call extreme pride a "sin," but I don't believe that it leads to hell, other than a "hell" of our own making perhaps. As NetDoc said, sin is just "missing the mark."

Yes, I am familiar with the John quote. It is probably the most oft quoted passage in the New Testament by both exclusivist Christians and those hostile to Christianity alike. There are, however, other passages in the bible that support the inclusivist view. Not to mention the fact that large parts of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, hold church authority above that of scripture (ongoing revelation thru the church) and both are inclusivist.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Jesus is accounted to have said in John 14:6; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ...

Is His an "exclusivist" position/claim, or does it suggest "other paths" to God and salvation are equally merited and valid?

This statement need not be taken as exclusivist.

In fact, MANY (if not all) Divine Messengers have made such claims. And in the Baha'i view this is completely correct and proper because each is, for His age, the path to God. Because it is the same Holy Spirit speaking through each of Them, each can make this identical claim.

(I can document the widespread nature of these claims, BTW, for anyone who is interested.)

As to perfection and sinlessness, this is indeed an extremely rare state, but is not confined solely to Jesus: there have been a very few others, too.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[michel]

Hello lilithu,

You said:


OK. Here is what you missed, and why your drawn inferences are both inherently mischaracterizing and flawed.

NetDoc said (post #24, to Michel) in preface to the one I addressed (#27):


Note the "absolutivity" (I just made that a new word ;-)) of his claims.

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective. How is that to be inferred as a"We all possess pride: a sin" biblically derived, "exclusivist" position/claim? From NetDoc's second claim stating that "No one is perfect, except for Jesus". From what reference work is this claim derivatively sourced? The New Testament of the Bible, methinks (ex. Hebrews 5:5-10).
"No one...except..." is most certainly a prefaced, "exclusivist" claim, and proffered as partial foundation in establishment of (a biblical) source regarding his prior claim ("ALL pride is sin").

It would seem to me, that adherent "followers of Christ" would primarily follow the teachings/instructions/proclamations/commands of their own professed prophet and Savior at the forefront of their core beliefs (Obviously, many self-professed Christians operate from their own "interpretations" of Scripture, predicated upon their unique/personalized "revelation").

Jesus is accounted to have said in John 14:6; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.".

Is His an "exclusivist" position/claim, or does it suggest "other paths" to God and salvation are equally merited and valid? What exceptions or exclusions does Jesus allow/provide/allude for as "alternate means" of ultimate redemptive salvation anywhere in the New Testament?

When Jesus is quoted as saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me...", is there some equivocation in that claim, or some aspect of shared power as ultimate "authority"? I deem a claim of "All authority" (as being His "exclusively") as "exclusivist" regarding any other claims of legitimate "authority". Do you read this differently (this is not intended as a rhetorical question)?

I retain no concerted personalized interest nor motivation in impugning NetDoc's sincerity or piety. But dogmatic concepts of inherent sin, when associated with claims of ultimate perfection (embodied by Jesus Himself), certainly leads one to reasonably conclude that the claim is in fact, premised to an "exclusive", Christian-based perspective.

I have merely cited relevant C&V that suggests that an equivocal perspective regarding salvation and redemption is not supported by the words of Jesus as accounted in the Bible. Self-professed "followers of Christ" are certainly left to "interpret" these passages however best such may suit their current proclivities and sensibilities. I will leave accusations/imputations of unorthodoxy, hypocrisy, and heresy, to any adherents as may be pleased to do so for, upon, and within themselves. I have no dog in the fight.


My "belief" has no ties to the claims of Christianity. But I would assert that the words of Jesus of the Bible are most certainly "exclusivist", intolerant, and incompatible - in acceptance of other faiths (as are quite often argued amongst the various sects under the encompassing rubric of "Christianity" itself - even within online forums ;-)). Self-professed Christians are more than welcome to espouse more "liberal" or accepting views than those of their own prophet, if His rather unequivocal position makes them feel uncomfortable or unjustly intemperate towards other's beliefs.


