Why you believe what you believe I

[Elemmírë]

While I personally don't equate religion with logic, I agree that Christianity, at least the way you perceive it, Rian, seems very logical.

Er... you have a lot to answer right now from various people, and much of what I'd ask was in their posts as well, so I'll only ask one more question right now...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And btw, the Bible is VERY clear that God desires everyone to be reconciled to Him, and that no one has an excuse - we ALL know enough to make the decision that will lead to salvation.

This is what I wonder most about. How do we all know enough? While I have few serious problems with Christianity, my own personal experience has actually turned me away from the religion. And I wonder about people who are brought up in other religions. Surely they do not have the same vision of Christianity that someone who is or was brought up as a Christian does. How would they have enough knowledge of Christianity to make that decision?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

God is honoring our free-will by allowing us to choose not to accept salvation, and go to Hell instead. God's motivation in this is to deliver justice, and God is providing us with the consequences--Heaven or Hell. God has created these consequences. In itself, this makes sense.

Ñólendil, I don't quite agree with what you think God's motivation is. Yes, there is justice involved - yet there is not ONLY justice involved. If you look in the Old Testament major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah), you'll see justice - but you'll see God's LOVE for his people in a STRONG way. God uses the analogy of marriage all throughout the Bible for the type of relationship He desires with people - QUITE a strong picture of intimacy and love! And when Israel turned away to worship other gods, God called it adultery, and He mourns, Ñólendil, He mourns. And He says He longs to bless us, and He calls for us to return - yet the choice is ours.

I've heard some people object that it's rather mean of God to only bless us if we come to Him. Well, let's think about this, again in terms of reality. IF God is as described in the Bible (the absolute source of all goodness and love), and He has MADE us for the joy of being in relationship with Him, THEN the only way we CAN be blessed is to be with Him! If a loving father longs to embrace his child and give him gifts and talk with him and love him, and the child runs into a corner, screws his eyes closed, clenches his fists and says "I want to be blessed, but I want it on MY terms!", then it is NOT saying anything against the loving father that the child hasn't received the blessings. Again, if the reality is that the universe is a certain way, as the Bible claims, then there is ALSO a reality that God designed us a certain way, with the intent of giving us INCREDIBLE joy - and any way APART from God CANNOT give joy. As C.S. Lewis says, "If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows - the only food that any possible universe can ever grow - then we must starve eternally."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

While I personally don't equate religion with logic, I agree that Christianity, at least the way you perceive it, Rian, seems very logical.

Just a quick answer to this, then I'll keep going thru Ñólendil's post and hopefully answer your previous question in it.

About logic - there's this odd idea floating around that "faith" is some sort of brainless thing. Now that may be true of some people (including atheists!), but I don't think it reflects well on them. I like how R.C. Sproul puts it -

by R.C. Sproul
... at its core Christianity is rational. That which is irrational or absurd is not worthy of either belief or personal commitment. It is the fool who embraces irrationality. To embrace the absurd is to be engaged not in faith but in credulity. ...
Enemies of Christianity have recited the mantra that religion rests on blind faith and not reason for so long that many even within the church have actually come to believe it. This demonstrates the maxim that if you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it. ...
Christianity is based on far more than naked human reason but by no means upon less. Though divine revelation carries us beyond the limits of rational speculation, it does not sink below the bar of rational intelligibility.

[Elemmírë]

Sorry, Rian. I didn't mean I don't see religion as something apart from logic innately, I meant that concerning my own personal quasi-religious beliefs, I don't always see the importance of logic.

BTW, nice quote.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownie the stinker ;)

of course, it is even more logical to assume that there is no heaven at all... since none of us have had the chance to visit it and bring back a few photos

But Mr. Brown, I hope you're aware it's ALWAYS harder to prove a negative!

Sorry, I think it's very illogical to assume that, but I think you're just teasing me. If not, please give me your reasons! (besides a lack of photos).

BTW, on this question, I think you're starting in the middle. IMO, the first question to be considered is this : "Is it likely, given what I see around me and what I feel inside me, that some type of greater being exists; yes or no?" Personally, I think a logical answer is "yes".

Then if one answers that question with a "yes", I think the next question would be : "If this greater being exists and doesn't want to be known, then it is logical to assume that we couldn't see evidence of him/her/it, so I won't bother with thinking about that option. I will continue by assuming that this being wants to be known in some way. Now given this assumption, which worldview that assumes that a higher being exists do I think is most likely to be right, based on internal consistency, documentary evidence, evidence of the world around me, etc.?" Personally, I think Christianity fits the evidence best (both external and internal) and is most logically consistent. So then, based upon that, I believe that it is very likely indeed that heaven exists.

