Other Religions

Genghiz Cohen

I'm Atheist, I'll make no secret of it, I'm not trolling or trying to cause a fuss or anything.
Also I won't be converted in this thread, so don't try.

Formalitys out of the way, what is the Christian opinion on other world religions, such as Judaism and Islam. Even old religions that have died out, Greek and Roman gods.

How can so many religions exist and al of them claim to be right? Why do they exist if christ is the saviour, how could the non-believers not be converted?

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'm Atheist, I'll make no secret of it, I'm not trolling or trying to cause a fuss or anything. Also I won't be converted in this thread, so don't try.

Never say never. I did once and now look at me...

what is the Christian opinion on other world religions, such as Judaism and Islam. Even old religions that have died out, Greek and Roman gods.

How can so many religions exist and al of them claim to be right? Why do they exist if christ is the saviour, how could the non-believers not be converted?

A global answer might be the best way to approach your query. First up, it should be appreciated that God and satan have been around for at least as long as the duration of this event called history. They are opposed to each other in ways described as good vs. evil and darkness vs. light .. which goes to indicate the nature of the battle between them.

The second thing to appreciate is that the "religion" you identify as "Christianity" has alway existed in the sense that there has always been God-believers (believers in the sense that ultimately matters). That such people happen to be called Christians in this age arises out of events 2000 years ago but in the heel of the hunt there is no fundemental status-difference between a believer 4000 years ago and a believer 4 years ago. Both are equally "saved"

Thirdly, there has always been "religions" and adherents to same - which stand on the side opposed to God. Today it's Islam and Judaism and a raft of others. In a desert many moons ago it was a golden calf that was worshipped, or in the city of Ephesus, the goddess Diana.

Nothing has changed fundamentally. There are but two sides: those aligned with God and those opposed to God who are influenced by what the Bible describes as the Prince of the air. Satan in other words. Satan doesn't really care which way he produces a mans damnation: if the man is niggled by his spiritual aspect but refuses to bow to God then satan is there to salve the itch that needs scratching in providing him a religion to conform to. If the man doesn't even want that level of hinderance then there are all the non-religious philosophies of the world to chose from - amongst which..atheism.

There isn't a whole lot of difference between the atheist and the religionist at the end of the day. Both blinded by the same person. Both occupying the position of being opposed to God. Both heading towards the same destination. It's even possible to see the core similarity - even if only through a glass darkly. It's like this:

In every religion you can think of (except Gods system of salvation: lets' call it Christianity) the persons attaining of a "favourable afterlife outcome" depends upon what they do. They've to pray to the west, meditate, offer sacrifice, give money to the poor, love their neighbour. Be all round good eggs and do what the god in question would have them do. Ask an atheist who he thinks should go to heaven were it actually the case that God exists and he'll say much the same thing: the good people should go to heaven and the bad people to Hell. Or ask an atheist whether he thinks he'd go to heaven in the case that God exists and he'll frequently say "I think I might - I'm not such a bad person"

Satan uses the same basic lie with everyone under his control - whatever system he has them adhere to. He's a one-trick pony in that regard: "be a good person and God'll be alright with you - you might only scrape a D but you'll be fine" is the message drummed into our brains. Yours too no doubt.

Genghiz Cohen

antiskeptic wrote: »

The second thing to appreciate is that the "religion" you identify as "Christianity" has alway existed in the sense that there has always been God-believers (believers in the sense that ultimately matters). That such people happen to be called Christians in this age arises out of events 2000 years ago but in the heel of the hunt there is no fundemental status-difference between a believer 4000 years ago and a believer 4 years ago. Both are equally "saved"
[...]
There isn't a whole lot of difference between the atheist and the religionist at the end of the day. Both blinded by the same person. Both occupying the position of being opposed to God. Both heading towards the same destination. It's even possible to see the core similarity - even if only through a glass darkly. It's like this:
[...]
Satan uses the same basic lie with everyone under his control - whatever system he has them adhere to. He's a one-trick pony in that regard: "be a good person and God'll be alright with you - you might only scrape a D but you'll be fine" is the message drummed into our brains. Yours too no doubt.

Hey I've scraped D all through college and I'm doing fine! :pac:

So, what you're saying (for example) is that Satan convinced or otherwise distorted the Jews perception so they wouldn't believe in Jesus? And holds them to Judaism. Yes?

Also, what converted you to Atheism, then to Christianity?

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How can so many religions exist and al of them claim to be right?

Because religions -- at least the recently-evolved ones like christianity and islam -- aren't all that attractive as providers of "meaning" if they don't proclaim their Truth at every turn.

kelly1

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Formalitys out of the way, what is the Christian opinion on other world religions, such as Judaism and Islam. Even old religions that have died out, Greek and Roman gods.

The Christian position is that other religions are false to different degrees. Judaism however is the forerunner of Christianity. The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would introduce a New Covenant between God and His people. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah while the Jews are still waiting.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How can so many religions exist and al of them claim to be right?

It stands to reason that all religions can't be true. They're either all false or one is true. Christians believe that for religion to be true, it must be revealed by God. Apart from coming to die on the cross to save us from our sins, Jesus came to teach us the truth about things like the reality of sin, hell, heaven, judgment, mercy and God's love. God revelation of the truth began with Moses and ended definitively with Jesus.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Why do they exist if christ is the saviour, how could the non-believers not be converted?

I think there are a few possible reasons for the proliferations of false religions:

1. People fabricate religions to suit the own ends.
2. People are easily lead astray by false teachers.
3. Satan influences people to follow false relgions.
4. Pride prevents us from following the will of God.

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Hey I've scraped D all through college and I'm doing fine! :pac:

It's straight A's with God or nothing. Hence the need of a saviour to do what you (and I) patently aren't capable of. What religions of all sorts do is exhort you to climb further and further up the ladder towards an A++. Very Tower of Babel-esque when you stand back to consider it.

The gospel is such an amazing story in comparision it's no wonder so many consider it untrue. Indeed, one of the frequent objections to it is that salvation shouldn't be free. Just goes to show how embedded the religious lie is.

So, what you're saying (for example) is that Satan convinced or otherwise distorted the Jews perception so they wouldn't believe in Jesus? And holds them to Judaism. Yes?

Better said that folk are blind to these things and satan knows how to maintain them in their blindness. But if he is to be considered the drug pusher (of lies in this case) we shouldn't forget the addict. The addict being the one who demands his fix. The Jews (as with all the lost) are complicit in their own deception just as an addict is complicit in maintaining his addiction.

Also, what converted you to Atheism, then to Christianity?

There are but two camps globally. Believers (as defined by God) and everyone else. That the everyone else go by the name atheist or agnostic or Muslim... or even Christian doesn't alter the fact that they're all in the same camp.

Before I became a believer? I'd say I adhered to the Religion Antiskeptic. I was my own god. The one whose needs were to be served. I didn't have time, interest, need... for identifying with any movement or label. Not so much atheist thru lack of belief thus. More like atheist thru lack of interest in such things.

I was as I was born - until such time as I was born again. Or found .. as that most famous of hymns goes.

