Why you believe what you believe I

[Elfhelm]

I have also been told that Joshua gave them the chance to convert or move away before he declared the "ban". The temple prostitution that was practiced in the 13th century BC was typical of the region. The human sacrifice is another issue. There are supposedly (but I don't know the sources) proofs of infant sacrifice to Baal. I can understand people who say this is reprehensible and merits punishment. I can't see that it justifies genocide, though.

I admit that I'm partial to the feminist theory that it was actually Astarte worship (see Solomon) that they were exterminating.

But above all, I am a sucker for that principle of uniformitarianism which when applied here would label these actions ethnic cleansing and I also suspect that Deut 7:2 is an attempt to shirk the responsibility and to blame Yahweh.

So... anyone else want to weigh in on this?

[Nurvingiel]

Aaa, it's like Moloch all over again! *flees*

RÃ*an, I like your philosophy. "If you don't understand, don't worry." Nice.

So what page are you on? I hope you get to be done by Friday like you want. Like Robinson Crusoe... you get all your work done by Friday! (Boy do I ever wish that applied to me. )

So should we lay off on the questions or keep piling them on?

[Rían]

*peeks in for a minute*

I think I'm actually caught up! (except for the brand-new topic of war stuff). Or did I miss anything?

More questions are fine, but I don't want to hog the seat - anyone else dying to go, or do you guys want to continue with this for awhile?

(and is that a nice bolded i-with-an-accent letter in my name? )

[Nurvingiel]

Why yes it is an extra spiffy i-bolded full version of your name.

I don't think you missed anything, but I'll say now there is no way I'm doing a summation post on you. (Unless I really procrastinate tomorrow... no! I will get actual work done!!)

I'm looking forward to the war responses. I don't think you're hogging too much, and who ever goes next will have a nice toasty hot seat (in a good way, like heated seats in Volvos after skiing all day. )

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're quite wrong, Aragorn As I explained over the last few pages, the Bible's position is that people all over the world have entirely sufficient information, with the glories of creation and our inner conscience/morality, with which to choose to seek God or not, and those who choose to NOT seek God are without excuse. For example, Abraham, who is called the Father of our faith, never heard of Christ, yet Abraham is stated by God to have been made righteous by his faith, which is what salvation is. I'll try to dig up some post ids for you, but basically, just check the last coupla pages, or search on my name and "Abraham"

I agree with you - I couldn't love a God that booted people out of heaven on technicalities or unfairly. And the God that's described in the Bible does NOT do this. Read the first section of the book of Romans, and the Gospel of John, for my references (since Christianity is a worldview that references documents, one must give references when making a claim about its worldview beliefs).

I come from the land of Star Wars Role-Playing, on a very specific board called TRF (The Rebel Faction) where this kind of stuff is debated all the time. Heavily. Unfriendly. With many insults going back and forth. I'm not interested in debating there, and I sure as hell am not interested in debating here. So I'm not going to search through this thread lest I find something that I absolutely cannot resist retorting to, which will probably draw me in anyway, whether I like it or not.

I consider myself very educated about the Christian belief system, as I constantly have to defend my atheist beliefs from idiots who think that the Nazis were pretty cool guys. Unfortunately, there is only so much one can no without ever actually having gone to church. I'm still a little unclear on what you're saying here, but if its 'No, if people are ignorant of God then they'll go to hell.' then its pretty much the same thing, yeah? You're just replacing two biblical characters. I apologize if this is what you aren't trying to say, but this is what I'm getting from reading your post, and as such I'll respond to it. Keep in mind, I'm responding to THIS argument towards my claim, which would be completely irrelevant to anything you're saying if this wasn't the point you were trying to make. If it is, then coolbeans for me.

Alright, back to the 'No, if people are ignorant of God then they'll go to hell.' Thats just terrible. I mean, it really is. You can try to justify saying that all you want by saying that 'if God exists (of course, being a Christian, this is already assumed by you), then people will find God in their hearts, and worship no other' or something like that, but it'll still be just terrible. I don't know if miracles have been preformed or not in the past, and I really couldn't care, but from my rudimentary knowledge of them I'm pretty sure that they don't simply happen everyday to everyone (keep in mind I'm referring to miracle miracles, not metaphorical miracles. I'm no philosopher). There are a lot of people out there who have never heard of Jesus or God or Christianity at all, and to expect them to find them in their heart or face certain damnation is just, well, wrong. If God exists, then maybe once in a while someone will posses the true ability to know in their heart that there is a God, despite never having heard of him (or her, I'm politically correct ), but I'm pretty sure that could be called a miracle and, even if not, that is one of the most improbable things I've ever heard. Its certainly not going to happen to everyone everywhere all the time.