Now do you want to tell me why you think it doesn't exist? Or you might want to wait for your turn, which I"m hoping you'll take!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Sorry, Rian. I didn't mean I don't see religion as something apart from logic innately, I meant that concerning my own personal quasi-religious beliefs, I don't always see the importance of logic.

BTW, nice quote.

Oh, I see - ok
Yes, it's a good quote, isn't it? See, again, it's about reality/truth - if Christianity's truth claims are real, then IT WILL be ENTIRELY consistent with logic, because logic reflects reality (altho there is also MORE than logic involved).

Now logic is not at ALL the heart of what Christianity's about - I think love is the heart - but it is a side-effect, if you will, that Christianity is entirely logically cohesive.

I hope you'll take a turn in the hot seat, too! We're all nice people here, as you can see

[Pytt]

this is maybe the most intelectual post I've ever read! and I have'nt read all of it
while I am not Christian my self, I enjoy your posts abput it, Rian. they helps me see things in it which I never even had thought of by myself. keep posting, its realy enlightening

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But Mr. Brown, I hope you're aware it's ALWAYS harder to prove a negative!

Sorry, I think it's very illogical to assume that, but I think you're just teasing me. If not, please give me your reasons! (besides a lack of photos).

BTW, on this question, I think you're starting in the middle. IMO, the first question to be considered is this : "Is it likely, given what I see around me and what I feel inside me, that some type of greater being exists; yes or no?" Personally, I think a logical answer is "yes".

Then if one answers that question with a "yes", I think the next question would be : "If this greater being exists and doesn't want to be known, then it is logical to assume that we couldn't see evidence of him/her/it, so I won't bother with thinking about that option. I will continue by assuming that this being wants to be known in some way. Now given this assumption, which worldview that assumes that a higher being exists do I think is most likely to be right, based on internal consistency, documentary evidence, evidence of the world around me, etc.?" Personally, I think Christianity fits the evidence best (both external and internal) and is most logically consistent. So then, based upon that, I believe that it is very likely indeed that heaven exists.

Now do you want to tell me why you think it doesn't exist? Or you might want to wait for your turn, which I"m hoping you'll take!

i was kidding, yet serious

the existance of heaven is "fantastical", thus it is you who have to prove a positive... there are many other religions out there, and i'm sure each particular flavor could argue their case as well as you do... i've seen some of it here... which just points to the lack of hard evidence

even if i bought your statement:

"Is it likely, given what I see around me and what I feel inside me, that some type of greater being exists; yes or no?" Personally, I think a logical answer is "yes".

and answered "yes"... it would not prove one religious belief over another

and if i look at your other statement... which could just as easily have come out of the mouth of a muslim, jew, etc.:

Then if one answers that question with a "yes", I think the next question would be : "If this greater being exists and doesn't want to be known, then it is logical to assume that we couldn't see evidence of him/her/it, so I won't bother with thinking about that option. I will continue by assuming that this being wants to be known in some way. Now given this assumption, which worldview that assumes that a higher being exists do I think is most likely to be right, based on internal consistency, documentary evidence, evidence of the world around me, etc.?" Personally, I think Christianity fits the evidence best (both external and internal) and is most logically consistent. So then, based upon that, I believe that it is very likely indeed that heaven exists.

the most "logical" conclusion, given the differences of interpretation we even find in abundance among "christians", is that no faith is completely right, and all are in fact guesses at the reality of the situation

and in truth, the reality might even be something which no living being has even made the proper guess at yet

without physical evidence anything is possible... many perfectly "logical" conclusions have been made in the past given knowledge at the time, only to be proven completely wrong when new evidence came along (ptolemy is a good example)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or you might want to wait for your turn, which I"m hoping you'll take!

i'm perpetually on the "hot seat"... so i'll just chime in from time to time with a monkeywrench or two

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But to speak of this model in light of Human perceptions--I think a major problem people have with it is that God does not seem to love the damned.

NO! I strongly disagree with this!! Why do you think this?