Mickeroo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Better said that folk are blind to these things and satan knows how to maintain them in their blindness. But if he is to be considered the drug pusher (of lies in this case) we shouldn't forget the addict. The addict being the one who demands his fix. The Jews (as with all the lost) are complicit in their own deception just as an addict is complicit in maintaining his addiction.

Yea or jesus was satan's instrument in blinding people to the truth and christianity is lost and judaism is "found"..........

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The gospel is such an amazing story in comparision it's no wonder so many consider it untrue. Indeed, one of the frequent objections to it is that salvation shouldn't be free. Just goes to show how embedded the religious lie is.

Are you sure Christianity teaches that salvation is "free" ... cause last time I checked there were a number of requirements that one had to do to get saved. Salvation is "free" the same way my pay cheque is free. I just have to turn up and work for 8 hours a day.

Also I don't think I've ever heard the argument against the believability of the gospel was because God was being too kind in giving us salvation. Quite the opposite in fact.

But that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Because religions -- at least the recently-evolved ones like christianity and islam -- aren't all that attractive as providers of "meaning" if they don't proclaim their Truth at every turn.

"If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain."

What's the point in proclaiming something that you don't actually believe to be true? Christians might be wrong about Christ rising from the dead as a fact of history but surely you can't blame us for boldly proclaiming it from the rooftops while we are in the state of actually believing that that event actually took place as fact of history? What else would you have us do? Proclaim what we know to be false?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you sure Christianity teaches that salvation is "free"

Eternal life is a gift from God. It can never be earned and can never be deserved. It is freely given to all who will accept it.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you sure Christianity teaches that salvation is "free" ... cause last time I checked there were a number of requirements that one had to do to get saved.

Like what?

Also I don't think I've ever heard the argument against the believability of the gospel was because God was being too kind in giving us salvation. Quite the opposite in fact.

Whats the opposite argument to God being too kind in giving us salvation?

Folk object to the "injustice" of God pouring out his wrath on an innocent man. They object to the idea that Hitler could be "Heaven" as we speak (and that x named good person (in their estimation) could be in Hell). They invariable consider salvation to be something they should earn - be they overtly religious or overtly atheistic.

It's just what I've seen. Time and time again.

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yea or jesus was satan's instrument in blinding people to the truth and christianity is lost and judaism is "found"..........

By their fruits ye shall know them. That is to say: take a sniff of Jesus and Judaism ..and tell me what you find.

antiskeptic

Soul Winner wrote: »

Eternal life is a gift from God. It can never be earned and can never be deserved. It is freely given to all who will accept it.

...or to put it a tad less man-contributively: "It is freely given to all who won't refuse it"

Orion

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thirdly, there has always been "religions" and adherents to same - which stand on the side opposed to God. Today it's Islam and Judaism and a raft of others.

Sorry - WHAT?!

As you can see from my sig I am an athiest also. But I am not a critic of religion or people who are religious. I don't agree with your beliefs but I don't deny your right to them either. As far as I'm concerned it's a personal choice and I have no right to interfere with your choice.

That said, however - WTF are you talking about? Islam and Judaism stand opposed to God? That is just purely offensive to anyone of those faiths. Islam and Judaism actually have the same God as you. They have followed a different path but Allah, Christian God and Jewish God are the same divine entity (if you believe in that sort of thing). The same applies to a 'raft of other' faiths. Just because a different path has been followed does not make a particular faith 'opposed to God'.

And just to pre-emptively refute any argument regarding the actions of some followers of any particular faith don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians have a monopoly on human rights - they are just as guilty as any other faith you care to mention of atrocities committed in the name of religion.

antiskeptic

Macros42 wrote: »

As you can see from my sig I am an athiest also. But I am not a critic of religion or people who are religious. I don't agree with your beliefs but I don't deny your right to them either. As far as I'm concerned it's a personal choice and I have no right to interfere with your choice.

I'm not interfering with their choice. I'm making a statement about which side that choice happens to land them in. That statement is either true or false.

That said, however - WTF are you talking about? Islam and Judaism stand opposed to God? That is just purely offensive to anyone of those faiths. Islam and Judaism actually have the same God as you. They have followed a different path but Allah, Christian God and Jewish God are the same divine entity (if you believe in that sort of thing). The same applies to a 'raft of other' faiths. Just because a different path has been followed does not make a particular faith 'opposed to God'.

There is a stick. Then there's the right end of the stick. Which implies there being a wrong end of the stick also. My suggestion is that both Islam and Judaism have the wrong end of the same stick that I have the right end of. Again: true or untrue.

And just to pre-emptively refute any argument regarding the actions of some followers of any particular faith don't make the mistake of thinking that Christians have a monopoly on human rights - they are just as guilty as any other faith you care to mention of atrocities committed in the name of religion.

I didn't comment on human rights in order for you to raise this objection.

That said: I'm pretty certain there'll be some pretty abominable characters (from an earthly perspective) in heaven whilst some pretty good characters (from an earthly perspective) burn (figuratively I'd suggest) in Hell.

Destination: heaven/hell isn't about ones abominability (from an earthly perspective). Putting it plainly: what matter does a persons "religiously motivated" sin make if that persons sin-of-every-type-and-kind... has been forgiven? Wiped away?

No matter - I'd suggest.

Orion

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a stick. Then there's the right end of the stick. Which implies there being a wrong end of the stick also. My suggestion is that both Islam and Judaism have the wrong end of the same stick that I have the right end of. Again: true or untrue.

That is completely different to what you said in your first post. Thinking they have the wrong end of the stick is not the same thing as saying they are opposed to God. The former is disagreement, the latter is bigotry. I would have no problem with you saying you think Muslims/Jews are wrong because ... insert argument here ... but saying they are opposed to god as you did is just, well, wrong.

antiskeptic

Macros42 wrote: »

That is completely different to what you said in your first post. Thinking they have the wrong end of the stick is not the same thing as saying they are opposed to God.

It's my view in both cases.

They have the wrong end of the stick (my view)

They are opposed to God (my view)

The former is disagreement, the latter is bigotry. I would have no problem with you saying you think Muslims/Jews are wrong because ... insert argument here ... but saying they are opposed to god as you did is just, well, wrong.

I did give an argument. God grants salvation freely by grace. Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/Buddishm/Jehovahs Witnessism/Mormonism/Frequently Roman Catholicism/Christadelpianism/Atheism etc.. have their god/god-if-he-turns-out-to-exist grant it by works.


You're an atheist you say. So try it for yourself. IF God turned out to exist, do you think "good" people (say by internationally agreed humanistic standard) should go to Heaven and bad people (by same standard) should go to Hell? Lets take your favorite philanthropist as a model of a good person and Hitler as a model of a bad person. (funny how it's so easy to find agreement on a bad person but so difficult to find same re: a good person. I used to use Mother Theresa as the standard of good - long before I became a Christian. But the atheists poisoned that well... )

Orion

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's my view in both cases.

