Something (else) I don't get about Christianity

[uumckk16]

People want to rationalize and debate with God? There is no debate with God. There is no room for contempt. If there was proof, the faith requirement would be a no brain-er huh?

What I don't understand is why this is such an issue. If you don't believe in God, why concern your self about the terms to get to an afterlife?

I don't think anybody on this thread has said they want to debate with God...That was certainly not my intent in my post, if that's what you're referring to. What I said was, "If God supposedly gave a doctrine that doesn't make rational sense to somebody, why should they not question it?"

I didn't think this was that difficult a concept to grasp, but people seem to keep misinterpreting it...is there some way I can reword it that would be clearer? I can't think of any.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

People want to rationalize and debate with God? There is no debate with God. There is no room for contempt. If there was proof, the faith requirement would be a no brain-er huh?

I'm honestly not sure whether you mean this as a rhetorical comment or an actual claim. To be forbidden from invoking rationality into this issue implies a belief in a God who demands the same.

What I don't understand is why this is such an issue. If you don't believe in God, why concern your self about the terms to get to an afterlife?

The direct issue is God's criteria for entry into Heaven, not his existence.

It is not my choice, because God decided that non-believers are somehow more immoral and cynical than believers. I can gurantee you that I will not burn forever, because I know that is not how a Just and merciful God would be.

You need nothing more than to be a good person. Actions matter, not your beliefs. How does believing in God make anything better? If that is how you believe God to be, then you are worshipping the wrong God.

See, common sense would dictate that. But certain Scripture would dictate something else.

A dog can't tell it's master what to do...

If a teacher is giving a student information that doesn't make sense, is the student not allowed to point out the mistake? If my English teacher told me that the Great Gatsby was set in 18th-century France, I would certainly point out the error. If God supposedly gave a doctrine that doesn't make rational sense to somebody, why should they not question it?

But the student didnt tell the teacher to teach about the Great Gatsby. And as God is infallible we would never be in a postion to correct whatever lesson he deems fit.

If I love God's creation and God's children, do I not love God as well, even if I don't directly admit it (or even deny it)?

No! To love the creation is not to love the creator. You can love a painting by Da Vinci but not love Da Vinci himself. You can marvel at the wonder of Michaelangelo's David but not have a care for Michealangelo.

God requires that we love both him and his creation. This can not be done if you refuse to accept that there is a God.

According to John 3:16 etc., that doesn't seem to be a criterion for entry into Heaven. But if it is, why does God demand that we love him? What exactly would be so bad about someone who has a bad impression of God simply gritting her teeth and saying that yeah, ok, indeed there is a God?

Explain to me how our inability to prove something means it doesn't exist. Just stop and consider the fact that during the past 75 years, science has discovered 26 previously unknown elements. Does that mean they didn't exist before they were proven to exist?

I'm not trying to imply that science is ever going to be able to prove the existence of Heaven and Hell. I'm simply pointing out that lack of proof is not necessarily anything more than lack of proof.

Well, it's good to know that what was fact just two sentences ago is now simply a matter of opinion.

Problem. Those elements were verified via objective scientific research.* Remember the Hell-discovery hoax and how many Christians believed it *years* after it was falsified? That, my friend, is anything but objective.

* As a curious side note, a couple elements were mistakenly reported as discovered when in fact they weren't; we can think the objective, scientific method, not some sort of faith in God, for stepping in and solving that problem.

By the way, I just noticed where you're from. I just wanted to mention that NYC is my absolute favorite city in the U.S. There's nowhere like it, is there?

New York City rocks. Except for their ****ing baseball team...damn Yankees... :verymad:

 

[Katzpur]

Problem. Those elements were verified via objective scientific research.*

You're missing my point, but let's just forget it. I could care less whether you or anybody else believes in Heaven or Hell. All I'm saying is that if they exist, it doesn't matter whether they can be proven to exist or not. I don't see why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Remember the Hell-discovery hoax and how many Christians believed it *years* after it was falsified?

No, but then I guess since I'm not a "real" Christian, it doesn't apply to me.

That, my friend, is anything but objective.

Uh... why are you telling me this?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You're missing my point, but let's just forget it. I could care less whether you or anybody else believes in Heaven or Hell. All I'm saying is that if they exist, it doesn't matter whether they can be proven to exist or not. I don't see why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

That may be, but the comparison was made between something that wound up being proven vs. something that has yet to be.

No, but then I guess since I'm not a "real" Christian, it doesn't apply to me.

Hey, listen. If you honestly consider yourself as a follower of Christ, then it's good enough for me to consider you a Christian. Hell, we've almost seen as many definitions of salvation in this thread as there are many Christians participating in it. How is one more version supposed to somehow disqualify you?