Look at what the Bible says, and look at the actions of Jesus:

What the Bible says (I'm adding bolding) -

from John 3:16 : "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in Him would not perish, but have eternal life."

from Romans 5:8 : "But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The actions of Jesus - who did he hang out with? The outcasts of the time - the poor, the sick, the hated tax-collectors (they took MORE than what they were supposed to and were really hated), the prostitutes, the women ... it was the cold, self-righteous Pharisees that Jesus had terribly harsh words for. Look at Jesus talking with the woman at the well - she came during the hot hours of noon so she could avoid other people - a woman, and an immoral one at that - even the disciples wondered that Jesus was talking to her! Yet Jesus offered her eternal life ... He died for everyone because He IS love. And even on the cross, there were 2 thieves on either side of Him, reviling anbd mocking Him. Yet as time went on, and one thief saw Jesus, and thought about things, he came to believe in Jesus - and Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

A different model whereby murderers and rapists are accepted into Heaven would not please the same people either. But that's the rub: what's the answer? How does one go beyond the problem of loving damnation, or hateful or vengeful damnation from a loving God?

There will indeed be murderers and rapists in Heaven. (EDIT - it's more accurate to say there will be people that have committed murder and rape that will be in heaven.) But now I"m out of time - the kids aren't in school today, and I have to take my daughter somewhere now

[Elemmírë]

Sure, I'll go on the hot seat eventually... but will probably end up contradicting myself.

Simple question originating from your last post: Rian, do you believe the Bible should be followed word for word?

[Ñólendil]

How is this indirectly forcing? esp. since it seems that people HAVE chosen to go to Hell. I don't quite understand what you're saying, unless it's just the rather simple model of "OK, you can go to Heaven where you'll be happy or Hell where you'll be miserable." But I think that simple model is VERY inaccurate. Remember that Christianity is making a truth claim - it's saying "here is what is actually true in the universe and beyond". And this means Heaven is a specific place, with specific characteristics - it is NOT a place where each person gets to wave a wand and define it how they like (which would hold contradictions, btw, so it is not logically possible). Heaven is a place where a loving and holy God reigns in majesty. And some people would rather be in Hell than this specific, actual Heaven.

I call it indirect forcing, because by offering Hell as an alternative, God is giving an extra motivation to be faithful to God. That is, Hell isn't much of a choice because it is a place of eternal suffering, or annhilation. One is saying "Be faithful in God, or go to Hell,". I don't see how the fact that it is a truth claim makes it much different from the simple model you named. Yes, some would rather be in Hell than go to this Heaven, I myself made that clear, but this is because of the nature of the choice itself, and of the choice-giver.

What I'm saying is, Heaven or Hell is a no-brainer. Everyone wants to go Heaven, and one only wants to go to Hell as a protest against the Heaven or Hell choice. So what kind of choice is it?

Though, my point was not to suggest that there ought to be more choices, or anything like that. My point was that I don't see how the choice of Heaven or Hell is an indication of honor to free-will.

To me, another reason why Christianity rings true is that it so strongly deals with reality - a worldview where heaven is whatever anyone wants to make it has logical problems with it - what if YOUR idea of heaven means never having to talk to me again

Do you mean that there is a religion which suggests that Heaven is whatever anyone wants it to be? I have met people who believe this, and I have as much problems with the idea as you do. But I haven't met a person who believes this on religious grounds.

Well, I may have misunderstood what you meant - let me know if these things didn't answer what you were saying. I think they are good points to consider, anyway, so I went ahead and posted them.

Your side issue and your "another reason" weren't really related to what I was saying, but you're right, they are good points to consider.

Ñólendil, I don't quite agree with what you think God's motivation is. Yes, there is justice involved - yet there is not ONLY justice involved. If you look in the Old Testament major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah), you'll see justice - but you'll see God's LOVE for his people in a STRONG way. God uses the analogy of marriage all throughout the Bible for the type of relationship He desires with people - QUITE a strong picture of intimacy and love! And when Israel turned away to worship other gods, God called it adultery, and He mourns, Ñólendil, He mourns. And He says He longs to bless us, and He calls for us to return - yet the choice is ours.

I was speaking of what I guessed God's motivation to be from your perspective. Even modifying my statement, though, adding "love" in with justice, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for the problems I outlined in my post.

I've heard some people object that it's rather mean of God to only bless us if we come to Him. Well, let's think about this, again in terms of reality. IF God is as described in the Bible (the absolute source of all goodness and love), and He has MADE us for the joy of being in relationship with Him, THEN the only way we CAN be blessed is to be with Him!

I'm not sure "reality" is the best term here, simply because not everyone can agree with how God is as described in the Bible. I think whether you are thinking about this in terms of reality or not, you are certainly thinking about this in terms of the Bible. So yes, in terms of the Bible, perhaps the only way we can be blessed is to be with Him. But this argument is not very useful to those who have different perceptions of why God has made us, or what is meant by being in relationship with Him, or what is meant by being with Him. Not all agree that being with God = being a Christian. Why shouldn't God bless the wicked? What do you personally mean by "bless"? I don't think God should reward wickedness. But I do think that God does not abandon anyone, even those who abandon Him.

