| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2007 10:49:16 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Are we supposed to believe that God condemned all other peoples to hell by accident of geography? |
No one is condemned to hell by a capricious whim of God. Each one makes his or her own choice as to what they will believe, and that choice determines whether their eternity will be spent in hell or in heaven. When the entire earth was flooded, Noah and his family chose to believe God, and were saved; when Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed, Lot and his family chose to believe God, and were saved ( except for his wife, who chose to look back ); when the city of Jericho was destroyed, Rahab chose to believe that the God of the Israelites was the true God, and was saved; etc.
FWIW, the ultimate choice a person WILL make is known to God before he/she is conceived ( God is, after all, onmiscient ). |
RonB eloquently states the more commonly held belief among American Christians. If you want the fancy words, this is Arminianism (or part of it), versus Calvinism (which I was stating above).
People become a bit surprised when they learn that Christianity is not a simple religion that can easily be grasped by a six-year-old. It is complex and fraught with questions that have difficult answers or no answer at all. I wish I could remember who this quote is attributed to, but it has always been a bit of a hopeful reminder to me...
"To believe Christianity is absurd; to not believe, even more so." |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 10:52:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Are we supposed to believe that God condemned all other peoples to hell by accident of geography? |
Logically the answer can be "yes". In fact, Christians of the reformed tradition would say so. They would point to a passage in Romans as a pretty plain English (er, Greek) passage to answer your question...(I will point out that not all Christians would subscribe to this answer. In fact, most American Christians would disagree.)
Originally posted by Paul, to the Romans:
"Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh:
"I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" |
|
Doc, you stopped the quoted passage 3 verses too early, and the rest of the passage is necessary to understand the meaning of the part you did quote. Here, let me provide the next three verses:
Originally posted by Paul to the Romans, cont. :
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath — prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" |
So, given the follow-up, it appears, at least to me, that what the writer is saying is that God, though not altering the ultimate destiny of an individual ( hell ( prepared for destruction ) or heaven ( prepared for glory )), will affect an individual's life circumstances to suit His purposes. |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:00:18 PM · #28 |
Well Ron, I am certainly not going to disagree with another Christian in a forum like this.
However, (whoops, here I go) I would humbly disagree and say the follow-up passage may indicate that God IS in ultimate control of who is saved or not.
However, I'm not 100% sold on the idea and certainly understand that many people wiser than myself would disagree.
We can certainly continue that conversation by PM if you want.
Message edited by author 2007-01-01 23:00:49. |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:01:01 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Are we supposed to believe that God condemned all other peoples to hell by accident of geography? |
Originally posted by RonB:
No one is condemned to hell by a capricious whim of God. Each one makes his or her own choice as to what they will believe, and that choice determines whether their eternity will be spent in hell or in heaven. |
What about people in distant lands who have never been, and never will be, introduced to Christiantity? Are they condemned to hell?
And a bigger question: Are you suggesting that the only way to avoid being condemned to hell is through a belief in Jesus Christ? |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:10:18 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I didn't wake up this morning and think to myself "Gee, how can I stir up controversy in the DPChallenge forums today?"
|
Well, you've succeeded at that.
Happy now?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:20:17 PM · #31 |
| So Keith, what was your purpose in the post? Are you a Christian? and if not, what in the world has you reading Deuteronomy? Not exactly the best place to start... |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:24:56 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Having said that, though, I think that the biblical passage in the original post shows that intolerance is a product of religion. Deuteronomy 13 (a religious text) teaches us that we should not only be intolerant, but should actually kill those who worship other gods. |
Deuteronomy 13 was not written to teach either you, I, or anyone else what we should do about those who worship other gods, in 2007. Deuteronomy 13 is an historical record of the commands given by Moses to the Israelites in the desert several thousand years ago.
Look at it this way: In 1945 President Truman issued an order to "Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If someone were to read a transcript of Truman's command today, I doubt that they would believe that Truman's command teaches us that we, in the year 2007, should drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
So doesn't that show that intolerance is a product of religion? |
There are certain issues toward which most people are intolerant - and not just for "religious" reasons. For example, most people I know, atheists included, are intolerant towards those who abuse chldren, those who rape women, those who sell heroin, etc. So while intolerance toward some behaviours may be a product of "religion", others have no religious basis - they are products of society.
Mind you, God, Himself is intolerant - toward sin...any sin...from the smallest lie, to the most vile atrocities. |
|
|
|
01/01/2007 11:50:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Having said that, though, I think that the biblical passage in the original post shows that intolerance is a product of religion. Deuteronomy 13 (a religious text) teaches us that we should not only be intolerant, but should actually kill those who worship other gods. |
Deuteronomy 13 was not written to teach either you, I, or anyone else what we should do about those who worship other gods, in 2007. Deuteronomy 13 is an historical record of the commands given by Moses to the Israelites in the desert several thousand years ago.