Uh... why are you telling me this?

Because in this instance, blind faith superceded objective evidence. And when this it is taken as compelling evidence that Hell really does exist, it begs the question: Is this the best they could come up with?

 

[Hope]

Obviously these scenarios are hypothetical and a bit contrived, but the underlying point remains: You can be a horrible person, but believe in Christ and ask him to be "Lord of your life" (whatever that means), and it all goes away like it never even happened. Similarly, you can be one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever seen, but woe betide you if you fail to accept the claim that Jesus is the Christ.

And Christians, I ain't looking for a huge review of what the Bible says. I know Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, John 3:16, and Romans 10:9 quite well. Instead, I'm calling this whole system into question. Can God really be considered fair and just if belief of his Son as the Christ takes higher precedence over living a good life within reasonable parameters?

It's not stressed enough these days, in Christian circles and otherwise, but the absolute purity and holiness of God is what sets the standard for those who enter heaven. And the only thing that can make us worthy of entering a place of such holiness is the shed blood of Jesus. Not our works. Even our best deeds, and best intentions, fall short.

That being said, one does not just waltz into heaven, on a free ride, so to speak, because of their belief in Jesus and His work on the cross, no matter how they lived their lives. This is a misconception, that too many Christians take advantage of, thinking it's ok to lead a sinful life, because they're already "saved." They are saved from hell, yes, if their faith is genuine, but they are not saved from judgement. We will all be judged according to our deeds.

I understand how it may seem unfair that a good, moral person may not be able to enter heaven. Sometimes I even question how God could not accept someone simply on the basis of being good. But our perspective is limited, and skewed. God is not some bully in the sky----He is a loving being who created us for a purpose. That purpose is to love Him in return, to have a relationship with Him. If He created us just to be "good", then He'd have no problem letting every single good person have eternal life with Him. But "heaven", as I understand it, is not full of "good" people, in some paradise, living their lives much the same as they lived them on earth. "Heaven" as I understand it, is about spending eternity knowing, enjoying, and worshiping God. So, if we choose not to know or love God now, in this life, what makes us think we'd enjoy heaven? I do not know whether hell is literally a place of fire----but I am sure it's a place of complete and total separation from God. For eternity. So God leaves the choice up to us. He doesn't want simply a bunch of "good" people to spend eternity with Him----He wants a bunch of people who are passionately in love with Him. He desires our hearts more than anything else. Not our impressive list of good deeds.

 

[Muffled]

I like the Hindu view better. It makes more sense. A person dies and then comes the judgement (actually that is a Pauline statement). If the person has lead a good life they are reborn in a good situation but if they have led a bad life they are reborn in a bad situation. A rich person who ignored the poor will be reborn poor but a poor person who did not steal from the rich nor hate the rich person will be reborn as a more wealty person.

As for Heaven, I believe that there are few who go there including Christians. I came from there but I don't remember how I got there but I do know how to get there and it is not by good works. (And I am not telling you, you will have to search blindly for it yourself) All actions have results (Karma). If you ignore God that is an action that has results. God can and does reward good and bad behavior but he also judges the heart. The Pharisees who crucified Jesus may have thought they were doing the right thing. Their heart may have been for God even though their knowledge was deficient. Jesus forgave lthem from the cross saying that they didn't know what they were doing.

Hell is a place and Paradise (Heaven) is a place. There will be those who end up in hell because of their beliefs. However I view this as an endtime event. Also Paradise will be emptied at the end time because Paradise will come to earth. There is a third possibility at the end time. There will be those who neither go to hell nor to Paradise but have to endure being disembodied spirits because no children will be born in Paradise.

My guess is that by your criteria all three will not enter Paradise because they won't even be able to find it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It's not stressed enough these days, in Christian circles and otherwise, but the absolute purity and holiness of God is what sets the standard for those who enter heaven. And the only thing that can make us worthy of entering a place of such holiness is the shed blood of Jesus. Not our works. Even our best deeds, and best intentions, fall short.

That being said, one does not just waltz into heaven, on a free ride, so to speak, because of their belief in Jesus and His work on the cross, no matter how they lived their lives. This is a misconception, that too many Christians take advantage of, thinking it's ok to lead a sinful life, because they're already "saved." They are saved from hell, yes, if their faith is genuine, but they are not saved from judgement. We will all be judged according to our deeds.