Perhaps, you would say that God must honor our free-will, and let the wicked lead themselves away to damnation. But once again I must bring up the problem of love vs. damnation. If God loves even the wicked, should God not allow the wicked to undergo a healing process? To me, that's what's really important for the corrupt. The corrupt need to be healed, not punished.

Again, if the reality is that the universe is a certain way, as the Bible claims,

It seems to me that every religion, at least every major religion, claims that the universe is a certain way. They all claim that there is an ultimate truth. If a religion claims that truth is only relative, then that religion will not last very long.

I made a comment that God does not seem to love the damned. Rian responded:

NO! I strongly disagree with this!! Why do you think this

I don't think that God hates the damned. I also didn't think that you thought that God hated the damned. That's the problem. Supporters of the Heaven/Hell damnation model strongly suggest that God loves even the damned. I am suggesting that there is a problem with this--to many, it doesn't seem like God could love a person that he damns for eternity. How can you damn the one you love?

So I don't think you understood me here.

There will indeed be murderers and rapists in Heaven. But now I"m out of time - the kids aren't in school today, and I have to take my daughter somewhere now

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that murderers and rapists can go to Heaven if they repent? If so, what is involved in repenting?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I call it indirect forcing, because by offering Hell as an alternative, God is giving an extra motivation to be faithful to God. That is, Hell isn't much of a choice because it is a place of eternal suffering, or annhilation. One is saying "Be faithful in God, or go to Hell,". I don't see how the fact that it is a truth claim makes it much different from the simple model you named. Yes, some would rather be in Hell than go to this Heaven, I myself made that clear, but this is because of the nature of the choice itself, and of the choice-giver.

What I'm saying is, Heaven or Hell is a no-brainer. Everyone wants to go Heaven, and one only wants to go to Hell as a protest against the Heaven or Hell choice. So what kind of choice is it?

Though, my point was not to suggest that there ought to be more choices, or anything like that. My point was that I don't see how the choice of Heaven or Hell is an indication of honor to free-will.

Well, let's say there's an alien spaceship that's attacking a station. "Surrender at once, or you'll be annihilated," is the broadcast he issues. He makes sure everyone can hear it and has the ability to respond. The alien is giving a fair choice to the people. Now, if the alien used a device to seize control of everyone's minds and make them surrender, this wouldn't be an honor to their free will. It would be forcing everyone to be good, or to surrender, to "go to heaven". If I were a human on that station, I think they'd be respecting me more by giving me the choice then by making me go to heaven. They're honoring the person they're destroying, rather then treating him or her as a puppet.

Not that I believe in Free Will, of course .

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I'm not sure "reality" is the best term here, simply because not everyone can agree with how God is as described in the Bible.

Which branches of Christianity do you see as diverging from one another on the subject of the basic nature of God? Where do we diverge to such an extent that we cannot discuss hell on the same ground? I think the ground we debate Christianity from is pretty flat, rather then uneven.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think whether you are thinking about this in terms of reality or not, you are certainly thinking about this in terms of the Bible. So yes, in terms of the Bible, perhaps the only way we can be blessed is to be with Him. But this argument is not very useful to those who have different perceptions of why God has made us, or what is meant by being in relationship with Him, or what is meant by being with Him.

Well, Ñólendil! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If not, you can't debate that way! You seem to be saying the Christian belief doesn't make sense when squeezed into every other person's beliefs. Of course it doesn't! There's no reason why it should! If a + b = c, it does not logically follow that a + e = c. There's no reason why it should! Just because it does not follow that a + e = c from a + b = c, that doesn't say anything about a + b = c. All that one has to accept is that if "a" is added to "b", "c" is the natural outcome of the addition. I see no reason to have to prove the Christian belief about hell makes sense when squeezed into every other person's religion. There's no way it could make sense. a + b = c should make sense even to a nonChristian, if the nonChristian isn't replace "b" with "e".

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Not all agree that being with God = being a Christian. Why shouldn't God bless the wicked? What do you personally mean by "bless"? I don't think God should reward wickedness. But I do think that God does not abandon anyone, even those who abandon Him.