I don't. I retain no inner conflict of necessitated resolution between matters that I must accept on faith alone, versus those that are subject to freethinking reason and evidentiary fact. Your perception of my "agreement" with one perspective or the other is a false choice, for I consider all the biblical claims of supernaturalistic existence/cause/effect as pure bunk. To suggest that I'm "taking sides", or "favor" one proscribed set of biblical "interpretations" over another is manifestly silly, and inaccurate to boot.

"Who's right?" is not a question that plagues or perplexes me regarding the conflicting claims and interpretations that either affiliated/organized sectarian Christian groups or singular individuals may offer regarding their own particular "exclusivist" claims of "truth". I don't care, because I think they're ALL "wrong".

My interest/concern has been - is today - and shall continue henceforth tomorrow...not in questioning (or falsifying/disproving) the "what" of what people believe, but rather the "why" - of "what" - they believe (and proclaim/espouse/insist) to be "true".

My provision of the relevant biblical C&V merely serves to illustrate the inconsistency of a personalized claim of acceptable subjectivity (regarding "alternate paths" to God, or of expressed disinterest that others might pursue such 'paths" without purposed/commanded proactive intervention from all self-professed "followers of Christ"), when Jesus Himself expressed an unequivocal, "exclusivist" mandate of faith in Him.

The implied "why, of what you believe" question is thusly put forth and provided accordingly, and why I leave my previously lent observation to confidently stand as it is...

"I guess it does matter to an authoritatively commanding Jesus as to who's determinedly "right", and who is not...and what His followers are instructed to do about that.

[It's neither inattentiveness nor purposed mischaracterization to accurately infer/observe/conclude that self-professed "followers of Christ" should consider their own beliefs as "right ("correct", "true")"; and determinedly conclude adherents of any/all other beliefs as, "wrong". Hey. It's right there, straight from their professed prophet's mouth (who is revered a tad more than a mere "gift horse").]"

Bonjour Patron!

(ici "Lucas" a votre "Maigret")........

I assume ( a predictable though human trait) that you could classify yourself as a humanist; forgive me if I a wrong, but in you, I note an upright citizen, with a learned ( emphasis on the 'ed' - why can't the English language have accents ?) mind, a good sense of morality and a keen 'no nonsense' attitude. I see you as having both feet firmly planted on the ground, with a highly developed sense of logic.


Firstly, "absolutivity" is a 'nouveau mot', and I think ought to be included in the next editions of the "Oxbridge fraternities".

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective

From my perspective yes, as a Christian that is correct.

I would, however, suggest that Pride is not only a sin, but, when openly displayed for all the world to see, it is a socially non acceptable trait.

 

[michel]

Part 2

When Jesus is quoted as saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me...", is there some equivocation in that claim, or some aspect of shared power as ultimate "authority"? I deem a claim of "All authority" (as being His "exclusively") as "exclusivist" regarding any other claims of legitimate "authority". Do you read this differently (this is not intended as a rhetorical question)?

We have mused somewhat on the validity of my casting myself as a Christian; I believe that is the correct pigeon hole for me (althought I cannot accept certain 'absolutes' of Christianity) - you may be surprized to hear that other Christians here have assured me that "I act as a Christian" - which confuses me, because of my 'selectivity' of the scriptures.

I see this as part of the issue in the above paragraph, in which you accurately re[present the Christian Ethos.

However, in my rebellious style as a Christian, I most certainly do not believe that all who do not during their life, accept Jeus Christ as the only 'key' to "them pearly gates"; if that were so, Paradise would be rather sparsly populated. Christianity was represented as encompassing 33% of the World population in a pie Chart (it is secured by copyright) published in 2005 by www.adherents.com , but I can reproduce it if you so wish.

I cannot personally see God as being one who would reject all out of hand, who (perhaps because of the location of their birth) missed out on the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ.

I retain no concerted personalized interest nor motivation in impugning NetDoc's sincerity or piety. But dogmatic concepts of inherent sin, when associated with claims of ultimate perfection (embodied by Jesus Himself), certainly leads one to reasonably conclude that the claim is in fact, premised to an "exclusive", Christian-based perspective.