I understand how it may seem unfair that a good, moral person may not be able to enter heaven. Sometimes I even question how God could not accept someone simply on the basis of being good. But our perspective is limited, and skewed. God is not some bully in the sky----He is a loving being who created us for a purpose. That purpose is to love Him in return, to have a relationship with Him. If He created us just to be "good", then He'd have no problem letting every single good person have eternal life with Him. But "heaven", as I understand it, is not full of "good" people, in some paradise, living their lives much the same as they lived them on earth. "Heaven" as I understand it, is about spending eternity knowing, enjoying, and worshiping God. So, if we choose not to know or love God now, in this life, what makes us think we'd enjoy heaven? I do not know whether hell is literally a place of fire----but I am sure it's a place of complete and total separation from God. For eternity. So God leaves the choice up to us. He doesn't want simply a bunch of "good" people to spend eternity with Him----He wants a bunch of people who are passionately in love with Him. He desires our hearts more than anything else. Not our impressive list of good deeds.

Yet genuinely good deeds come from genuinely good hearts. To say that only good deeds come from a heart toward Christ is disingenuous.



Are you or any other Christian who share your beliefs prepared to contend that Ghandi is burning in hell? If you are that strong in your beliefs about where Christians have advantage over non-Christians, then I'm sure you will not have any problems stating that Ghandi - famous for his non-Christian beliefs despite his remarkable work here on Earth - is surely burning in hell.



A simple yes or no will suffice.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[James the Persian]

All I can say, is that some people really need to look into the different soteriological models held by different groups of Christians throughout the history of the Church (you could do worse than following the link in my signature). A_E is quite correct to point out that for the vast majority of Christians alive (and taking the long view of the last 2000 years, Protestants and the like who would accept that view make such a tiny percentage as to be utterly insignificant) would reject the idea of OP as rank heresy. Add up 1.1 billion RCs, 250 million Orthodox, I still don't know how many Oriental Orthodox and, as Kat tells us, the 13 million LDS and that doesn't give us very many Christians left over to accept views as expressed in the OP - and certainly not all of that remainder will accept them either.

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All I can say, is that some people really need to look into the different soteriological models held by different groups of Christians throughout the history of the Church (you could do worse than following the link in my signature). A_E is quite correct to point out that for the vast majority of Christians alive (and taking the long view of the last 2000 years, Protestants and the like who would accept that view make such a tiny percentage as to be utterly insignificant) would reject the idea of OP as rank heresy. Add up 1.1 billion RCs, 250 million Orthodox, I still don't know how many Oriental Orthodox and, as Kat tells us, the 13 million LDS and that doesn't give us very many Christians left over to accept views as expressed in the OP - and certainly not all of that remainder will accept them either.

James

I can fully appreciate what you often say, James: (although correct me if I am wrong)


"We know where Jesus is, but we do not know where He is not."



It implies a trust in your faith without trampling on others' beliefs. I think it is often brought up here because of the popularity of this kind of Protestantism here in the States.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[autonomous1one1]

Yet genuinely good deeds come from genuinely good hearts. To say that only good deeds come from a heart toward Christ is disingenuous.

Are you or any other Christian who share your beliefs prepared to contend that Ghandi is burning in hell? If you are that strong in your beliefs about where Christians have advantage over non-Christians, then I'm sure you will not have any problems stating that Ghandi - famous for his non-Christian beliefs despite his remarkable work here on Earth - is surely burning in hell.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Peace,
Mystic

Greetings Mystic. Some of us would be deeply honored to join Ghandi - wherever he is!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Greetings Mystic. Some of us would be deeply honored to join Ghandi - wherever he is!

Count me in. :yes:



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mister_T]

Yet genuinely good deeds come from genuinely good hearts. To say that only good deeds come from a heart toward Christ is disingenuous.



Are you or any other Christian who share your beliefs prepared to contend that Ghandi is burning in hell? If you are that strong in your beliefs about where Christians have advantage over non-Christians, then I'm sure you will not have any problems stating that Ghandi - famous for his non-Christian beliefs despite his remarkable work here on Earth - is surely burning in hell.



A simple yes or no will suffice.



Peace,
Mystic

I'm in total agreement with you here Heather. And you can bet your last dollar, that there are Christians who will tell you (with a big ol' smile) that Ghandi is indeed burning in Hell because his resume didn't match up to God's supposed heavenly "requirements."

I think God cares more about whats in your heart and your intentions, rather than who or what you believe.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

It's not stressed enough these days, in Christian circles and otherwise, but the absolute purity and holiness of God is what sets the standard for those who enter heaven. And the only thing that can make us worthy of entering a place of such holiness is the shed blood of Jesus. Not our works. Even our best deeds, and best intentions, fall short.