I take it that you do not agree with the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Perhaps, you would say that God must honor our free-will, and let the wicked lead themselves away to damnation. But once again I must bring up the problem of love vs. damnation. If God loves even the wicked, should God not allow the wicked to undergo a healing process? To me, that's what's really important for the corrupt. The corrupt need to be healed, not punished.

Sometimes healing can only come through punishment. However, I disagree with one of your basic assumptions on this point. Your basic assumption is that everyone has the divine in them. I do not agree with this, and I believe that people can turn so utterly bad that there is no hope of return for them. If there is a chance of hope for a person still, God will not abandon them. So you just have more faith in human nature then I do.

I think that when God condemns people to hell, he probably won't love them anymore. There will be nothing loveable about them. It says in the Book of Daniel that they will rise to "everlasting shame and contempt." My view is that they will have extinguished all goodness from themselves. How can God love something that is pure evil? That's my view. I'm curious to see how RÃ*an responds, though .

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that murderers and rapists can go to Heaven if they repent? If so, what is involved in repenting?

Everyone sins. Everyone is headed toward hell by default, because man loves his sinful nature. Some sin more in this life and some sin less. Anyone who has not reached the point of "absolute sin", as perhaps I should call it, is still possible to save. God still acts in them and through their lives. The goodness of God is still visible in this corrupted creation. God loves goodness and he will not destroy the good person, except to make them an even better person . A soul in sin is a soul in rebellion. The soul has chosen to take control of its own life, without being in submission to God. When a person repents, he or she returns to submission to God. Submission to God includes being filled with the goodness of God and the freedom of God. Repentance is essentially an "About Face!" The repentant individual turns back to God, is filled with God's holiness and goodness. God pours through them far more then he did before, and raises them from holiness to holiness. People go the opposite direction, walking no longer toward absolute sin but toward absolute goodness. Hopefully that's a relatively good description of what I mean.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Simple question originating from your last post: Rian, do you believe the Bible should be followed word for word?

Which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed word for word? Those parts should be followed word for word, certainly . Some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be followed word for word. For example, if in the scripture God tells someone to go buy lettuce today, does that mean every person who reads that scripture from then on should by lettuce today? But the Bible does, the vast majority of the time, differentiate between what was an instruction for him then and what is an instruction for me now.

[Elemmírë]

I don't have long (studying), but I'm taking Ñólendil's side in this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, let's say there's an alien spaceship that's attacking a station. "Surrender at once, or you'll be annihilated," is the broadcast he issues. He makes sure everyone can hear it and has the ability to respond. The alien is giving a fair choice to the people. Now, if the alien used a device to seize control of everyone's minds and make them surrender, this wouldn't be an honor to their free will. It would be forcing everyone to be good, or to surrender, to "go to heaven". If I were a human on that station, I think they'd be respecting me more by giving me the choice then by making me go to heaven. They're honoring the person they're destroying, rather then treating him or her as a puppet.

Not that I believe in Free Will, of course .

I think the fact that you're comparing God to invading aliens speaks for itself.

Well, Ñólendil! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If not, you can't debate that way! You seem to be saying the Christian belief doesn't make sense when squeezed into every other person's beliefs. Of course it doesn't! There's no reason why it should! If a + b = c, it does not logically follow that a + e = c. There's no reason why it should! Just because it does not follow that a + e = c from a + b = c, that doesn't say anything about a + b = c. All that one has to accept is that if "a" is added to "b", "c" is the natural outcome of the addition. I see no reason to have to prove the Christian belief about hell makes sense when squeezed into every other person's religion. There's no way it could make sense. a + b = c should make sense even to a nonChristian, if the nonChristian isn't replace "b" with "e".

Hm... maybe taking calculus next semester is not such a good idea...

But I see what you're saying... I think.

I think that when God condemns people to hell, he probably won't love them anymore. There will be nothing loveable about them. It says in the Book of Daniel that they will rise to "everlasting shame and contempt." My view is that they will have extinguished all goodness from themselves. How can God love something that is pure evil? That's my view. I'm curious to see how RÃ*an responds, though .

To this point, I thought that the Christian belief was that everyone who was a disbeliever was going to hell. Am I wrong in this assumption? Because I cannot equate not believing with "everlasting shame and contempt" or someone who can be completely unlovable.

[edited] oh, you posted again. Considering that the Bible has been translated many times over, which parts can be taken literally?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I think the fact that you're comparing God to invading aliens speaks for itself.

LOL!

Originally Posted by Elemmire

To this point, I thought that the Christian belief was that everyone who was a disbeliever was going to hell. Am I wrong in this assumption? Because I cannot equate not believing with "everlasting shame and contempt" or someone who can be completely unlovable.