They have the wrong end of the stick (my view)

They are opposed to God (my view)

At this point I have to ask what brand of Christianity you are. If Catholic are Protestants opposed to god because they don't believe in transsubstantiation? If Protestant are Catholics opposed to God because they do? Differences between Abrahamic religions can be that small. The major initial difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Jesus is either the Messiah or another prophet. Jesus was a Jew himself don't forget.

antiskeptic wrote:

You're an atheist you say. So try it for yourself. IF God turned out to exist, do you think "good" people (say by internationally agreed humanistic standard) should go to Heaven and bad people (by same standard) should go to Hell? Lets take your favorite philanthropist as a model of a good person and Hitler as a model of a bad person. (funny how it's so easy to find agreement on a bad person but so difficult to find same re: a good person. I used to use Mother Theresa as the standard of good - long before I became a Christian. But the atheists poisoned that well... )

I'll bite First question - No. Don't your own teachings say that God is forgiving? OK - I'm being facetious now. I can't actually answer that question as I consider the concepts of heaven and hell to be apocryphal.
Second part - it's not that hard to find philanthropists. There is the argument that there is no such thing as true philanthropy of course (Kant iirc) but I don't know if I agree. Sir Bob is one example - I genuinely think he is a good man. The problem you have in finding examples is more a symptom of our society rather than a religious question - only bad news makes the papers.

[edit]I'm going to bed now but enjoying the conversation - it's not often a debate between the saved like you and a heretic like me can be carried out without namecalling and stonethrowing
I'll check back in tomorrow

JimiTime

Macros42 wrote: »

At this point I have to ask what brand of Christianity you are. If Catholic are Protestants opposed to god because they don't believe in transsubstantiation? If Protestant are Catholics opposed to God because they do? Differences between Abrahamic religions can be that small. The major initial difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Jesus is either the Messiah or another prophet. Jesus was a Jew himself don't forget.

Just to point out, not believing in Jesus' divinity is a HUGE difference. In fact, I can be completely ignorant about every single other detail of religious texts etc and believe in Jesus and have faith in him and be saved. Judaisim, Islam etc reject this divinity meaning that they reject salvation, for salvation comes through this fact. Protestants and Cathlics and whatever other denominations can row over details 'they' define as important but they share the common saving grace of faith in Christ. Islam, Judaism etc have no such common ground, and are thus opposed to the Son of God. In turn, those opposed to the Son, are also opposed to the Father who sent him. So from a christian perspective its quite accurate to say 'anyone' who doesn't have faith in Christ, is on the other side of the fence as antiskeptic said.

antiskeptic

Macros42 wrote: »

At this point I have to ask what brand of Christianity you are. If Catholic are Protestants opposed to god because they don't believe in transsubstantiation? If Protestant are Catholics opposed to God because they do? Differences between Abrahamic religions can be that small. The major initial difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Jesus is either the Messiah or another prophet. Jesus was a Jew himself don't forget.

I'm of the brand of Christianity that God defines as belonging to a category of people we might call, for the sake of focus, the saved. All sorts will be in that group - including people who'd currently be identified as catholics, muslims, hindus etc. God's religion doesn't operate according to the boundaries imposed by men.

It follows that a person isn't saved by the doctrine they believe in. The Bible goes so far as to suggest that there will stand before God, people who are surprised by the fact that they qualify for salvation. I'm sure people identifying as atheists will be amongst them.

Jesus was a Jew who rebelled against Judaisms legalism. He hated the lie that held men in the sway of the idea that being good leads a man to God.

It doesn't. Indeed, it's counter productive oft times.

I'll bite

Never say never

First question - No. Don't your own teachings say that God is forgiving? OK - I'm being facetious now. I can't actually answer that question as I consider the concepts of heaven and hell to be apocryphal.

The question is couched in terms that permits if's. IF God and heaven and hell exist, what is the basis by which a person should end up there? In your atheistic opinion.

Second part - it's not that hard to find philanthropists. There is the argument that there is no such thing as true philanthropy of course (Kant iirc) but I don't know if I agree. Sir Bob is one example - I genuinely think he is a good man. The problem you have in finding examples is more a symptom of our society rather than a religious question - only bad news makes the papers.

Philantrophy is but a possible measure of good. But people can be philanthropists for all kinds of reasons that don't gel with the notion "good". I just used the notion that they were good for the sake of argument.

Which returns us to our question. Who do you think should end up in heaven assuming heaven exists: Sir Bob or Hitler*


(*warning: if you answer "Sir Bob" you'll be going the way of all the worlds religions which base a "favorable afterlife outcome" on how good you are during this life. If you don't believe me ask the 9/11 bombers)

[edit]I'm going to bed now but enjoying the conversation - it's not often a debate between the saved like you and a heretic like me can be carried out without namecalling and stonethrowing
I'll check back in tomorrow

You're not a heretic. You're way too lost to even begin to approach that diabolical title. See you in the am

Orion

I was just checking some other forums before bed and saw this response so one more

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which returns us to our question. Who do you think should end up in heaven assuming heaven exists: Sir Bob or Hitler*
(*warning: if you answer "Sir Bob" you'll be going the way of all the worlds religions which base a "favorable afterlife outcome" on how good you are during this life. If you don't believe me ask the 9/11 bombers)

Did you think I hadn't seen the trap?
I was serious about considering both heaven and hell apocryphal. To answer either way would imply acceptance of the concept of heaven and hell which I don't. I can't even answer hypothetically as I can't consider it objectively. However I will say that Hitler's reasons were right to him. He believed (or so he said) that he was doing God's work. As did the 11/9 bombers. But there are fanatics in every religion. Granted most don't commit atrocities on such a grand scale but the principle applies.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not a heretic. You're way too lost to even begin to approach that diabolical title. See you in the am

- I feel I should thank you for that

Now I am off to bed.

antiskeptic

Macros42 wrote: »

I can't even answer hypothetically as I can't consider it objectively.

You mean to say that your a consistant atheist? One who genuinely reckons there's no objective right and wrong against which to measure a persons actions?

Congratulations!! I've only ever come across one other like you.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like what?

Well for a start you have to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, don't you?

There also seems to be debate among Christians about how much of a change to the Christian life you must undertake to demonstrate you truly do accept Jesus (ie can a mass murderer genuinely believe Jesus was the Son of God while still happily going around killing people and be saved).

So it seems you not only have to accept that Jesus was the Son of God you also have to live your life based on how God wants you to life. You can't accept Jesus was really the son of God and think he was a bit of a bastard and still be saved. Almost by definition genuine Satan worshippers believe Jesus was really the Son of God, but I imagine that doesn't mean they are going to be saved.

So anywhoo, the idea that something is free so long as you do the thing that is required to get it (as Soul Winner seems to be saying) is some what an oxymoron.

If you are required to do something to get it then it isn't really "free" is it. It becomes more of a buy 2 get the 3rd one free kind of "free" (very funny clip from the Adam and Joe show where he goes into a shop and takes the "free" bit of the biscuits and gets kicked out of the shop while complaining that it said it was "free"), which really free at all.

Which isn't that big a deal. I never understood the need of Christianity to proclaim how good a deal salvation is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whats the opposite argument to God being too kind in giving us salvation?

That God isn't be kind in offering us salvation, that it is in fact a form of blackmail.