Again, I'm not saying this is what you said, I'm just saying this is what I'm arguing against. So, in closing, changing the phrasing of my two cents, I'd really find it hard to accept a belief system in which people are burning for all eternity, in excrutiating pain, even if they're good people, and having no idea what the hell just happened.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

"But above all, I am a sucker for that principle of uniformitarianism which when applied here would label these actions ethnic cleansing and I also suspect that Deut 7:2 is an attempt to shirk the responsibility and to blame Yahweh."

I'll give this a short go.

I think that there is not one who would quibble from a Western Civilization current viewpoint that this is exactly what was intended. But from the viewpoint of the society and cultural state in which it was done, the intent was pretty much the same though the rationale seems foreign to our Christian or post-Christian mindset. It is however a mindset quite prevalent in the current Middle East. I had a friend in med school who had had to flee Iran when the Ayatollah came to power because he had a western education in the USA. He was smuggled out of the country into Spain and thence to the USA where he was met by his fiance and was married on the dock to prevent his deportation back to Iran by the USA (in the USA, a person marrying a citizen is granted citizenship). We were discussing this Iranian's adventures as a "man without a country" given the situation in Iran at the time. When I questioned why he had to flee and feared for his life, I was astounded by his matter-of-fact answer, "When you assume power the easiest way to assure your place is to kill all who oppose you." Gentle, naive American that I was, I stated that surely dissent was allowed. He said, with perfect equanimity, "No, it is not. Were the situations reversed, I would be doing the exact thing. The only way to assure one's place in power is to kill all those who oppose you to the last person in their family." I protested that was extreme. "No,", he said, "if you leave any alive, someone will seek vengeance - especially the children when they are of age."

I was totally floored. If I hadn't known this person well and lived as neighbors in the same apartment building for years, I would not have accepted his honest statement of his political reality and experience and view.

This conversation has clearly troubled me for years to be able to recall it so acutely two decades later. But it has helped me to understand some of the OT mindsets under discussion. That coupled with some education in the Eastern tyrant concepts from Edith Hamilton's contrast of the Greeks and the Persians under Darius I and II. The ruler is an absolute monarch with total power over his subjects. In this cultural mileu, the "ban" makes sense. It has for at least 4 millenia. Which gets us back to the context of the "genocide". The invading Hebrews would have had this mindset. They certainly documented acting on it.

The question then becomes did they hear this from YHWH or did they accept the cultural mandate as the voice of YHWH or did they attribute to YHWH their desires? At this stage of the development of religious consciousness, the differentiations we make in the origin of good and evil were not developed. So all events were attributed to an origin in God, and the best way to conceptualize the difference is to think of one strain of monotheism as absolutism with God pictured as a unit like a bowling ball perfect in its unity, incapable of interaction or modulation. This is the early Hebraic viewpoint. But there is another strain of monotheism which sees God as a unity of parts, not incapable of interaction with the Creation. This latter is the viewpoint that won out, ultimately, and was present embryonically from the start!

In the first case the sense of absolutism necessary for success in conquest of the Promised Land found its corollary in the absolutist monotheism which was in the human mind incapable of modulation. It was all or nothing, good or bad, truth or lies - all came from God. In such an understanding, the attribution to God of the political necessity of absolute destruction found an easy resting place without troubling the minds/consciouses of the invading conquering forces. It is a mindset that very quickly reduces "my God" to the same sense of "my boot" and the concept of God becomes a tool to be utilized in the same fashion as a boot - to protect the wearer. This mindset is operative today.

So, Elfhelm, your suspicions have some basis in reality as to foisting off on God the responsibility and justification of purely human actions.