That being said, one does not just waltz into heaven, on a free ride, so to speak, because of their belief in Jesus and His work on the cross, no matter how they lived their lives. This is a misconception, that too many Christians take advantage of, thinking it's ok to lead a sinful life, because they're already "saved." They are saved from hell, yes, if their faith is genuine, but they are not saved from judgement. We will all be judged according to our deeds.

I understand how it may seem unfair that a good, moral person may not be able to enter heaven. Sometimes I even question how God could not accept someone simply on the basis of being good. But our perspective is limited, and skewed. God is not some bully in the sky----He is a loving being who created us for a purpose. That purpose is to love Him in return, to have a relationship with Him. If He created us just to be "good", then He'd have no problem letting every single good person have eternal life with Him. But "heaven", as I understand it, is not full of "good" people, in some paradise, living their lives much the same as they lived them on earth. "Heaven" as I understand it, is about spending eternity knowing, enjoying, and worshiping God. So, if we choose not to know or love God now, in this life, what makes us think we'd enjoy heaven? I do not know whether hell is literally a place of fire----but I am sure it's a place of complete and total separation from God. For eternity. So God leaves the choice up to us. He doesn't want simply a bunch of "good" people to spend eternity with Him----He wants a bunch of people who are passionately in love with Him. He desires our hearts more than anything else. Not our impressive list of good deeds.

At last, someone who believes such a scenario as I was discussing in the OP.

"God is a loving being," "the purity and holiness of God," etc. may sound all nice and glitzy, but the cold reality is that this supposed process raises a lot more questions than answers, as I explained in the OP. As some of these recent posts have stated, odds are according to this standard that Gandhi would be in Hell. Regardless of what one's interpretation of the Bible may be, to propose that one of the greatest humanitarians of all time is in Hell would be--to quote a Christian term--blasphemy. There is simply no way that God could do this and get away with being labeled as "just" or especially "merciful."

Yet genuinely good deeds come from genuinely good hearts. To say that only good deeds come from a heart toward Christ is disingenuous.



Are you or any other Christian who share your beliefs prepared to contend that Ghandi is burning in hell? If you are that strong in your beliefs about where Christians have advantage over non-Christians, then I'm sure you will not have any problems stating that Ghandi - famous for his non-Christian beliefs despite his remarkable work here on Earth - is surely burning in hell.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Peace,
Mystic

Of course, I too would like this question answered.

All I can say, is that some people really need to look into the different soteriological models held by different groups of Christians throughout the history of the Church (you could do worse than following the link in my signature). A_E is quite correct to point out that for the vast majority of Christians alive (and taking the long view of the last 2000 years, Protestants and the like who would accept that view make such a tiny percentage as to be utterly insignificant) would reject the idea of OP as rank heresy. Add up 1.1 billion RCs, 250 million Orthodox, I still don't know how many Oriental Orthodox and, as Kat tells us, the 13 million LDS and that doesn't give us very many Christians left over to accept views as expressed in the OP - and certainly not all of that remainder will accept them either.

James

Again, more questions than answers. Not a good thing when eternity is supposedly on the line.

 

[Free4all]

That is the second time that I have seen you analogize "people-and-god" with "dog-and-master." That is rather disturbing. Do you really feel the equivalent of a dog? Though one could debate whether a dog can go to heaven or not, still the overall "feeling" of it is kind of sad and well...disturbing.

That reminds me of one of my favorite verses -
Prov. 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. uppy:

 

[Free4all]

It's not stressed enough these days, in Christian circles and otherwise, but the absolute purity and holiness of God is what sets the standard for those who enter heaven. And the only thing that can make us worthy of entering a place of such holiness is the shed blood of Jesus. Not our works. Even our best deeds, and best intentions, fall short.

That being said, one does not just waltz into heaven, on a free ride, so to speak, because of their belief in Jesus and His work on the cross, no matter how they lived their lives. This is a misconception, that too many Christians take advantage of, thinking it's ok to lead a sinful life, because they're already "saved." They are saved from hell, yes, if their faith is genuine, but they are not saved from judgement. We will all be judged according to our deeds.

I understand how it may seem unfair that a good, moral person may not be able to enter heaven. Sometimes I even question how God could not accept someone simply on the basis of being good. But our perspective is limited, and skewed. God is not some bully in the sky----He is a loving being who created us for a purpose. That purpose is to love Him in return, to have a relationship with Him. If He created us just to be "good", then He'd have no problem letting every single good person have eternal life with Him. But "heaven", as I understand it, is not full of "good" people, in some paradise, living their lives much the same as they lived them on earth. "Heaven" as I understand it, is about spending eternity knowing, enjoying, and worshiping God. So, if we choose not to know or love God now, in this life, what makes us think we'd enjoy heaven? I do not know whether hell is literally a place of fire----but I am sure it's a place of complete and total separation from God. For eternity. So God leaves the choice up to us. He doesn't want simply a bunch of "good" people to spend eternity with Him----He wants a bunch of people who are passionately in love with Him. He desires our hearts more than anything else. Not our impressive list of good deeds.