That seems to be a far more common argument against the unlikelihood of it be true (why would an all powerful deity feel the need to blackmail his creation into doing what he says and believing he is real), than the argument that it is unlikely that God would be so kind as to offer us salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Folk object to the "injustice" of God pouring out his wrath on an innocent man. They object to the idea that Hitler could be "Heaven" as we speak (and that x named good person (in their estimation) could be in Hell). They invariable consider salvation to be something they should earn - be they overtly religious or overtly atheistic.

It's just what I've seen. Time and time again.

Ah right, yes I see where you are coming from now.

That argument though is not an argument that God is too kind (at least not anytime that I've ever heard it), rather that God is implausibly needy in what he requires of people to be saved.

The argument that God is being too kind might hold if God let Hitler and everyone nicer than Hitler in, but that isn't how it works. God may let Hitler in if he accepts Jesus, and people find that strange because God may not let someone who leads a wonderful life and dies while saving a bus full of school children.

That isn't an argument that God is kind, rather the opposite, he is unfair and places silly requirements that serve no purpose except to further his worship. Which sort of makes sense for a cult leader to say (you can only get this thing I'm promising if you agree I am God) but less for a deity when you think about it.

Bduffman

antiskeptic wrote: »

By their fruits ye shall know them. That is to say: take a sniff of Jesus and Judaism ..and tell me what you find.

Oh come on - you can't surely suggest that you yourself have 'taken a sniff of jesus & judaism'. If you were brought up in christianity you have already taken more than a sniff. You can only make an objective view of any religion if you haven't been immersed in one of them from a young age.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's the point in proclaiming something that you don't actually believe to be true? Christians might be wrong about Christ rising from the dead as a fact of history but surely you can't blame us for boldly proclaiming it from the rooftops while we are in the state of actually believing that that event actually took place as fact of history? What else would you have us do? Proclaim what we know to be false?

There are two questions here which tend to be ignored in the rush to proclamation:

1. No religious person knows that their own personal interpretation is true, they think think it is, occasionally in a manner that precludes debate.
2. Why is "proclaiming" it such a big issue anyway?

Given the time that some people spend at proclamation -- aka "getting other people to think the same things as you do" -- one could be forgiven for thinking that it's the only issue. Your own acquisitive nick being a case in point

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

There are two questions here which tend to be ignored in the rush to proclamation:

1. No religious person knows that their own personal interpretation is true, they think think it is, occasionally in a manner that precludes debate.

It has been debated and nobody has given a good reason to think that the basis of Christianity is false, namely the resurrection of Christ as a fact of history.

robindch wrote: »

1. Why is "proclaiming" it such a big issue anyway?

If it is all a lie then it is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind, at least the biggest one that I can find. If it is not a lie then it is the truth and it has huge implications for everybody, whether you believe it to be true or not.

robindch wrote: »

Given the time that some people spend at proclamation -- aka "getting other people to think the same things as you do"

The primary role of the Church is to proclaim that Christ rose from the dead. It is not the Church's role to convince people that He did. People either believe the report or they don't. Simple as. Now if someone is unsure what to believe and asks me why I believe it, then I will tell them why adn how I came to believe it. They can do what they want with that, nobody is twisting their arms.

robindch wrote: »

one could be forgiven for thinking that it's the only issue. Your own acquisitive nick being a case in point

Assume for a minute that it is in fact true. What could be more important than proclaiming it? Nothing is more important. Does that mean that this is all that someone should do once they become a Christian? Not at all. The important thing to remember is that Christ died for 'YOU' as you are, you do not need to change in order for Him to accept you, He already accepts you. The ball is in your court. Its over to you now to either turn to Him or reject Him.

If he doesn't exit then its no big deal what you do, but if He does exist then an account will have to be given as to why you rejected Him. The one thing people will not be able to say to Him when that happens is that they never heard of Him or didn't know anything about Him. For those who genuinely never did hear about them then they will be judge according to their own standards. But Christ died even for them so He has the right to take them in too. That is why it is so important to proclaim that He rose, so that everyone will have that chance to turn and be saved.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

nobody has given a good reason to think that the basis of Christianity is false

Here's one -- people generally don't die and come back to life again? And if you accept (on the basis of almost no evidence at all) that he did, then why don't you accept the much better attested religious stories of the Mormons, or of the resurrection of Sai Baba and all the other people who've resurrected over the years? Seems strange that you just concentrate on just one miraculous story when there are hundreds if not thousands out there.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it is all a lie then it is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind,

We can agree on that

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it is not a lie then it is the truth and it has huge implications for everybody, whether you believe it to be true or not.

You can say the same about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean that it's worth spending any time worrying that the FSM (praise be upon his noodles) is looking over my shoulder all the time waiting for me to think that he's not there so that he can pick me up and lob me into whatever hell he's concocted for such people.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Well for a start you have to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, don't you?

Accepting Jesus is the son of God, that God exists, that Christ paid for your sin etc., are things that occur as a consequence of your having been saved. You are saved and your eyes are opened up to these things. They are not a cause of your being saved / are not things you must do in order to be saved.

There also seems to be debate among Christians about how much of a change to the Christian life you must undertake to demonstrate you truly do accept Jesus (ie can a mass murderer genuinely believe Jesus was the Son of God while still happily going around killing people and be saved).

The mass murderer who is saved has God take up residence inside him - just like anyone else who is saved. Gods residence means that subsequent sin won't be carried out happily. The general progression for a convert with respect to his sin tends to be:

- initial term: sinning and feeling rotten afterward
- middle term: sinning and feeling rotten during it
- long term: considering sin, remember how rotten it feels, and deciding not to.

Although the mass-murderer is an extreme version I see no reason why the same model wouldn't apply. In reality, the conversion of a mass murderer would be so wrenching, it'd be hard to imagine the mass-murder so much as hurting a fly anymore.

So it seems you not only have to accept that Jesus was the Son of God you also have to live your life based on how God wants you to life. You can't accept Jesus was really the son of God and think he was a bit of a bastard and still be saved. Almost by definition genuine Satan worshippers believe Jesus was really the Son of God, but I imagine that doesn't mean they are going to be saved.

As I say, the belief regarding Jesus is consequential not casual and is but knowledge about a fact that one was previously blind to. There is nothing salvific about that knowledge in itself - so the fact that the demons believe Jesus is the son of God doesn't mean they'll be saved. It just means they know the facts too.


As to living how God wants you to live? Whether you (as a saved person) live more or less according to how God wants you to live isn't salvation determining. There is every reason to believe that rewards in heaven vary depending on how a saved person responds to Gods exhortations regarding how one should live. But thats a completely different issue to the issue of how one gets to heaven in the first place - which isn't "how you live" based.

So anywhoo, the idea that something is free so long as you do the thing that is required to get it (as Soul Winner seems to be saying) is some what an oxymoron.

If you are required to do something to get it then it isn't really "free" is it. It becomes more of a buy 2 get the 3rd one free kind of "free" (very funny clip from the Adam and Joe show where he goes into a shop and takes the "free" bit of the biscuits and gets kicked out of the shop while complaining that it said it was "free"), which really free at all.

Put it this way: God attempts to lift your hands up so as to place the gift in them. The only thing that will result in your failure to receive this gift is if you snatch your hands away. You don't have to do a thing to receive this gift - not even lift your hands.