I agree wholehartedly with your comment about my friend NetDoc's sincerity; he is a very good Christian.
But, you will note that that same exclusivity is not part of my view of God and all those who , at some time or other, have lived on Earth (including past and future). My attitude would be best represented by God having an 'entry exam' based on the sincerity, honesty and character of our centres of emotion (called 'hearts' previously, although that is patently incorrect, in physical terms).

My "belief" has no ties to the claims of Christianity. But I would assert that the words of Jesus of the Bible are most certainly "exclusivist", intolerant, and incompatible - in acceptance of other faiths (as are quite often argued amongst the various sects under the encompassing rubric of "Christianity" itself - even within online forums ;-)). Self-professed Christians are more than welcome to espouse more "liberal" or accepting views than those of their own prophet, if His rather unequivocal position makes them feel uncomfortable or unjustly intemperate towards other's beliefs.

Written as they are, your words accurately represent the 'status quo' as far as the Bible is concerned, but all I can do is to refer you to my previous comments on that subject; to wit - that if jesus Christ will not accept a decent living charitable law abiding moral atheist into heaven, I am not a follower of his; I am sure that I am, but hey, St Peter will be the judge of that; he no doubt will have a list of 'guests'. If I am rejected, we will burn together.

This may be addressed for you, but i hope Magurk will see it, and perhaps see a more 'gentle' view of Christianity.

Magurk, my friend, do as you heart tells you. I wish you all the luck, and the satisfaction of being able to be in a position in the future when you can walk upright, without being full of doubt.

 

[s2a]

Hello lilithu,

You quoted my commentary:

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective. How is that to be inferred as a biblically derived, "exclusivist" position/claim? From NetDoc's second claim stating that "No one is perfect, except for Jesus". From what reference work is this claim derivatively sourced? The New Testament of the Bible, methinks (ex. Hebrews 5:5-10).
"No one...except..." is most certainly a prefaced, "exclusivist" claim, and proffered as partial foundation in establishment of (a biblical) source regarding his prior claim ("ALL pride is sin").

[Please recall that my initially offered points were simple and straightforward enough:
1) That it is not unreasonable to infer or assume that self-professed Christian adherents or "followers of Christ" espouse a narrowed, "exclusivist" position regarding an ultimate salvation/redemption "path to God". The assumption is reasonable because that's what Jesus said to His followers. (I also noted in further caveat that Christians can - and often do - "interpret" their chosen savior's words to suit their own distinct philosophical/creedal sensibilities. I made no claim as to whether such varied/chosen "interpretations" are "right" or "wrong". I simply quoted Scripture, and left matters to those within the Christian faith to make such determinations of "right" and/or "wrong" for themselves.
2) That claiming "all pride is sin", accompanied by the notion of lone "perfection" as embodied by Jesus Christ Himself - does in fact represent a biblically derived, "exclusivist" position.

That's it. I made no reference/claim to any "consequences" of "sin" - neither of my own personal estimation, nor on anyone else's behalf.]

You reply:

ONLY if our said sin would exclude us from heaven and ONLY if the only way to avoid that is belief in Jesus as savior.

Non sequitur and special pleading.

I made no claims regarding the consequences of either sin, unbelief, or alternate paths to God (or Heaven, Nirvana, Pure Lands, Wahisht, whatever). You choose to qualify/condition the consequences of biblically-derived "sin", not I.

Neither one of which did NetDoc say.

Spurious inference.

And neither of which did I attribute to him personally as claim. Again recall the initial premise as to whether or not it was unreasonable to infer/assume that a Christian (a "follower of Christ") would espouse an "exculsivist" position regarding the "right/correct path to God". I illustrated that it was not unreasonable (by C&V) - regardless of NetDoc's own personally held "interpretation" of biblical Scripture. His position is noted.

He may or may not believe either of these things - I don't want to put words in his mouth - but your infering that his position is exclusivist assumes both of those conditions.

Inaccurate.