The discordance you experience is that the ultimately successful monotheism to which you are culturally heir, if not personally committed to, which sees God as a unity-of-parts disavows such thinking. That stream of monotheism triumphs in Judaism and Christianity. It successfully delineates the difference between a loving Creator interactive with His Creation and refuses to ascribe to Him the origin of good and bad, truth and lies, all or nothing. It accomplished this in the case of the Hebrews after their experience under the threat of, accomplishment of, and recovery from deportation to Babylon. The voice of this monotheism is heard best in the prophets and in the Christian proclamation of Jesus.

Since we culturally have and personally may affirm the latter, we have a very difficult time grasping the former. This sets up the conflict you so eloquently observe and comment on. In truth, the struggle between these forms of monotheism remains current. Islam is the re-affirmation of the bowling ball model of monotheism in the 600's AD under Mohammed and is a reaction to Christianity. Christianity has retained cognizance of both types but conceives God in the latter mode and is its ultimate affirmation: the Creator enters the Creation to redeem it from the consequences of Sin and to call humans into the life of God's Unity-in-Persons.

It is the tension inherent in these differing conceptions of monotheism and the ease of falling into the "bowling ball" model and making God a tool which is opposed by your understanding. Humans have a penchant for self-approval and self-justification to this day: my boot is much more docile than the alternative and still invoked. We, that is, you and I, do not ascribe to that conception by intent or culture and thus we struggle with these matters.

[Rían]

What?

[Elfhelm]

Inked, that's interesting. I'm going to have to read that slowly a few times.

(Catch y'all t'morrow.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

But from the viewpoint of the society and cultural state in which it was done, the intent was pretty much the same though the rationale seems foreign to our Christian or post-Christian mindset.

Yes, I see this, and am familiar with your example.

Which gets us back to the context of the "genocide". The invading Hebrews would have had this mindset. They certainly documented acting on it.

My earlier "what" was because I think you didn't address what I thought Elfhelm was asking. I don't think it's a question what the invading Hebrews' mindset was - I think he was asking (and I know that I ask) what is God's mindset represented to be?

Is this correct, Elfhelm? (altho the info in inked's post helps to add flesh to the rather bare-bones initial picture)

The question then becomes did they hear this from YHWH or did they accept the cultural mandate as the voice of YHWH or did they attribute to YHWH their desires?

The first part of the question is what I think is important; the second and third seem irrelevant to the question, IMO.

And as far as the first part, Moses claims that God Himself told Moses to say these things (Deut. 5:31). I think that answered that question - and raises the original difficult question again!

At this stage of the development of religious consciousness, the differentiations we make in the origin of good and evil were not developed. So all events were attributed to an origin in God, and the best way to conceptualize the difference is to think of one strain of monotheism as absolutism with God pictured as a unit like a bowling ball perfect in its unity, incapable of interaction or modulation. This is the early Hebraic viewpoint.

Again, to me, it doesn't matter to the question Elfhelm raised whether the early Hebraic viewpoint is a bowling ball or not But perhaps it does to you and I'm missing your point here.

But there is another strain of monotheism which sees God as a unity of parts, not incapable of interaction with the Creation. This latter is the viewpoint that won out, ultimately, and was present embryonically from the start!

Would this, perhaps, be best modeled as a whiffle ball?

It successfully delineates the difference between a loving Creator interactive with His Creation and refuses to ascribe to Him the origin of good and bad, truth and lies, all or nothing.

Could you please expand on the section I bolded, please?

[Elfhelm]

Interestingly, the idea that Man's understanding of God develops over time is fundamental to the Baha'i faith. That's what attracted me to it. I still hold to that. (I can only correctly refer to myself as an apostate Catholic anymore.)

So I think the Old Testament is partially a tale of developing monotheism. But there are things missing, if a full understanding of the development of monotheism is being studied.

One idea that is missing is henotheism. For instance, at the time we are talking about (13th c. BC), the Babylonians (who will enslave the Jews in the future) are practicing Mithraism. It's almost monotheism. I've read that Yahweh was originally one of several gods in a Jewish pantheon that has been so irradicated from human memory we can barely even prove it existed, but the "tree of life" supposedly still contains their names. So this theory states that Yahweh worship was originally henotheistic before it was montheistic.