That God isn't be kind in offering us salvation, that it is in fact a form of blackmail.

That seems to be a far more common argument against the unlikelihood of it be true (why would an all powerful deity feel the need to blackmail his creation into doing what he says and believing he is real), than the argument that it is unlikely that God would be so kind as to offer us salvation.

I'm not sure I understand the rational of this. The unbeliever can't consider themselves to be blackmailed by someone they don't believe exists. Indeed, the first time a person finds out (during their lifetime) that Hell actually exists is the day they come to know they are not going there. So blackmail can't have been it.

That argument though is not an argument that God is too kind (at least not anytime that I've ever heard it), rather that God is implausibly needy in what he requires of people to be saved.

Could you elaborate?

The argument that God is being too kind might hold if God let Hitler and everyone nicer than Hitler in, but that isn't how it works. God may let Hitler in if he accepts Jesus, and people find that strange because God may not let someone who leads a wonderful life and dies while saving a bus full of school children.

That isn't an argument that God is kind, rather the opposite, he is unfair and places silly requirements that serve no purpose except to further his worship. Which sort of makes sense for a cult leader to say (you can only get this thing I'm promising if you agree I am God) but less for a deity when you think about it.

A lot of this objection is circumvented by the above comments regarding your not having to do a thing to be saved. Could you rephrase it in the light of that?

antiskeptic

Bduffman wrote: »

Oh come on - you can't surely suggest that you yourself have 'taken a sniff of jesus & judaism'. If you were brought up in christianity you have already taken more than a sniff. You can only make an objective view of any religion if you haven't been immersed in one of them from a young age.

I wasn't brought up in Christianity and thankfully, I wasn't brought up too close to what is sold as Christianity in Ireland. I was brought up close enough to what is sold as Christianity in Ireland to smell its smell - and I, along with a whole heap of others apparently, didn't at all like what I smelled.

You don't have to get too close to Judaism in order to smell the same kind of smell. Religion = law adherance:~ it always has meant that - it always will.

Whatever name it happens to labour under.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's straight A's with God or nothing.

Actually you can pretty much fail everything, as long as you get the only question thats important, the one about believing in Jesus and taking him into your heart and what not. You can do whatever you want your entire life, if as long as at the very end you believe in Jesus and want to be a good person for the last 8 seconds of your life.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually you can pretty much fail everything, as long as you get the only question thats important, the one about believing in Jesus and taking him into your heart and what not. You can do whatever you want your entire life, if as long as at the very end you believe in Jesus and want to be a good person for the last 8 seconds of your life.

And how would you go about "believing in Jesus" - at any time of your life?

Rev Hellfire

It seems to me that popular interpretation of the Christian god here is one who has picked out a number of souls who'll happily get down on bended knee and tell him how truly wonderful he is.

Everyone else is damned for eternity, by this infinitely compassionate deity, who knew they where going to fail even before they got off the starting blocks.

Though that been said the catholic church certainly doesn't discount non-Christian religions as can be seen in the Vactian II on the subject.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Hardly the outright rejection that the posters here would have us believe for example.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

And how would you go about "believing in Jesus" - at any time of your life?

What, me personally? Well I guess I'd start with throwing out all skepticism, logic and rational thought and then I would start believing in the things that make me feel better about myself, rather than things that actually have any actual real evidence for them. But thats just me...

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Accepting Jesus is the son of God, that God exists, that Christ paid for your sin etc., are things that occur as a consequence of your having been saved. You are saved and your eyes are opened up to these things. They are not a cause of your being saved / are not things you must do in order to be saved.

Ok ... that is a new one to me (this has always been a problem when discussing this stuff with you guys, you each seem to have a particular interpretation of what Christianity teaches that is often fundamentally different to the next Christian)

So you believe God saves you, and because of that you then realise that he exists etc. We don't do anything.

This would some what nullify Soul Winners claim that it is necessary proclaim Christianity so that people know the truth.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although the mass-murderer is an extreme version I see no reason why the same model wouldn't apply. In reality, the conversion of a mass murderer would be so wrenching, it'd be hard to imagine the mass-murder so much as hurting a fly anymore.

One would wonder though, based on what you said above, why God doesn't save the mass murderer before he does the mass murder ...

Why doesn't God save everyone the moment they are born?

antiskeptic wrote: »

As to living how God wants you to live? Whether you (as a saved person) live more or less according to how God wants you to live isn't salvation determining.

Well based on the debates that have taken place on this forum I know that isn't a universal Christian belief, so I'll let you guys fight that one out yourselves.

But at least given your stance that being saved isn't a choice a person makes (again not a universal Christian belief as far as I know) but rather God chooses to save you, it is at least consistent that following on from this since God is choosing to save you rather than you choosing to accept saving, that your salvation wouldn't depend on what you do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: God attempts to lift your hands up so as to place the gift in them. The only thing that will result in your failure to receive this gift is if you snatch your hands away. You don't have to do a thing to receive this gift - not even lift your hands.

How would you define "snatch your hands away"

Based on what you said above that would seem to be impossible. How do you choose not to receive a gift from God when is an all powerful super being?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the rational of this. The unbeliever can't consider themselves to be blackmailed by someone they don't believe exists.

They can consider something someone does to be blackmail, fiction or otherwise (heck look at an average episode of Dallas). Given that they can make that assessment they can decide that this seems like a very unlikely thing for a god to do, and therefore determine that a god described as doing such a thing doesn't exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you elaborate?

Well that depends. I was working under the assumption that you held the mainstream Christian belief that to be saved one must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour.

You appear not to hold that view, that instead God picks you and you are oblivious to this until it happens at which point because you are saved you know that Jesus is your saviour. There is no accepting of anything, no faith.

So my argument doesn't apply to that stance.

But then off the top of my head the objection to that idea is why does God pick and choose who to save? that again seems a bizarre thing to do for a deity.

Mark Hamill

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It seems to me that popular interpretation of the Christian god here is one who has picked out a number of souls who'll happily get down on bended knee and tell him how truly wonderful he is.

Everyone else is damned for eternity, by this infinitely compassionate deity, who knew they where going to fail even before they got off the starting blocks.

Though that been said the catholic church certainly doesn't discount non-Christian religions as can be seen in the Vactian II on the subject.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Hardly the outright rejection that the posters here would have us believe for example.

Your quote says nothing about who gets into heaven. Besides John 14:6 says : Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.", so it seems like the bible (specifically Jesus) claims that no one gets into heaven except those who believe in Jesus as the son of god.

So everyone else, regardless of what they do, is screwed

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What, me personally? Well I guess I'd start with throwing out all skepticism, logic and rational thought and then I would start believing in the things that make me feel better about myself, rather than things that actually have any actual real evidence for them. But thats just me...

You'd end up with blind faith that way - not biblical faith. Biblical faith is evidence based. That it's not empirical evidence based is neither here nor there. Let's face it, the lack of empirical evidence that I thought what I thought 5 seconds ago is no impediement to my knowing what I thought 5 seconds ago.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'd end up with blind faith that way - not biblical faith. Biblical faith is evidence based. That it's not empirical evidence based is neither here nor there. Let's face it, the lack of empirical evidence that I thought what I thought 5 seconds ago is no impediement to my knowing what I thought 5 seconds ago.