Fallacious commutation of conditionals.

Perhaps you would deem myself worthy of similar courtesy then?

You mischaracterize my statements once more. I submit that you infer incorrectly. Previously presented rebuttal rationale applies.

I myself am perfectly willing to call extreme pride a "sin," but I don't believe that it leads to hell, other than a "hell" of our own making perhaps. As NetDoc said, sin is just "missing the mark."

OK. Your personal beliefs (while irrelevant in rebuttal) are noted for reference in future discussions.

Yes, I am familiar with the John quote. It is probably the most oft quoted passage in the New Testament by both exclusivist Christians and those hostile to Christianity alike.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Bad Company fallacy. Evasion.

You didn't answer the question(s) re: John 14:6.

There are, however, other passages in the bible that support the inclusivist view.

This conclusion would rest upon what an "inclusivist view" entailed, I suppose (which oddly enough also seems to be subject to varying levels and degrees of "interpretation"). I could introduce you to a few million Southern Baptists that would unfailingly insist that there are no such passages that support an "inclusivist view" of equally legitimate and "correct" - alternate "pathways to God".

Fair to say that Jews would not pay much creedal heed to the words of Jesus Himself, but is there a quotable authority/passage from the New Testament that supersedes or invalidates Jesus' teachings/commands to His followers?

[Note: I can certainly provide some apparently conflicting/contradictory C&V from Jesus (ie: John 10:30 vs. John 14:28; Eph. 2:8,9 vs. James 2:24; Matt 5:16 vs. Matt 6:3-4; Matt 12:30 vs. Luke 9:50, etc.), and why His followers may be led to pick one verse and avoid/ignore the other - but none of these "contradictions" actually forfeit the authority of Jesus, or what He says - unilaterally and unequivocally - in John 14:6.]

Also fair to say that most Christians have difficulty resolving the differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the attributed book of John (that nutty heretic), and are left to choose the more "liberal" attributed accountings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke - or the more "literal/conservative" testimony of John. Is either choice "right" or "wrong"? Is it both, or neither? Not for me to determine.

Not to mention the fact that large parts of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, hold church authority above that of scripture (ongoing revelation thru the church) and both are inclusivist.

Ignoratio elenchi.

You merely restate what I have previously and repetitively stipulated regarding differing "interpretations" of Scripture. Sectarian/Creedal doctrine is as varied and amorphous as any individualized or personalized revelation/interpretation of the Bible. (If you care to list the non-Chrisitian religions that the Catholic church sanctions as being equal to itself in authority and accuracy, and co-equal as legitimate Provisors of God's "truth" [as to some alternately equivalent attainment of Salvation through Christ], I'd be pleased to read that list).

So...what's your goal in this continued pointless/fruitless argumentation?

1) I premised and supported the notion that it is not unreasonable to infer/assume that a self-professed "follower of Christ" may hold an "exclusivist" position regarding the "right/correct/only...Path to God" (or that Christians may/can/should remain indifferent as to what "path" others may choose, or consider of equal validity/opportunity).

Besides your arguing (essentially), "Not everyone believes that way" (which I initially acknowledged and stipulated), you have offered nothing in rebuttal that would lead me to conclude that such an inference/assumption (until "proven" otherwise) is unreasonable.

2) I made no claims/assertions as to which Biblical "interpretations" (literal or otherwise) were "correct" or "wrong", or which brand or sect of Christian belief has it "right" (as previously noted, I don't care - it's all bunk to me). I merely put forward the notion that self-professed "followers of Christ" might consider the words of their claimed Savior as paramount and leading dictum within the Bible. I offered no characterizations of hypocrisy/fidelity/piety regarding those that do not; or in so picking from which, suits their "views" best.

What do you seek of me, specifically, in reply?

Retraction?

Concession?

In the light of repeated mischaracterizations, inaccurate implied inferences, fallacious argumentation, and simple evasion?

Unwarranted - and pending more salient and compelling rebuttal (with a point?) on your part...most unlikely.