Hope nailed it! We don't have the mind of God, he's on a whole other level, so even though it might seem totally unfair to us, His way is always the best way, we lack the understanding to see the whole picture as he sees it, our thinking is wrong!

 

[Reverend Rick]

It's easy to be right when you know what happened a thousand years ago AND what will happen a thousand years from now.

Have you ever heard of hind sight being 20-20? Imagine having fore sight like that!

 

[Hope]

I'm not here to win a popularity contest. If I were, then I'd cave in to peer pressure and say, heck, yeah, Ghandi and every other great moral person is definitely spending eternity with God, just because, from my human standpoint and emotions, it seems like the logical place for them to go.

Like I said, God wants people to spend eternity with Him who truly want to be there. My perception of what heaven is like is obviously different than what most people here perceive it to be. Ultimately, it's between each individual and God. I hope with all my heart Ghandi does go to heaven. He certainly lived a better life than a lot of Christians have. I'll admit that. He was a great man.

I'm not a fundy Christian who goes around telling people they are going to hell. But I have to stand by what I believe, even if it means I get criticized. I don't believe in watering down my faith, just to gain approval.

 

[Hope]

At last, someone who believes such a scenario as I was discussing in the OP..

Only in part. Not entirely.

There is simply no way that God could do this and get away with being labeled as "just" or especially "merciful."

Imagine a prince, that lives in this vast, beautiful kingdom. Imagine he is in love with a poor, common girl. So he woos her, hoping she will fall in love with him and come live with him in his palace and be his bride. But instead of falling in love with him, she falls in love with his riches. She wants all the perks of being a princess without having to marry the prince. She wants the clothes, the pampering, the beautiful palace, the vast kingdom. All the prince wants is her heart. But she refuses to give it to him, all the while demanding to be treated like his bride, like a princess. Outwardly, she may do all the right things, but her heart's in the wrong place. Eventually, if the prince has a level head, he's going to give up on the girl, and let her return to her common life, away from him.

It may be a poor analogy, but this is kind of how I see God, and his attitude towards us. He doesn't want someone to come live in his palace and be his "bride" if they are only there because of the "perks." He wants our hearts. He wants our love. I think that is more than fair. More than just.

 

[James the Persian]

Again, more questions than answers. Not a good thing when eternity is supposedly on the line.

Where did I raise any questions? All I did was demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians, particularly when viewed through history, do not acept the view in the OP. Our soteriology is that of the Fathers and of the Ecumenical Councils and is much, much older than the modern heresy portrayed in the OP. There is nothing unclear about it (which is why I can describe what you posted as rank heresy) but if you really think it poses more questions than answers, why not ask them? (I would warn you, though, that you'll have to be prepared to considerably revise your view of what salvation is, because the usual Protestant notion just doesn't cut it).

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not here to win a popularity contest. If I were, then I'd cave in to peer pressure and say, heck, yeah, Ghandi and every other great moral person is definitely spending eternity with God, just because, from my human standpoint and emotions, it seems like the logical place for them to go.

Like I said, God wants people to spend eternity with Him who truly want to be there. My perception of what heaven is like is obviously different than what most people here perceive it to be. Ultimately, it's between each individual and God. I hope with all my heart Ghandi does go to heaven. He certainly lived a better life than a lot of Christians have. I'll admit that. He was a great man.

I'm not a fundy Christian who goes around telling people they are going to hell. But I have to stand by what I believe, even if it means I get criticized. I don't believe in watering down my faith, just to gain approval.

Hope, I do respect you and your right to believe as you do. I don't believe any of us genuine practitioners of our faiths believe and claim as we do in order to win any popularity contests. Check out the Buddhist take on karma and why bad things happen to good people..........our views are VERY unpopular because it seems we "blame the victim."



The reason I wanted to pose the question to you is in part, because I assume that you truly would love to see all turn their faiths toward Jesus in the end. I don't doubt that the intentions of your heart are unworthy but noble........however, claiming that Ghandi IS burning in hell DOES turn loving and rational people away from the God that you worship.



Making such claims - whether directly or indirectly - is not a good selling point (don't know if that's a good way of putting evangelization). So, this is ultimately not about popularity contests, but my concern over how evangelical material is presented to the non-Christian. Does that make better sense why I posed such a question? :flower:



Peace,
Mystic