Well yes it can be. Try that when you are drunk and see how successful it is.

Your argument seems to amount to little more than saying you know what you know. If you judge anything you believe as being equally valid to anything else you can believe then you are going to end up in a whole heap of trouble.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually you can pretty much fail everything, as long as you get the only question thats important, the one about believing in Jesus and taking him into your heart and what not. You can do whatever you want your entire life, if as long as at the very end you believe in Jesus and want to be a good person for the last 8 seconds of your life.

You missed the context there MH. The point about straight A's was to do with can you 'earn' salvation by being good. The answer being that God require's a flawlessness not existant in humanity. Thus, salvation is by means of a 'gift'. That gift is given by means of Jesus Christ.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Here's one -- people generally don't die and come back to life again?

True they don't as a rule and I can't prove it either way scientifically. But one can look at it from an historical point of view. The general record of these events have been around for millennia and they are virtually unchanged with the exception of a scribal error here and a bad translation there. The oldest fragments of these documents extant go right back to the 1st century. There is not another story in human history as well attested to as the story of Jesus. These documents embody all the criteria to adjudged them historically sound, including the fact they include embarrassing things like the fact that Jesus was actually crucified. If you're going to make up a story about someone being an all powerful God you don't start out with Him dying on a cross. I know I wouldn't.

You wouldn't write a Gospel to non-Jews (who did not know what the expression ‘Son of Man’ meant) in order to make a point like Mark did in His gospel. Mark was writing to gentiles either Egyptians or Romans but certainly to non Jews. In his gospel Mark has Jesus referring to Himself as ‘Son of Man’ all the time. Now if Mark is lying and only out to convince people that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’, then why would he have Jesus refer to Himself as the ‘Son of Man’ all the time? The phrase ‘Son of Man’ to a non-Jew is just exactly that a ‘son of man’. But to an Jew it means the promised Messiah.

If Mark is lying then he’s adhering to facts about Jesus teachings that don’t make sense if all he wants to do is convince people that Jesus was the Son of God. Why not just have Jesus referring to Himself as Son of God? Because Mark is just being honest in his account to what Jesus actually said. Because Jesus was speaking in a Jewish environment where they understood that the phrase Son of Man meant the Messiah, and Mark was simply reporting what He actually said. You don’t do things like that if all you are out to do is lie about someone being the Son of God. You don’t find attention to detail like that in a liar who doesn’t care about the truth.

There is multitudes of this kind of intrinsic evidence in all the Gospels that show that they were not lying about Jesus, and if they were not lying about Jesus then He rose as reported and is who He claimed to be. The problem with people who just don’t want to accept a God is that they never really dig into the story about Jesus. When you do you are forced to conclude that Jesus was either a nutcase, a fraud or the Lord of Glory. Most of the world puts Him into the camp of ‘good and wise teacher’. But if that is true then He must also be supernatural. Why? Because He claimed to be. If His claims are false then He was either lying about them or was genuinely deluded about them. If He was lying about them then He was a fraud and therefore could not be good. If He was genuinely deluded then He did not know enough to discern that His claims were false therefore He could not be wise. He can’t be both ‘good and wise’ without also being who He claimed to be.

At least the Jews had guts to call Him a blasphemer. They understood His claims and knew that no mortal man had a right to make the claims Jesus made unless they were true. Give them credit for recognising that much at least. But God vindicated His claims by the power of the Resurrection from the dead. That sort of stamps God’s approval on what Jesus claimed and all the other things He did and said prior to His humiliating crucifixion.

robindch wrote: »

And if you accept (on the basis of almost no evidence at all)

As I explained above, there is multitudes of internal intrinsic evidence that show that the reporters of this story were not lying. There is even secular historical evidence that Jesus actually lived and that He was viewed as the Christ (Messiah).

robindch wrote: »

that he did, then why don't you accept the much better attested religious stories of the Mormons, or of the resurrection of Sai Baba and all the other people who've resurrected over the years?

How are those stories better attested to? And even if they were true how can I apply what they said in their lives to mine? Did they die for ME? Did they promise eternal life to ME? Did they say before their deaths that their deaths meant anything? If so then where are the records? Even if they did die and rose again, it can’t have any meaning for me personally because they never claimed to be anything or that their deaths meant anything. I have no truck with anyone who genuinely believes these things, but be that as it may it takes nothing away from the account of the One who did make supernatural claims. We still have to deal with Him if He was who He claimed to be as verified by His resurrection from the dead.

robindch wrote: »

Seems strange that you just concentrate on just one miraculous story when there are hundreds if not thousands out there.

Not strange at all. Jesus speaks to everyone. He died for everyone. He paid the sins of everyone. Who else did anything in the same neighbourhood as that for everyone? Buddha? Mohammad? Confucius? They never made the claims that Jesus made. Buddha actually said that His death meant nothing. Mohammad spoke on behalf of Allah and Confucius did a logical analysis of society which if followed he said would solve the problems of life down here.

But Jesus came preaching Himself. He said "I am the door, by me shall anyone enter in. I am the way the truth and the life. Without me you can do nothing at all." That is either a nut or a fraud talking if thsoe claims are nto true. Not once in the record is there even a hint that He had any moral inadequacies. He forgave sins by His own authority. He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, that He was also greater than Solomon and that before even Abrham was, He was. "You've heard it said unto you of old...but now behold I say unto you etc..." No other respected religious leader said things like this about himself. You have to go to the nutty fringe of religion to find claims like this and yet Jesus is found making these kinds of claims everywhere you turn in scripture. And the world wants us to compartmentalise Him as a ‘good and wise’ teacher? He is neither unless His claims are true, and if His claims be true then He was also God incarnate who walked ordinary streets and communed with ordinary people in extraordinary ways and has indelibly left His mark on our history.

robindch wrote: »

We can agree on that

All joking aside, that is the thing that Christians must accept. It is either the biggest load of bunkum/trash/lies that has ever been perpetrated on mankind or it is the greatest event in all of history. I have no need for a Jesus who didn’t raise from the dead as recorded in the Gospels. He’s just another man to me with opinions that don’t really matter in the long run despite the good things He did or the good things He said. Unless He came out of that tomb as a fact of history then He ultimately means nothing to me and I’ve got better things to be doing with my life.

But don’t just conclude that He didn’t rise from the dead because dead people generally don’t rise from the dead. Conclude that He didn’t rise from the dead by subjecting the accounts of same to the same historical scrutiny that all other historical accounts are subjected to and then draw your conclusions from there.

The New Tesament records never state that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, they specifically state that God raised Him from the dead. The only way that that could be impossible is if God didn’t exist. That is the only way that you will prove that the resurrection of Jesus never happened, when you prove that God doesn’t exist. If God doesn’t exist then obviously He couldn’t have raised Jesus from the dead. That is what the gospels report, not that He naturally rose from the dead. If people naturally rose the dead then Jesus’ resurrection wouldn’t be the big deal that it is.

robindch wrote: »

You can say the same about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean that it's worth spending any time worrying that the FSM (praise be upon his noodles) is looking over my shoulder all the time waiting for me to think that he's not there so that he can pick me up and lob me into whatever hell he's concocted for such people.

