?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

01/21/2009 02:57:25 PM · #276

Originally posted by Mousie:

So again, why are are religious people emboldened to do this despite the grief and divisiveness it causes? I do not accept your answer that it is merely a resposne to outside pressure. Care to take another shot at it?

Nope. I'll stick.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/21/2009 03:33:10 PM · #277

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will point out that each and every group you listed at least down to the Unitarians are considered "non-Christian" by most official denominations (protestant and catholic). I challenge you to find any official document or webpage by a traditional denomination that speaks to those four groups you mentioned and says "we welcome them as brothers in Christ" or something to that effect. I don't think you'll find it.

Well how very un-Christian to reject as brothers in Christ other "lesser" Christian religions. I swear every time I drop by this particular part of the forums I get more confused. In another thread, I believe it was noted that Catholics are not considered Christian by many.

So I kinda echo Courtenay's question of what defines "Christian"?

I agree some Protestants don't think Catholics are "true" Christians. I'm not one of them.

OK, let's see if we can boil this down to the utmost essentials. I can't promise this will be exact, but I'll try:

1. The true divine nature of Jesus. Jesus is God. (I'd point to the first verses of John to back that up)
2. The sinful nature of man. (I'd point to Romans 3:23)
3. Jesus' death and resurrection atoned for our sinful nature. This payment is sufficient. The more one adds onto the requirements for salvation the more uncomfortable I get. I will allow a tiny bit of hedging here because I'm aware different denominations have different beliefs about baptism, etc.
4. Faith in this atoning sacrifice is necessary.

I think that may cover it. That is Christianity down to the barest essentials.

OK, I'm really not picking on you or trying to be flippant - I'm not well-schooled in religious studies. But if I were to try to condense this, I'd say there's one True Christian flavor (apparently Protestant, though I'm not entirely sure what constitutes "Protestant") and all the other flavors are condemned, more or less. Hell will be full of Catholics, Mormons, Christian Scientists, the nice Jehovah's Witness couple who visit me every other Saturday, Buddhists, Muslims, the Dalai Lama, and Mother Theresa, to name a few.

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/21/2009 03:41:13 PM · #278

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
So again, why are are religious people emboldened to do this despite the grief and divisiveness it causes? I do not accept your answer that it is merely a resposne to outside pressure. Care to take another shot at it?

Nope. I'll stick.

I'll take a stab.

Some Christians belive it is part of their duty as Christains to evangelize or "spread the word" of salvation.

The logic that leads to your point is, if you are going to convince someone that they can attain salvation then there must be something to save them from; the damnation of their eternal soul.

I am not saying I subscribe to this, but that is how I understand it.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/21/2009 03:57:18 PM · #279

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1. The true divine nature of Jesus. Jesus is God. (I'd point to the first verses of John to back that up)
2. The sinful nature of man. (I'd point to Romans 3:23)
3. Jesus' death and resurrection atoned for our sinful nature. This payment is sufficient. The more one adds onto the requirements for salvation the more uncomfortable I get. I will allow a tiny bit of hedging here because I'm aware different denominations have different beliefs about baptism, etc.
4. Faith in this atoning sacrifice is necessary.

I think that may cover it. That is Christianity down to the barest essentials.

So, it would seem the difference between christianity and non-christianity is the interpretation of the first verses of John. Because, all of those 'non-christian' religions believe in the divinity of Jesus, just not necessarily that He is God. Because, the way they read the bible, there is no other god but God, and it is a sin to promote another ahead of him. Or any one of a dozen other reasons.

I pulled this from a 'christian' webpage:
"We have no doubt that most Jehovah Witnesses are good, God-fearing people who are loved by God. Jehovah Witnesses are in fact untiring in their efforts to spread the truth about God the Father (Jehovah). What they do they do with sincere love of God and of their neighbor.

But, all the deceit and lies that Jehovah Witnesses tell about Jesus, so that their goal of convincing people that there is no Triune God (One God, with 3 distinct natures) is what is ultimately responsible for dragging untold numbers of innocent souls to Hell - which they don't believe in, by the way. "

I refuse to quote more from this 'christian' site, but if you want to be shocked about the attitudes of certain 'christian' groups, please feel free to read. No, Dr. Achoo, I am not comparing you to them, but you are getting awfully close with your divisiveness. It would seem that, as far as you're concerned, faith alone cannot save you as you stated earlier in the thread. It must be faith the 'right' way, faith as people like you see fit. I'm not slinging stones, I just want you to see how slight steps to the right (or the left, whichever your preference) can lead down a path much like this group.