People aren't put in heaven or hell because of belief/unbelief. They are put in heaven or hell because of sin/no-sin. Faith is a means to an end. If someone offers to rescue you from prison, you have to trust that they will indeed take you out of prison as you go along with them. You are relying on faith. They might provide you all sorts of evidences that they're on your team, and those are all useful. You're still relying on faith, though. I'd prefer to steer clear of the word "belief". Let's say your mother tells you on the day of your wedding that she has bought a car for you (let's take it as a given that your Mom is rich ). Knowing your Mom's character, you'd believe her. You are operating on belief, but you are trusting the word of someone you know and love. Therefore it's not unsupported belief. Plus of course you have all the evidence that there are many eyewitnesses around when she says what she's done, and if she's making a hoax, she's setting herself up for angering lots of friends. In the same way, we have evidence also that Christianity is correct.

But people are put in hell because of sin. Rejection of God, Elemmire, is considered rejection of goodness, for there is no goodness that does not come from God (in the worldview of Christians). Rejection of the person Christ, if you believe you are rejecting an evil tyrant, is not the same as rejecting God truly, or all goodness. You reject the evil tyrant Christ and you're not really rejecting Christ. However, goodness did come down to Earth in human form, the form of Christ Jesus. It says in the scripture that if you have tasted the bliss of the heavenly kingdom, however, and reject Christ, then there is no turning back. This implies that if you turn away from Christ, knowing full well what he is, then you are sinning very badly.

By coming to know and experience the person who is Christ, a person can be filled with goodness and come closer and closer to God. I know that I personally have changed to become a better person since coming to know Christ personally. Many people who have been involved in far, far worse things then I have have had even more dramatic of conversions, and Christ's goodness coming through them as it is now is quite a dramatic testimant to God's ability to act in the here and now.

So it's not belief vs. nonbelief. It's sin vs. sinlessness. Someone who turns fully to God, giving up control of his life and surrendering it to God, will have sin bashed all the way out of his life. It'll take a while. I don't think its completion will happen in this life. But sinlessness is the goal.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

[edited] oh, you posted again. Considering that the Bible has been translated many times over, which parts can be taken literally?

Good question! I'll give you a pretty quick answer. If you want something more detailed, just ask . Most of the oldest copies we have of the New Testament come from the second and third centuries A.D. That's about two hundred years after Jesus, though the earliest manuscript from the New Testament actually is dated I believe to only 120 years after Jesus' death. Most ancient history texts come from between 600 and 1,000 years after they were written. They are accepted as accurate, even though there is at least 600 years between them and the original document. Modern scholars do not believe that they are in error on those. The earliest copies we possess of the New Testament, meanwhile, were written only about 200 years after the originals! That's basically the blink of an eye in comparison with all the other major historical documents, not nearly enough time for legend or myth to interfere with the solid witness.

The old Bible copies were widely dispersed, and there were very many of them. The number of New Testaments out there is significant because one can compare one copy to another, and see whether there actually was any noticable difference between the scripture copies in one place and the scripture copies in another. How much did the retranslations and such detract from the original meaning? The answer was: virtually not at all! The changes from one translation to another were miniscule, and not allowing for difference of belief on any major doctrine. These facts are really remarkable, Elemmire, and I'm glad you gave me the chance to describe again to someone one of the remarkable evidences supporting Christianity's witness .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

It reminds me of an analogy a good friend of mine told me once. To paraphrase, "I live in a beautiful, white, clean house. My children are playing outside in the mud. I love those children, but I'm not going to let them inside and dirty up the house." He was explaining the reason why only Mormons who have been Mormons for a certain amount of time may enter the temples, and why no one else is allowed in. Prostitutes, and atheists for example, he said, did not belong.

The analogy offended me. No one likes being compared to dirty children that muddy up God's home. But I think the analogy applies here, and raises the same difficulties.

Mormons may call themselves Christians (that's their perogative), but they consider other books as equal in authority to the Bible. As far as terminology, when I talk about Christians, I'm talking about those who believe that the only book that has authority from God is the Bible.

I would totally agree that the dirty children/clean house picture is a great picture of Mormonism, and that's one of the "unfair" aspects that I'm talking about. That's also one of the reasons that I don't think it's right; it doesn't seem fair, and fairness and justice are so strong in people's hearts that I think it reflects our Maker. There's lots of other reasons, too, which I"ll get into if anyone is interested.