Jesus isn’t looking over your shoulder either. You are free to reject Him. The thing about rejecting Him though is that you are rejecting life itself because He is life. What else can you expect to get if you reject life? Death is the only other way. Choose if you want to that is your choice, but don’t say that it is His fault, it’s not. If death eternal is our portion and God has done all He can in order for us to avoid it including giving Himself as the way out, then I fail to see what more we can expect of Him if we reject so great a gift.

Rev Hellfire

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your quote says nothing about who gets into heaven. Besides John 14:6 says : Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.", so it seems like the bible (specifically Jesus) claims that no one gets into heaven except those who believe in Jesus as the son of god.

So everyone else, regardless of what they do, is screwed

The point I was making referred to the OP question "what is the Christian opinion on other world religions", which it seems from the Catholic churches perspective is more than a simple we're right and you're all wrong view.

From the document linked you can clearly see that while the Vatican like other Christian institutions see salvation as coming through Christ it doesn't discount the other world religions which "often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men".

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

this has always been a problem when discussing this stuff with you guys, you each seem to have a particular interpretation of what Christianity teaches that is often fundamentally different to the next Christian

I liken it to an Aircraft mechanic asking your average passenger to explain how the engines in the plane works, and how it can fly. Some of them have a rough idea of what is going on, but largely they are just using the plane to get from point A to point B without really fully understanding the process that's getting them there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's face it, the lack of empirical evidence that I thought what I thought 5 seconds ago is no impediement to my knowing what I thought 5 seconds ago.

You are correct. It is however an impediment to someone else believing what you thought 5 seconds is actually true. You ever had someone say "I knew you where going to say that", to which you say "well why didn't you write it down then?".

As Wicknight has said, your argument is largely tautological and therefore a logical fallacy. However true it may be to you, it is completely devoid of any useful information.

Rev Hellfire

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus isn’t looking over your shoulder either. You are free to reject Him. The thing about rejecting Him though is that you are rejecting life itself because He is life.

Strictly speaking you're not free, since as far as Christianity is concerned your faith is predetermined. Choice really doesn't come into it in any practical sense.
You're either damned or saved ahead of time, you're never presented with any real chance to alter your faith. At least not by the Christian omnipotent god.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... that is a new one to me (this has always been a problem when discussing this stuff with you guys, you each seem to have a particular interpretation of what Christianity teaches that is often fundamentally different to the next Christian)

There's a saying that goes something like: in the essentials let there be unity. In the non-essentials, tolerance. You'll find a lot of unity in the idea that salvation is all the work of God and nothing of man. The difference you find here has to do with how each person assembles the mechanism which, we agree, produces the same result.

The problem I have with a person being exhorted to believe and be saved is that it confounds the everyday meaning of the word believe. People believe things because they have reason to believe them. They have evidence of some description or other which undergirds that belief. To ask someone to believe something for which they have no evidence is to engage in special pleading for the word "believe"

God is nothing if not reasonable and rational.

So you believe God saves you, and because of that you then realise that he exists etc. We don't do anything.

That would be the sequence: God saves a man who satisfies his criterion for salvation. And when that moment comes, a suite of activity is brought into play regarding the person

- God reveals himself in the sense of revealing that he exists.
- He declares the person justified
- He comes to reside within them by his Holy Spirit

..etc. This is something which the person can't help but be aware of. It can occur Damascus road-like or perhaps something slower, no matter. The person now believes God exists, Christ is their saviour, they are heaven-bound etc ... because they have the evidence they need to believe. God reveals it.

It's a moment you wouldn't forget...

This would some what nullify Soul Winners claim that it is necessary proclaim Christianity so that people know the truth.

The truth is proclaimed because the nature of truth (any truth) is to act towards releasing people from the chains of lies. Words are powerful things: put in this order they can make us laugh, in that order they can make us cry or wound us. God's word too has power: power to change things. And so it is proclaimed as part of the means whereby the mechanics of salvation are brought about. The expectation isn't that a person be convinced of the truth simply because it's presented to them: why would they just believe what their told? The expectation is that the power behind the words will be unleased at the structure of resistance-to-God that every person is born with.

For example: you partake in this forum and because of it you constantly hear things such as the fact you are a lost sinner before God or that you are, according to Gods objective standard, rotten to your very core. That you don't believe in God is neither here nor there. That truth is going in simply because you are being exposed to it. And like oesteoporosis - which gradually eats away at the body of bone supporting a structure, the truths job is to eat away at the structure of your resistance. You can't know very much about it until such time as the structure is weakened to the point where it can no longer be supported. At which point, it comes crashing down. And to your knees you fall.

One would wonder though, based on what you said above, why God doesn't save the mass murderer before he does the mass murder ...

Everyone has to die at some point and a mass murderer is one of the myriad of means whereby this can be accomplished.

Another critical part of the mechanism of salvation is, curiously enough, sin. God utilises our sin (and the consequences following our sin) as a lever to tip us into salvation. The law of God was given - not so much that He expected us to follow it. But because He knew we wouldn't...

Hint: what frequently happens when we do something evil? The answer starts with a G

Why doesn't God save everyone the moment they are born?

It would appear that this time of ours is a sub-plot where beings get to (effectively) decide whether they want to spend eternity with God or whether they don't. The set up doesn't require that we make a conscious decision (for obvious reasons: if we saw the alternatives plainly we'd all plump for God rendering balanced choice impossible)

If God saved everyone without their (effective) consent then there would be no balanced choice possible. Balanced choice is a true choice and given that we're talking eternity, the balance must be uber-precise.

But at least given your stance that being saved isn't a choice a person makes (again not a universal Christian belief as far as I know) but rather God chooses to save you, it is at least consistent that following on from this since God is choosing to save you rather than you choosing to accept saving, that your salvation wouldn't depend on what you do.

I tend to use the term (effective) choice so as to indicate a choice of sorts involved in your salvation. Consider a fishing analogy: if a fish is caught it is not because the fish chose or assisted in his being caught. He is caught because of the skill and effort of the fisherman. If a fish escapes, it is because of the resistant will of the fish AND because the fisherman chose not to use dynamite so as to force a catch.

Similarily, a person doesn't have to chose for for God - indeed, they are blind to God so can't chose for him. Instead, God attempts to reel them in and the only way they won't be landed is if their will resists beyond the point at which God says "Okay - thy will be done".

If saved it won't be because we did something / willed something. Salvation will have come to us because of God and God alone - we do (literally) nothing. If lost, it is because we did something / willed something. Damnation is down to us an us alone

I don't believe that God choses who to save. He attempts to save everyone but some just won't have it.

How would you define "snatch your hands away"

I mentioned earlier that truth is the means whereby people are freed from lies? Truth is a central tool in the mechanism of salvation. Thus suppression of truth is the means whereby the person remains captive to the lie. Gods truth is what raises the hands. Mans suppression of truth is what keeps them down at his side.

You can see this easily. You have a conscience which tells you what you ought to do. Watch yourself and you'll catch yourself suppressing what your conscience says in order to do wrong. You won't have to wait long. Suppression of truth..

Based on what you said above that would seem to be impossible. How do you choose not to receive a gift from God when is an all powerful super being?