I accept that, in your world view, I am condemned to an eternity in hell because I have incorrect faith. However, I want to let you know that, in my world view, as long as you are being the best person possible, you will be 'saved.' In fact, no matter what you do you will be 'saved.' My god is like that.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/21/2009 04:48:01 PM · #280

Well, you asked me to distill Christianity down to it's utter essence. But if you go further and say, "hey, who are you even to hold those as essential?" then we just have to disagree. There are certain "core" issues I cannot budge on. Period. I cannot change them because someone is nice or a "good person". I just cannot change them.

I know that concept is foreign to you and probably anathema. What can I say? Honestly I feel the same about your views. Certainly it doesn't mean we can't be civil or friendly, but neither of us is going to change our mind.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/21/2009 04:54:00 PM · #281

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

*snip* I just cannot change them. *snip*

I know that concept is foreign to you and probably anathema. What can I say? Honestly I feel the same about your views. Certainly it doesn't mean we can't be civil or friendly, but neither of us is going to change our mind.

This, right here, sums up the whole unfortunate failure of belief systems, instead of the more open and forgiving nature of having ideas. It truly is one of the largest failures of humanity that we haven't been able to ever get past yet.

Peace out.

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 16:54:36.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/21/2009 05:28:54 PM · #282

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I really don't get this. What's the failure? Not changing? That's an empty statement if you don't mention what we are changing. Should we always change? Is change for change's sake good? Obviously the context matters. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change is bad.

Obviously you are just saying you disagree with my "core" beliefs. That's fine. Am I supposed to be surprised or taken aback at this? Should I suddenly reevaluate simply because K10DGuy says it's humanity's "largest failure"? What was the purpose in your post?

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 17:29:26.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/21/2009 05:39:09 PM · #283

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This, right here, sums up the whole unfortunate failure of belief systems, instead of the more open and forgiving nature of having ideas. It truly is one of the largest failures of humanity that we haven't been able to ever get past yet.

Peace out.

I really don't get this. What's the failure? Not changing? That's an empty statement if you don't mention what we are changing. Should we always change? Is change for change's sake good? Obviously the context matters. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change is bad.

Obviously you are just saying you disagree with my "core" beliefs. That's fine. Am I supposed to be surprised or taken aback at this? Should I suddenly reevaluate simply because K10DGuy says it's humanity's "largest failure"? What was the purpose in your post?

Struck a nerve did I? For one thing, don't take it so personally.

The inability, or unwillingness, to keep an open mind is simply dangerous. Period. Belief systems unfortunately cater to that inability or unwillingness and therefore that danger. I personally find it to be humanity's greatest failure, and it breaks my heart. Note I never said we have to change. The implication is that we should try and keep ourselves open to the possibility, always. We'd be a better people for it. Should you do anything because of anything I say? What a ridiculous inference. The purpose of my post is not unlike anything you post. To put forward another point of view.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/21/2009 05:54:34 PM · #284

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This, right here, sums up the whole unfortunate failure of belief systems, instead of the more open and forgiving nature of having ideas. It truly is one of the largest failures of humanity that we haven't been able to ever get past yet.

Peace out.

I really don't get this. What's the failure? Not changing? That's an empty statement if you don't mention what we are changing. Should we always change? Is change for change's sake good? Obviously the context matters. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change is bad.

Obviously you are just saying you disagree with my "core" beliefs. That's fine. Am I supposed to be surprised or taken aback at this? Should I suddenly reevaluate simply because K10DGuy says it's humanity's "largest failure"? What was the purpose in your post?

Struck a nerve did I? For one thing, don't take it so personally.

The inability, or unwillingness, to keep an open mind is simply dangerous. Period. Belief systems unfortunately cater to that inability or unwillingness and therefore that danger. I personally find it to be humanity's greatest failure, and it breaks my heart. Note I never said we have to change. The implication is that we should try and keep ourselves open to the possibility, always. We'd be a better people for it. Should you do anything because of anything I say? What a ridiculous inference. The purpose of my post is not unlike anything you post. To put forward another point of view.

It seems like you're saying stubbornness is humanity's greatest failing. I don't agree with that. It depends on whether you're right or wrong in what you're stubborn about and what actions you take. IF you're right then stubbornness becomes a good thing. For example, Martin Luther King stubbornly held on to a belief that all men are created equal. If he questioned that or otherwise left the door open to a change of opinion then he probably would never have been passionate enough to be the leader he became in the civil rights movement.