Your inherent bias (while understandable) tends to color your perceptions (and subsequently derived errant inferences), and hampers an objectively critical evaluation of clearly stated premises and supported conclusions. Your personal objections to my commentaries/conclusions are noted both respectfully and accordingly. Your objectives in deconstructive rebuttal remain unclear and unpersuasive.

Perhaps we can engage some other topic that is of greater interest and potential illumination instead? ;-)

 

[s2a]

Bonjour Michel,

You said:

I assume (a predictable though human trait) that you could classify yourself as a humanist; forgive me if I a wrong, but in you, I note an upright citizen, with a learned ( emphasis on the 'ed' - why can't the English language have accents ?) mind, a good sense of morality and a keen 'no nonsense' attitude. I see you as having both feet firmly planted on the ground, with a highly developed sense of logic.

Indeed a "forgivable" assumption, but technically inaccurate (if "humanist" is to be concomitantly associated with "Secular Humanist/ism"). Certainly I find myself philosophically in accordance with a good deal of humanism - a "doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural", but I neither follow nor retain any proscribed "doctrine", per se.

Firstly, "absolutivity" is a 'nouveau mot', and I think ought to be included in the next editions of the "Oxbridge fraternities".

Seconded. See if you can make that happen for us Queens English-usurping colonials, OK? ;-)

"We all possess pride: a sin"; Ergo, we "all" possess sin from a biblical perspective
From my perspective yes, as a Christian that is correct.

I would, however, suggest that Pride is not only a sin, but, when openly displayed for all the world to see, it is a socially non acceptable trait.

Generally speaking, I would disagree.

More qualified, I would say that: prideful arrogance borne of ignorance/stupidity (hubris); inflated (and unwarranted) self-esteem in light of minimal accomplishment (super-egotism); overbearing self-aggrandizement amongst the weak or inexperienced (lording/posturing), and; assuming undue credit in the accomplishment/achievement of others (a sports fan - "We're Number One!") - can certainly and rightfully be deemed as socially boorish, sometimes repulsive character traits.

We have mused somewhat on the validity of my casting myself as a Christian; I believe that is the correct pigeon hole for me (althought I cannot accept certain 'absolutes' of Christianity) - you may be surprized to hear that other Christians here have assured me that "I act as a Christian" - which confuses me, because of my 'selectivity' of the scriptures.

Ironically enough, I get that too from those unfamiliar with my unbelief (as if caring for the homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised, and the forgotten was somehow the exclusive domain of a "higher", Christian ethos). I consider such "compliments" to be of the "left-handed" variety, no matter how well-intentioned. ;-)

As I have stated previously in other topical threads, I am not in the habit of debating or quibbling with anyone's self-assignation of religious affiliation. You can call yourself a Christian, Jew, Pagan, Muslim, Raelian, or pious adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - it makes no nevermind to me. I accept anyone's self-described "label" without test or contention.

Now if I could just get some folks to validly accept such a conceptual thing as atheism...;-)

I see this as part of the issue in the above paragraph, in which you accurately represent the Christian Ethos.

However, in my rebellious style as a Christian, I most certainly do not believe that all who do not during their life, accept Jeus Christ as the only 'key' to "them pearly gates"; if that were so, Paradise would be rather sparsly populated. Christianity was represented as encompassing 33% of the World population in a pie Chart (it is secured by copyright) published in 2005 by www.adherents.com , but I can reproduce it if you so wish.

Again, I have previously acknowledged your individualized (and, um..."liberal") religious perspective as a self-professed Christian, and noted that your more "tolerant" view is not unique (if not necessarily predominantly held) amongst other professed Christians.

I agree that a literal interpretation of Jesus' unequivocal declaration in John 14:6 would tend to limit the eventual, "end", or total population of a Christian Heaven. But to my recollection of Scripture, attainment of Salvation is not some religion popularity contest, wherein the religion/sect with the most adherents "wins". If this were so today, as you note, the Christian version of Heaven would "lose".

So maybe there's more than one God, and each has his own "version" of Paradise (I certainly don't want to go to the Islamic one - no booze! But then, hey...there's those vestal virgins and such).