As far as the Christian (by the classic definition) picture, it would be roughly this: God sees the children he loves playing in the mud, and (this is important) - knows that there's harmful bacteria, etc. in the mud, and that the children will be truly and fully happy in the house (and its nice backyard, which has nice clean dirt ). God comes out of the house Himself to embrace them and talk to them, and carry them into the house and wash the mud off the children, even tho He knows that by doing so, He will bear the pain and sorrow of the illness from the dirt, altho He saves the kids from it. But because He is God, He doesn't die, but comes into the house to love and play with the children and be with them forever and provide everything they need.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People aren't put in heaven or hell because of belief/unbelief. They are put in heaven or hell because of sin/no-sin. Faith is a means to an end. If someone offers to rescue you from prison, you have to trust that they will indeed take you out of prison as you go along with them. You are relying on faith. They might provide you all sorts of evidences that they're on your team, and those are all useful. You're still relying on faith, though. I'd prefer to steer clear of the word "belief". Let's say your mother tells you on the day of your wedding that she has bought a car for you (let's take it as a given that your Mom is rich ). Knowing your Mom's character, you'd believe her. You are operating on belief, but you are trusting the word of someone you know and love. Therefore it's not unsupported belief. Plus of course you have all the evidence that there are many eyewitnesses around when she says what she's done, and if she's making a hoax, she's setting herself up for angering lots of friends. In the same way, we have evidence also that Christianity is correct.

Okay. I'll use "faith" from now on.

I have to admit, this is a better analogy than the alien one. I still have several problems with it. This one is less important, and deals primarily with the analogy, I think: I would consider my mother's friends to be her peers as well. However, unless I forget all my Christian schooling, according to Christianity, God is peerless, since he created everything and no created thing can be equal to it's creator (someone said that earlier... I can't find it now). Thus, no friends to anger.

Of course, and more importantly, you refer to a mother as someone known and loved. Now, if you had said "father," I could have more easily countered that statement. I don't know my father, and hardly ever have. If he had promised me a car, I would not know whether or not to believe him. I would have to assume that he loved me, but I would not know for sure...

God is also someone I can not claim to have personally known, of Him I know only what I have heard from ministers or read in a Bible. I am desperately trying to argue this from a Christian instead of an atheist point of view, but I don't think it's going to work, so I'll stop here.

Good question! I'll give you a pretty quick answer. If you want something more detailed, just ask . Most of the oldest copies we have of the New Testament come from the second and third centuries A.D. That's about two hundred years after Jesus, though the earliest manuscript from the New Testament actually is dated I believe to only 120 years after Jesus' death. Most ancient history texts come from between 600 and 1,000 years after they were written. They are accepted as accurate, even though there is at least 600 years between them and the original document. Modern scholars do not believe that they are in error on those. The earliest copies we possess of the New Testament, meanwhile, were written only about 200 years after the originals! That's basically the blink of an eye in comparison with all the other major historical documents, not nearly enough time for legend or myth to interfere with the solid witness.

The old Bible copies were widely dispersed, and there were very many of them. The number of New Testaments out there is significant because one can compare one copy to another, and see whether there actually was any noticable difference between the scripture copies in one place and the scripture copies in another. How much did the retranslations and such detract from the original meaning? The answer was: virtually not at all! The changes from one translation to another were miniscule, and not allowing for difference of belief on any major doctrine. These facts are really remarkable, Elemmire, and I'm glad you gave me the chance to describe again to someone one of the remarkable evidences supporting Christianity's witness .

Two questions:

1) What about the Old Testament?

2) Okay, this one may be somewhat contraversial, but Bible discussion compelled me to bring it up. Christianity became the official religion in Rome because of Constantine, in about 300 AD, who, according to some historians at least, sought to use it as a religious and political uniting force for a failing Rome.

From what I've heard, though so far I haven't been able to find much documentation (since the Internet is oh so reliable ) the modern Bible itself was in part compiled by Constantine, whose motives were far more secular than religious. Therefore, much of what we know from the Bible is what Constantine decided was important for his subjects to believe. Do you see the conflict here?

Any insights into the more historical problems, or do I need to go back to history class ?

[edited] Oh! Hi Rian! You can answer this for me.

[Ñólendil]

Well, let's say there's an alien spaceship that's attacking a station. "Surrender at once, or you'll be annihilated," is the broadcast he issues. He makes sure everyone can hear it and has the ability to respond. The alien is giving a fair choice to the people. Now, if the alien used a device to seize control of everyone's minds and make them surrender, this wouldn't be an honor to their free will. It would be forcing everyone to be good, or to surrender, to "go to heaven". If I were a human on that station, I think they'd be respecting me more by giving me the choice then by making me go to heaven. They're honoring the person they're destroying, rather then treating him or her as a puppet.