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 17:57:28.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

01/21/2009 06:01:21 PM · #285

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

The inability, or unwillingness, to keep an open mind is simply dangerous. Period. Belief systems unfortunately cater to that inability or unwillingness and therefore that danger. I personally find it to be humanity's greatest failure, and it breaks my heart. Note I never said we have to change. The implication is that we should try and keep ourselves open to the possibility, always. We'd be a better people for it. Should you do anything because of anything I say? What a ridiculous inference. The purpose of my post is not unlike anything you post. To put forward another point of view.

The old joke goes that it's not good to have such an open mind your brain falls out. On one hand I am open to other opinions. I've read about other worldviews. I talk lots and lots and lots to people who hold other worldviews (I think that's pretty evident here in Rant). I evaluate. So far, my personal position is to stand pat. Eleanor Roosevelt said it well. "When you have decided what you believe, what you feel must be done, have the courage to stand alone and be counted."

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. "

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 18:04:42.

david1707

Nikon D90

01/22/2009 06:45:38 AM · #286

I fail to believe that God would condemn a person like the Dali Lama (just as an example) to burn in hell for all eternity just because he doesn't believe in Jesus as the savior. There are too many good people out there who are NOT Christians and too many peaceful, good religions out there for me to have blind faith in just one belief and one way to open the gates of heaven.

I guess we'll all find out one day as death is unavoidable.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/22/2009 09:44:38 AM · #287

Originally posted by david1707:

True that! The only thing I know for sure is no one has it completely right.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/22/2009 01:07:12 PM · #288

Originally posted by david1707:

1. This reads to me as though you are at least open to the concept of heaven or afterlife.
2. Your conclusion (belief) about what God would or would not deem as worthy for entry, reads as a logical path of reasoning based upon your observation of ones lived actions (aka works).
3. Another conclusion might ask if the Dali Lama (just as an example) was ever exposed to the "Good News" or "gospel of Christ" and if so did he accept or reject it. If he was exposed and rejected it, then from a christian perspective, it is not inconcievable that he would in fact be denied access to heaven - regardless of how peaceful or "good" he was.
4. As a grown adult, you certainly can believe whatever you wish - even that "God" accepts "works" as a path to heaven. That belief though, is not consistent with the teaching of "faith" as the means to salvation.
5. You are absolutely correct. We will find out who is right when we die. It might be you or the athiest or even Ron B.

01/22/2009 01:36:29 PM · #289

Originally posted by Flash:

5. You are absolutely correct. We will find out who is right when we die. It might be you or the athiest or even Ron B.

Let's not get crazy. We all know Ron is completely off his rocker...

One of life's little ironies is the atheists never get to find out they are right. ;)

Message edited by author 2009-01-22 13:37:30.

01/22/2009 01:38:50 PM · #290

Originally posted by Flash:

Another conclusion might ask if the Dali Lama (just as an example) was ever exposed to the "Good News" or "gospel of Christ" and if so did he accept or reject it. If he was exposed and rejected it, then from a christian perspective, it is not inconcievable that he would in fact be denied access to heaven - regardless of how peaceful or "good" he was.

If he wasn't exposed to it, he (and indeed most of the world's population) would fail Achoo's definition of Christian... and more importantly the basic requirement for salvation (faith that Jesus = God). In other words, most of the planet would be doomed to hell for the crime of mere ignorance. You are suggesting, of course, a "get out of hell free" card for those who didn't have the 'privilege' of exposure, but that principle creates an interesting conundrum: someone who chooses, say, a Catholic interpretation over Baptist may be less worthy of salvation than a Buddhist who knew nothing of either. :-/

01/22/2009 01:41:00 PM · #291

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One of life's little ironies is the atheists never get to find out they are right. ;)

Nobody does... unless you believe humans can process knowledge without a functioning brain.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/22/2009 02:10:02 PM · #292

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of life's little ironies is the atheists never get to find out they are right. ;)

Nobody does... unless you believe humans can process knowledge without a functioning brain.

Tunnel vision my friend. You got some tunnel vision. Logically the Christian could find out they are correct or incorrect based on whether there is an existence after death. You know this though, you just like to assert your position as the only position... :-/ I guess I do believe humans can process knowledge without a functioning brain.