Or maybe, there's no supernatural god(s) at all, and the only Paradise will will ever know is the one that exists in a finite, mortal existence - manifeste of our own discovery, and free thinking choices and deeds (I'll grant not a comforting or hopeful thought to those kids living amidst crushing poverty, filth, disease, or ongoing genocide. But wishful thinking and fairy tales alone have little direct impact upon their short-lived, miserable, mortal existence).

I cannot personally see God as being one who would reject all out of hand, who (perhaps because of the location of their birth) missed out on the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ.

I can empathize with your incredulity and unwillingness to accept such a notion. One need only ponder the fact that 16,000 children a DAY die from hunger-related causes (primarily in non-Chrisitian sectors of undeveloped nations). 11 million children under the age of 5 die every year, with more than half from hunger-related causes. Most of these deaths are attributable to common treatable and preventable childhood illnesses (abetted by onset nutritional weakness) - diarrhea, acute respiratory illness, malaria and measles.

But hey. God Bless America, and it's majority (appx. 85%) population of self-professed, "followers of Christ", the Christians. We got Jesus on our side, so our kids don't routinely die by the thousands from diarrhea.

We righteously "tithe" 80% of our annual corn production to feeding our livestock! What number of people could be adequately fed by the grain saved, if Americans reduced their annual intake of meat by 10%? 60,000,000 (um, that's 60 million). Praise God (and pass the pork if you please)!

And what does the "conservative, religious right" in the good ole' USofA concern itself with most?
"Morality/social issues"...like...
Abortion (1,293,000 performed in 2004 - AGI estimates of a continued decline)
Gay marriage.
Flag burning.
School prayer.
Display of the 10 Commandments (and other religious icons) on public/state properties.
Mandating biblical creationism/ID as scientific theory in public schools.
Banning/burning Harry Potter books.
Janet Jackson's 40 year-old boob, sex and profanity on TV, violent video games.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while 18 percent (and rising) of American children live in poverty.

All top priorities for those claiming the most developed, most sincere, most acute sense of "Christian morality".

What Would Jesus Do (or say)? Matthew 19:21? Hmmmm....

[Whups. Apologies. The preceding superfluous malediction is more appropriate for another thread. I'll work on that. ;-) Suffice to say that I would not bear the title of "Christian" with any sense of pride or satisfaction here in the US.]

My attitude would be best represented by God having an 'entry exam' based on the sincerity, honesty and character of our centres of emotion (called 'hearts' previously, although that is patently incorrect, in physical terms).

A nice sentiment. There is some scripture that suggests that "good works" plays a part in the "Final Exam", but none (that I'm aware of) that completely invalidates Jesus' ultimate declaration in John 14:6. Accept, reject, or ignore it as part of your faith. Makes no difference to me.

"...if jesus Christ will not accept a decent living charitable law abiding moral atheist into heaven, I am not a follower of his; I am sure that I am, but hey, St Peter will be the judge of that; he no doubt will have a list of 'guests'. If I am rejected, we will burn together."

Too bad there's no logical, rational method of making this determination of whom/what to follow/abide (in religious faith) while you're still alive (). From my atheistic perspective, you'll simply never know.

This may be addressed for you, but i hope Magurk will see it, and perhaps see a more 'gentle' view of Christianity.

My hope is that he will invest more than simplistic considerations of which particular religion/sect offers a "kinder, gentler" repackaging of it's inherently intractable dogma,and imperative claims of supernaturalistic cause/effect phenomena/outcomes/explanations.

Which is why I remain...an optomist. ;-)

 

[michel]

Patron,

Indeed a "forgivable" assumption, but technically inaccurate (if "humanist" is to be concomitantly associated with "Secular Humanist/ism"). Certainly I find myself philosophically in accordance with a good deal of humanism - a "doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural",

but I neither follow nor retain any proscribed "doctrine", per se.

In accordance with your assertion I hereby irrevocably accept that you are a moral atheist optimist (I insist on labels; if everyone else should have one, who are you to get away without one ?)