Even in this example, what kind of choice is that? I acknowledge that it is a choice--but again, it's not much of a choice--surrender, or die. Aside from the negative connotations of invading aliens ( ), it is a good example to put things in perspective, as even my idea that choosing to die as a protest holds up (as an idea, if not as an argument).

Which branches of Christianity do you see as diverging from one another on the subject of the basic nature of God?

Actually I was referring mainly to non-Christians, as Rian was addressing several non-Christians here on this thread. For instance, I am not a Christian.

Where do we diverge to such an extent that we cannot discuss hell on the same ground? I think the ground we debate Christianity from is pretty flat, rather then uneven.

There are rather liberal Christians out there who don't take Hell as a literal, physical place, or even as a state of being after death. Some Christians, to give an example of unconventional non-literal interpretations, believe that the Judgement day takes place in every day of our lives. Every day we choose to live with God, or live in Hell. They do, of course, believe in Heaven after death, but I haven't asked one of them about what they think of Hell in this context. The Church I was a part of was the United Church of Christ, which was made up of four different protestant churches (Congregational among them). They are probably the most liberal Christians you will meet, but they were okay with disagreeing on certain points. Some believed in Hell in the traditional sense, and some did not.

But as I said, I was mainly talking about differences of opinion outside the realm of Christianity. Course, you may wonder why I would do that when speaking about God as seen as the Bible. I did so merely because of Rian's suggestion that her example of God in the Bible, is looking at it in terms of reality. There's nothing wrong with that suggestion, it's only that, for a discussion, not everyone will agree that the terms she is thinking of is reality. So I suggested "terms of the Bible" would be a better word. I don't mean to discount her beliefs, of course.

I see no reason to have to prove the Christian belief about hell makes sense when squeezed into every other person's religion.

I don't either. The portion of my post which you quoted has to do with the reason why Rian was bringing up an argument based on the Bible in the first place. She was addressing people who "object that its rather mean of God to only bless us if we come to Him." People who believe this, often, but not always, are not coming from the direction of Bible-based beliefs. So I am taking the stance that, if you wan't to convince such a person, you will have to turn to branches of philosophy, such as ethics, or simply to matters of logic which do not require agreement with the scriptures.

I take it that you do not agree with the death penalty?

Now there's a good example of a + b = c. You're quite right, I don't believe in the death penalty.

Sometimes healing can only come through punishment. However, I disagree with one of your basic assumptions on this point. Your basic assumption is that everyone has the divine in them. I do not agree with this, and I believe that people can turn so utterly bad that there is no hope of return for them. If there is a chance of hope for a person still, God will not abandon them. So you just have more faith in human nature then I do.

Quite true. We've discussed things often enough to know where and why we will disagree, it seems.

Btw, I certainly agree that murderers and rapists can genuinely repent and go to Heaven. But I wanted to know what you or Rian believes would be involved for such a person to repent. I ask because I wonder if becoming a Christian is enough. That is, can a murderer murder people until his dying day, be a Christian, and go to Heaven? Or is a murderer not really a Christian anyway? Certainly murder is not condoned by Christianity, by when does a murderer become a good Christian? What is required of him?

I should like to take this point in time, Lief, to mention that I agree with you! Yay! Your comments on the word-for-word bit, and that people aren't sent to Hell or Heaven based on belief/unbelief. Course I don't mind when we disagree, and I enjoy the discussion.

[Ñólendil]

As far as the Christian (by the classic definition) picture, it would be roughly this: God sees the children he loves playing in the mud, and (this is important) - knows that there's harmful bacteria, etc. in the mud, and that the children will be truly and fully happy in the house (and its nice backyard, which has nice clean dirt ). God comes out of the house Himself to embrace them and talk to them, and carry them into the house and wash the mud off the children, even tho He knows that by doing so, He will bear the pain and sorrow of the illness from the dirt, altho He saves the kids from it. But because He is God, He doesn't die, but comes into the house to love and play with the children and be with them forever and provide everything they need.

I think this also would work under a Mormon model, as Mormons believe that everyone will eventually be able to enter the temple. That is, they believe that everyone will eventually in effect become Mormons, which I don't suppose you think is any more agreeable than I do.

But, I'm not sure I would agree with your analogy either. What's muddy, and what's not? In itself though, I really like it, and find it a great improvement over the "don't let the muddy children in" analogy.