Because God doesn't use dynamite?

They can consider something someone does to be blackmail, fiction or otherwise (heck look at an average episode of Dallas). Given that they can make that assessment they can decide that this seems like a very unlikely thing for a god to do, and therefore determine that a god described as doing such a thing doesn't exist.

But God doesn't threaten "believe or else". You're not in a position to believe so there can be no threat based on your not doing so.

Well that depends. I was working under the assumption that you held the mainstream Christian belief that to be saved one must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour.

You appear not to hold that view, that instead God picks you and you are oblivious to this until it happens at which point because you are saved you know that Jesus is your saviour. There is no accepting of anything, no faith.

So my argument doesn't apply to that stance.

There is believing alright - believing something it is possible for a blind-to-God person to believe (rather than believing something it is impossible for a person to believe). It's not believing Christ as your saviour / God exists etc. The primary belief - the one that satisfies Gods criterion for salvation would appear to centre around believing what God says (in a specific sense). There is no particular need to believe in God in order to believe what God says - which means it is possible for a person to be saved (by believing God) before they believe in God.

For instance (and this isn't an example of believing God unto salvation): if you believe murder is wrong then you believe what God says. It doesn't matter where you think the source of that 'moral' comes from: parents, society, philosophy. The fact is that this truth stems from God and if you believe this to be true then you believe God.

But then off the top of my head the objection to that idea is why does God pick and choose who to save? that again seems a bizarre thing to do for a deity.

Hopefully we've arrrived at the point of seeing:

- God attempts to save everyone
- Some will resist to the bitter end and won't be saved. Suppression of truth is the means whereby this occurs and arises out of an act of their will
- Some will have their will exhaused by the weight of truth which remains unsurpressed in which case they will be drawn to short - just like exhausted fish.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Your argument seems to amount to little more than saying you know what you know. If you judge anything you believe as being equally valid to anything else you can believe then you are going to end up in a whole heap of trouble.

That's all any of us have. There is no empirical evidence to say that what I perceive to be reality actually is real. I just trust that what I perceive to be the case is the case - more I cannot do. Similarily, I perceive God to exist and can do no more than trust that what I perceive to be the case is the case.

If God doesn't exist in fact then there is no more reason to suppose that the rest of reality exists in fact. You can appreciate why I don't see much profit in questioning what can't be answered.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

As Wicknight has said, your argument is largely tautological and therefore a logical fallacy. However true it may be to you, it is completely devoid of any useful information.

I was correcting an erroneous view of what biblical believing entails - I wasn't attempting to prove a point.

prinz

I would suggest that anyone trying to find truth, through love,respect, justice,equality, morality etc is on the right track, regardless of religion. God has many basic laws which should not be broken.By anyone. Imho there is one God, but many interpretations.I don't think any religion is perfect, however I see Christianity as the one who promotes the best way to follow God's will, for a better life/society on earth, and *fingers crossed* after death. There have been many people of all faiths (and none ) who have tried to create a better world, and God has been watching.

On the other hand there have been people who have abused and corrupted religions to serve their own ends.Bad.

antiskeptic

prinz wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone trying to find truth, through love,respect, justice,equality, morality etc is on the right track, regardless of religion. God has many basic laws which should not be broken.By anyone. Imho there is one God, but many interpretations.I don't think any religion is perfect, however I see Christianity as the one who promotes the best way to follow God's will, for a better life/society on earth, and *fingers crossed* after death. There have been many people of all faiths (and none ) who have tried to create a better world, and God has been watching.

Forgive me if I have it wrong but this would appear to be a works-gospel i.e.: live a good life and you'll be *fingers crossed* okay with God.

There's no more certain a path to Hell than this one - if followed to the very end.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It seems to me that popular interpretation of the Christian god here is one who has picked out a number of souls who'll happily get down on bended knee and tell him how truly wonderful he is.

Everyone else is damned for eternity, by this infinitely compassionate deity, who knew they where going to fail even before they got off the starting blocks.

Rev, I think you either misunderstand the basics of Christianity or misrepresent it.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Strictly speaking you're not free, since as far as Christianity is concerned your faith is predetermined. Choice really doesn't come into it in any practical sense.
You're either damned or saved ahead of time, you're never presented with any real chance to alter your faith. At least not by the Christian omnipotent god.

We have had this debate before. Foreknowledge does not impinge on free will. Lets say you build a time machine and zip forward to the end of tomorrows match against Bulgaria, find out the score and then come back in time to now. It doesn't follow that your foreknowledge of the result is somehow dictating what the players decide to do on the pitch.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rev, I think you either misunderstand the basics of Christianity or misrepresent it.

Bizarrely enough I actually don't believe that is what Christianity is, but rather what it is portrayed as here. Certainly the catholic and Anglican (+CoI) offer a more forgiving and compassionate view of god than you typically get offered here.
As someone looking from the outside in, what's typically posted here would put me off more than the views the establishment offer.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We have had this debate before. Foreknowledge does not impinge on free will. Lets say you build a time machine and zip forward to the end of tomorrows match against Bulgaria, find out the score and then come back in time to now. It doesn't follow that your foreknowledge of the result is somehow dictating what the players decide to do on the pitch.

That's not a strictly accurate analogy, rather if you see a man drowning and have a choice of two lifebuoys, one blue, one red. But know ahead of time throwing him the red will mean he will reject it and drown. Can you claim be blameless if you throw him the red one.

But perhaps these are discussions for another thread.

prinz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive me if I have it wrong but this would appear to be a works-gospel i.e.: live a good life and you'll be *fingers crossed* okay with God.

There's no more certain a path to Hell than this one - if followed to the very end.

You're forgiven I'm sure. What I am saying is that Christ and Christianity is for me the best way to serve and know God. However I do not believe it is the only way. The North American Indians for example, who believed in the Great Spirit, in my opinion were pretty close to the mark.

AFAIK Jesus preached of God's love for everyone, NOT just those who through his grace were born to be raised into Christianity. If you try to find the truth in HIM, I believe you're doing ok. There are many paths to the same destination.

tbh I dont think anyone who leads a good life is on the certain path to Hell. .

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Bizarrely enough I actually don't believe that is what Christianity is, but rather what it is portrayed as here. Certainly the catholic and Anglican (+CoI) offer a more forgiving and compassionate view of god than you typically get offered here.
As someone looking from the outside in, what's typically posted here would put me off more than the views the establishment offer.

Fair enough.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's not a strictly accurate analogy, rather if you see a man drowning and have a choice of two lifebuoys, one blue, one red. But know ahead of time throwing him the red will mean he will reject it and drown. Can you claim be blameless if you throw him the red one.

But perhaps these are discussions for another thread.

Sorry, but I don't actually accept that as being a superior analogy. This is because the hero in your story is actually determining the fate of the person in danger of drowning, rather then simply being aware of it.

I think that you are shifting your argument onto whether we should apportion blame to an omnipotent being who apparently inexplicably chucks a red buoy to some and a blue to others. This is really a morality argument rather than one about free will.

However, you are correct. This is probably better discussed in another thread. I know there was a similar one one floating around a good few months back, but I'm unable to find it