More than one God? Argh Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*hides under table to avoid thunderbolt which might well arrive due to God's wrath*.......

Seconded. See if you can make that happen for us Queens English-usurping colonials

And, what, may I ask makes you believe that only Queens English-usurping colonials may toy with the design of lovely new words hey ?

I am an addict myself. Tut tut for assuming that such a delightful enjoyment of inventing words should be relegated only to colonials.............. (seeing that you are a unfortunate Colonial though, I shall forgive you the transgression this once)

[Whups. Apologies. The preceding superfluous malediction is more appropriate for another thread. I'll work on that. ;-) Suffice to say that I would not bear the title of "Christian" with any sense of pride or satisfaction here in the US.]

Well, I am all of a dither, firstly you commit the grave sin of going off topic (and acknowledge your unresisted temptation) which means that it was with malice aduringthought (ah......a nouveau mot!!!:bounce ) Please refrain from such flagrant rule breaking.......... (forgiven this time, because I have just awoken from my siesta feeling somewhat refreshed)

The world, as my psychotherapist has told me time and time again is not fair; to expect it to be so is not only unrealistic, but most damaging to ones' peace of mind.

I have to admit that I have always felt more than a nagging tinge of 'situational guilt' at the thought that I might well have been born with no spoon in my mouth......

In all seriousness, I am often burdened with the vicarious pain of others. It doesn't achieve anything, but I am not one who can be fully in control of guilt - based thoughts.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Any of you have suggestions for me?

Try reading the Bible and make up your own mind on the matter. If anything, it is a document that has substantial relevance to our culture.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor...]

As has been said in so many different words in this thread dont let fear make the decision for you and worship isnt something you have to do commuicate with god. Lose your religion and see that god is all around you in every rock and every animate thing.

 

[s2a]

Try reading the Bible and make up your own mind on the matter. If anything, it is a document that has substantial relevance to our culture.

Interesting.

I wonder which culture is the "our culture" you have in mind...

I was always of the notion that the Bible was claimed to be "relevant" (perhaps "substantially" so) to all of humanity, regardless of culture, creed, nationality, or race.

On the other hand, I can't think of one substantially relevant bit of contemporary wisdom/application (unique to Scripture) that can't be readily obtained, experienced, or learned from countless other insightful and more "substantial" resources (unless of course you believe that stoning rebellious teenagers to death in the town square is called for in your culture).

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

While I believe the Bible is still valuable scripture, I'd have to say "Do try reading and examining the Baha'i scriptures!" They're quite extensive, and specifically address the needs of this day rather than another millenia ago! . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[blueman]

For a while now i have been a preety strong aethiest.
I currently have been reading works of plato and socrates and other famous philosophers and started asking myself, should i really give up on faith? I've been thinking about going back to temple(jewish) with my family and start worshiping again. I only have been thinking about this because i also asked the question, what if your wrong Eric? About the afterlife. I thaught when you die well you just die, but picking up these works and just thinking much more about it i face the possibility that im wrong, and come my death what then?


Any of you have suggestions for me?

Magurk,

You will have to keep an open mind when it comes to faith and various messages that you will hear related to atheism, theism and the like. Being a Chrisitian I can let you know there is a signifigant amount of evidence that is circumstantial, historical and archeological that confirms the message of the Gospels of Christ. You either come to a conclusion that Jesus was a lunatic or that he was indeed the Son of the Living God. If there is no God or afterlife, you have nothing to lose correct? But if the message and promises of Christ is true, there is a lot that you will lose because the consequences outlined in this message is clear and without ambuguity. You would be eternally seperated from God and contrary to secular belief, hell is not a pleasant place to be condemed without any chance for peace or comfort. The reality is that God does not send people to hell, but people choose hell. This is confirmed by the fact that many live there whole lives outside of the will of God and totally seperated from Him. God gives us free will to choose to follow Him through His Son Jesus Christ or be seperated from Him forever. We make that choice, He honors the choice we ultimately make.