Look at it this way: In 1945 President Truman issued an order to "Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If someone were to read a transcript of Truman's command today, I doubt that they would believe that Truman's command teaches us that we, in the year 2007, should drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
|
very well said. now are those books marked? those books that I am to take as historical records? No? Okay, then I'll take the whole Bible that way. To each his own.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:21:15 AM · #34 |
Paraphrasing some clips from wikipedia...
Despite the apologetics of many religious thinkers, modern academic criticism completely rejects Moses as the work's author. While the book claims to have been written by Moses, such a claim could be made by any author. While there are frequent references to the book in later canonical works, this can simply be explained as the works being written later than Deuteronomy.
The text is most reminiscent of Jeremiah, with whom the style, and laws, of Deuteronomy have extreme influence. In fact, the style is so strongly similar to Jeremiah, that several scholars have posited him, or his scribe, as the real author. Similarly, it is extremely notable that neither Amos, nor Hosea, nor the undisputed portions of Isaiah, show even the remotest familiarity with Deuteronomy. These facts can easily be explained if Deuteronomy was written after these three prophets and before Jeremiah, placing its creation squarely in the seventh century BC.
Modern biblical scholarship therefore identifies the work as being created in, or very close to, the reign of Josiah.
Most of the Old and New Testaments were not written by the supposed authors, nor were they written by God himself. For example, most of the gospels were not written to the 3rd century AD, long after Jesus had ascended into Heaven.
One must remember that MEN wrote the Bible and in such must acknowledge certain biases. And before quoting it to support OR attack the Jewish or Christian faiths must study the context of what is being quoted.
I consider myself a Christian, but I absolutely HATE when fellow Christians misquote or quote out of context the Bible to support THEIR causes. I equally condemn those that misquote or quote out of context to attack Christianity.
Hope you all enjoyed my little rant. You won't catch me in religious arguments often. My faith is internal and is based only on personal convictions.
Edit: whoopsie typo...
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 01:01:36.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:44:03 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
For example, most of the gospels were not written to the 3rd century AD, long after Jesus had descended into Heaven. |
The four canonical gospels were probably written in the first century AD. Even I would concede that. :) But after the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E. The earliest Christian documents are by Paul, interestingly enough, in the 60's.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:57:25 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Still, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm an idiot. |
Sorry man, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. If I insinuated you are an idiot somehow, apologies. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:59:50 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... long after Jesus had descended into Heaven. |
I'm interested in the story of how the Son of God got mixed up and took the "Down" escalator ... : ) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 12:59:59 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The earliest Christian documents are by Paul, interestingly enough, in the 60's. |
Even those are debatable with varying degrees of confidence.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:02:28 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... long after Jesus had descended into Heaven. |
I'm interested in the story of how the Son of God got mixed up and took the "Down" escalator ... : ) |
I believe that might have a bit to do with the extremely long and weird day I've had....
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 01:33:09 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Still, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm an idiot. |
Sorry man, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. If I insinuated you are an idiot somehow, apologies. |
It was the talking snakes bit... |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 02:50:40 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish I could remember who this quote is attributed to, but it has always been a bit of a hopeful reminder to me...
"To believe Christianity is absurd; to not believe, even more so." |
Sounds like it could have been said by Karl Barth or Reinhold Neibuhr, but I can't document it.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:45:35 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No one is condemned to hell by a capricious whim of God. Each one makes his or her own choice as to what they will believe, and that choice determines whether their eternity will be spent in hell or in heaven. When the entire earth was flooded, Noah and his family chose to believe God, and were saved; when Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed, Lot and his family chose to believe God, and were saved ( except for his wife, who chose to look back ); when the city of Jericho was destroyed, Rahab chose to believe that the God of the Israelites was the true God, and was saved; etc.
FWIW, the ultimate choice a person WILL make is known to God before he/she is conceived ( God is, after all, onmiscient ). |
This is very troubling for me.
If you were born to a Hindu family in India with limited contact to the outside world, what religion would you be? Almost certainly, Hindu.
IF you are correct, condemned to hell.
OR
Ensnared in a religion that you have been taught as a consequence of your socio-geographical origin.
So is it true that you are lucky, having been born into the "correct" religion, and that all people in remote Indian villages are unlucky, having been born into the "wrong" religion? Is this not just geographical pot luck?
Is it not possible that the Hindu has it right, and you are wrong? Given the quantity of possible religious beliefs, is it not downright probable that you (by choosing just one of thousands of possible belief systems) are wrong?
It would be fairly capricious of God to arrange the world so that for nearly two thousand years, most of the world's population would be ignorant of the only way that they could achieve eternal salvation.
It seems very much more likely to me that specific religious preference is the product of socio-geography, and nothing to do with fundamental truth.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:07:07 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It would be fairly capricious of God to arrange the world so that for nearly two thousand years, most of the world's population would be ignorant of the only way that they could achieve eternal salvation.
It seems very much more likely to me that specific religious preference is the product of socio-geography, and nothing to do with fundamental truth. |
A Christian might argue that it is the job of those who know the truth to proselytize; by the process of conversion, all might be brought to salvation. Indeed, this is exactly what Christians HAVE argued for a long time; witness the Spanish and Portuguese voyages of discovery, which were also voyages of conversion, funded in part by the Church, to bring God to the "heathens".