Jesus tells a parable in Luke that I've always found interesting. It seems to indicate that people who have never heard will be held to a different standard. The end of the parable says, "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

Message edited by author 2009-01-22 14:11:39.

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/22/2009 02:14:03 PM · #293

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Another conclusion might ask if the Dali Lama (just as an example) was ever exposed to the "Good News" or "gospel of Christ" and if so did he accept or reject it. If he was exposed and rejected it, then from a christian perspective, it is not inconcievable that he would in fact be denied access to heaven - regardless of how peaceful or "good" he was.

If he wasn't exposed to it, he (and indeed most of the world's population) would fail Achoo's definition of Christian... and more importantly the basic requirement for salvation (faith that Jesus = God). In other words, most of the planet would be doomed to hell for the crime of mere ignorance. You are suggesting, of course, a "get out of hell free" card for those who didn't have the 'privilege' of exposure, but that principle creates an interesting conundrum: someone who chooses, say, a Catholic interpretation over Baptist may be less worthy of salvation than a Buddhist who knew nothing of either. :-/

Well, if you take the book of Revelation literally, there are only 144,000 people going to heaven; 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes.

So its probably been filled up for a long long time.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/22/2009 02:25:38 PM · #294

Originally posted by scalvert:

1. According to some teachings, ONLY Jews/Israelites were the choosen people and all others were excluded - period.
2. Only after the Jews rejected the messiah, did the gentiles get to participate.
3. From that perspective - it is not inconsistent that any large grouping of peoples would/could be excluded from an enternity in God's pressence - for whatever reason - ignorance or unfortunate timimg of their birth.
4. There are other teachings that address the potential for all souls who died prior to the crucifixition of Christ - specifically that during the period after the death and before the resurection of Christ, he preached in Hell to all the souls who died prior to his death - giving each an opportunity to receive salvation - including JUDAS.
5. Others teach that the first coming was timed during the period of Roman road construction, thus allowing for easier spread of the "gospel" or "good news".
6. And some today believe the second coming will be timed during an age of international media access - similar to the Roman roads scenario of the 1st coming.
7. If 4,5 and 6 are accurate, then the number who would be "ignorant" and without an opportubnity for choice, would indeed be small. Thus the "get out of jail card for ignorance" is a lot less of an argument. Certainly no one on this thread could claim that they never heard the options.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2009 02:32:42 PM · #295

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Logically the Christian could find out they are correct or incorrect based on whether there is an existence after death.

Either way, you're brain-dead (as a deceased person, not you personally), so that assumption mandates some other medium besides your noggin for storing and processing information. What would that be? If all you know and feel is stored and processed "spiritually," then a brain wouldn't be necessary for those functions. Consider carefully: if it were technically possible to transplant a brain from one genetic twin to another without damage, would all the memories and emotions go with it? "Knowing" anything after death requires the answer to be NO.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/22/2009 02:36:21 PM · #296

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One of life's little ironies is the atheists never get to find out they are right. ;)

... nor can Christians ever realize they were wrong ... :-)

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/22/2009 02:48:04 PM · #297

Originally posted by Flash:

According to some teachings, ONLY Jews/Israelites were the choosen people and all others were excluded - period. ...that perspective - it is not inconsistent that any large grouping of peoples would/could be excluded from an enternity in God's pressence - for whatever reason - ignorance or unfortunate timimg of their birth

What an amazing coincidence that the authors who make such claims of exclusivity (from any religion or sect) are invariably a member of the "chosen" group... no matter how much those groups or ideologies may differ from each other. Hmm...

Originally posted by Flash:

If 4,5 and 6 are accurate, then the number who would be "ignorant" and without an opportubnity for choice, would indeed be small. Thus the "get out of jail card for ignorance" is a lot less of an argument. Certainly no one on this thread could claim that they never heard the options.

Your suggestion reminds me of those wildly distorted maps where one small town or area takes up most of the world and the rest is marginalized from the point of view of those who live there. Most of the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. in the world (eg- most of the world) know as little of Christianity as Christians do of the other major religions, with no reason or desire to learn more. Each is equally convinced that they've had the unbelievable good fortune to be born into the "correct" belief despite all the other alternatives, and merely hearing the name or even basic outline of another religion is not enough to make any reasonable choice or decision to convert.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/22/2009 03:15:10 PM · #298

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

..." But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

Which begs the question: "What if these individuals live an exemplary life... do they get a chance at salvation, or is that a realm reserved exclusively for "Christians" ?

Just curious,

Ray