A distinctly less christo-centric perspective might hold that ALL monotheistic religions are worshiping the same God, and that the details of the various texts are far less important than the concept. This is more or less the point of modern ecumenical movements.
I am in complete agreement that it seems bizarre to argue that one has the "true faith", when what would seem to be more important is that one have faith at all.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:21:33 AM · #44 |
Now I see why I have never read the bible and have no desire to. Even more so now!
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:42:23 AM · #45 |
Believe it or not, there are very few places left on the planet where the Christian message has not been heard and there is a concerted effort to cover the globe. I believe everyone will ultimately make a choice - even if it is in their final milliseconds. An intersting documentary to watch is "To Hell and back" - accounts of not so pleasant near death experiences by non-Christians.
As for truth - sure there are many beliefs - but I believe we can't all be right - there is only ONE truth, regardless of how many believe it or not. I guess we're all betting the farm on what each of us believes that to be. I also believe non-Christians focus too much on the "religion" and not on the spirituality. In my experience as both an Atheist and then a Christian, it is impossible to argue, debate or talk someone into being a believer in Christ. It's good to discuss though, but everyone will make a choice one way or the other eventually. I always just recommend that people really ask themselves if they are satisfied with their belief of what is the truth - and keep asking yourself - even if you are a Christian.
Sorry for rambling - carry on. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:18:37 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Makka:
Now I see why I have never read the bible and have no desire to. Even more so now! |
Yea, me too. Besides, I already know the ending. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:24:04 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A distinctly less christo-centric perspective might hold that ALL monotheistic religions are worshiping the same God, and that the details of the various texts are far less important than the concept. This is more or less the point of modern ecumenical movements.
I am in complete agreement that it seems bizarre to argue that one has the "true faith", when what would seem to be more important is that one have faith at all. |
I understand that position and am aware of the general tone of interfaith dialogue.
However, I do not understand why you promote the importance of faith over "true faith" (if that is what you are saying - you may be saying "this should be more important to religious leaders").
The only practical reason for belief appears to be because you think that there is a benefit in believing. For example, the concept of eternal damnation/salvation, improving your lot through reincarnation, or perpetual feasting in Valhalla (my preferred option).
If you remove the specific carrot/stick, belief becomes a fairly empty thing.
So the best thing, if you are going to believe, is to divine the correct religion and follow it to the letter (stoning, not wearing clothing of combined cloths etc. if that is what your religion prescribes). If you are right, you should obtain your goal. It would be a shame to lead a "good Christian life" but then be blocked from entering heaven because the label on your shirt said just 65% cotton (if that were, unbeknownst to most Christians, one of the things god was watching out for).
However, given the vast number of existing religions, their limitless permutations, and the infinite possibilities for (I would argue of the human mind to conjure up) new belief systems, choosing the "right" one is infinitely difficult. You are almost certain to fail.
So why do people think that they have the "right" religion? Because they have been taught its veracity, by people who have themselves been taught. Some religious teachings have been more persuasive than others (although that should not affect their validity - unless we are somehow hardwired with an ability to identify the nature of god), and some races with dominant religions have won more wars than others.
Given that we do have one certainty (Descarte aside) - the world around us - why do we persist in attempting to divine supernatural truths? Why not eliminate the energy expended on observing the perceived wishes of some supernatural being and focus our attention on improving our communal lot in this world that we do inhabit?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:33:35 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
there is only ONE truth, regardless of how many believe it or not. |
This appears to be inconsistent with this:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I also believe non-Christians focus too much on the "religion" and not on the spirituality. |
If there is one truth, then being "spiritual" (which I take to mean generally believing in/observing something, if nothing specific) is very definitely not enough to satisfy the demands of most current world religions.
Originally posted by Art roflmao:
I guess we're all betting the farm on what each of us believes that to be. |
Try atheism - the odds are very good, almost infinitely in your favour.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
It's good to discuss though |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:55:49 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So Keith, what was your purpose in the post? Are you a Christian? and if not, what in the world has you reading Deuteronomy? Not exactly the best place to start... |
Sorry it took so long to respond, but I went to bed :)
I am not a Christian, although I was raised as one. My purpose in the post was to see what Christians think of Deuteronomy 13, and, I suppose, to give them a chance to justify it or explain it away or whatever. I didn't specifically intend to start a more general religious debate, although I suppose it's inevitable with such a controversial topic. But I think that a debate is good, because it's very interesting, and very important. The problem I have with these debates, though, is that the arguments become so complex that I get lost. Seems to me that religion should be something simpler, something that the average person should be able to grasp. After all, average people are being condemned to hell for not grasping it, right? :)
I forget exactly how I got introduced to that passage in Deuteronomy. I actually tried reading The Bible cover to cover, starting at Genesis, but didn't get very far. My eyes glazed over pretty quickly, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:29:37 AM · #50 |
There is a god! Go (NY) Giants!
/me lets out a huge sigh of relief. |
|