The next step for the Babylonians is Zoroastrianism, which the captive Jews incorporated when they began to include Satan as an evil entity. Then, to my best guess, they began to interpret the passages of Joshua that we are talking about as part of this epic battle and Baal became for them sort of an early incarnation of Satan. This naturally made it possible for a view of Yahweh that was closer to Ahuramazda. And eventually, a religion is born that teaches the principles contained in Zarathustra as well as many of the Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers and has a bread and wine ceremony similar to Greek mystery cults.

The next step... and please let me apologise for going pretty far afield here... is a non-anthropomorphic view of a Supreme Being, the replacement of ceremony with personal prayer, personal perfection, and social justice. Much of which is attributed to followers of Jesus such as Aquinas.

So, if Man's understanding of God improves, wouldn't the view expressed in the 13th century BC be inaccurate? If in Joshua it says they massacred people because God told them to, and we later say God wouldn't tell someone to do such a thing, isn't it fair to say The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt?

Because if you understand how I can say that, then you might understand how I can say that the water-walking and resurrection tales might have been inserted in the New Testament by similar human error, because the people of the time were looking for a Messiah who did wondrous things, not just one who taught a new kind of morality.

[Elfhelm]

I realize that's a very touchy subject and very difficult to deal with on a messageboard.

I do have another question, much more relevant. I read this report...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/151/story_15165_1.html
and it said:
"... over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return."
and I have also heard people say that US policy in the Middle East is shaped by people who want to bring on the Second Coming.

RÃ*an, do you believe we can bring on the Second Coming by securing the Holy Land for the Jews?

I also don't know what an "evangelical" is, if you'd also explain that it would be cool. Thanks.

(My other post is for Inked, actually, since he implied the progressive model view of God and I actually accept that view but it takes me to different conclusions.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

RÃ*an, do you believe we can bring on the Second Coming by securing the Holy Land for the Jews?

Absolutely not.

However, I believe that the Second Coming will not take place until certain things have happened that are described in the prophetic books. But that is QUITE different.

Hmm, "evangelical"? I knew what it meant in my opinion, but I never thought of having to define it - I thought it was pretty well understood, but I guess I was wrong! I'm very glad you asked, because I'm glad to find out when words need defining! For example, "sinner" just means someone who has fallen short of God's perfect standard in any way (an example of one sin is gossipping, so a person that has gossipped is a sinner), but it's commonly misunderstood and thought to refer only to horrible murderers and torturers, etc.

Anyhoo *wrenches self off rabbit trail and back to question at hand* - I decided to look it up to see if their definition was a good one, and it is, so I'll use it :

from my old Websters
Evangelical : of those Protestant churches, as the Methodist and Baptist [and I would add non-denominational, too], that emphasize salvation by faith in the atonement of Jesus, and reject the efficacy of the sacraments [i.e., of the Catholic church] and good works alone.

So basically evangelicals believe that becoming a Christian is a personal, informed decision, made by someone who is old enough to be accountable for a decision of this type, to acknowledge their sin and their inability to atone, and accept the atonement offered by Jesus, and to give Him His right and proper place as Lord in their lives. This is the pattern we see in the Bible - it's an INFORMED decision with corresponding ACTIONS in a person's life.

As someone once said, God has children; NOT grandchildren. If your parents are Christians, that doesn't automatically make you one; it's YOUR choice. If you were baptized as an infant, that doesn't make you a Christian; it's YOUR choice when you are old enough to make an informed choice.

Did that explain it?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Interestingly, the idea that Man's understanding of God develops over time is fundamental to the Baha'i faith. That's what attracted me to it. I still hold to that. (I can only correctly refer to myself as an apostate Catholic anymore.)

Yet the idea that man's understanding of God develops over time does NOT necessarily imply that earlier ideas were WRONG. I think it's more like further revelations, while the old ones are still entirely true. And again, as far as Christian doctrine goes, the doctrine is that God is unchangeable.

So, if Man's understanding of God improves, wouldn't the view expressed in the 13th century BC be inaccurate?

Not necessarily - see above.

If in Joshua it says they massacred people because God told them to, and we later say God wouldn't tell someone to do such a thing, isn't it fair to say The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt?

Yes; that's why I don't say that, personally. (inky is also free to reply, too!)

Which leaves ME with the dilemma of if God is unchanging, and God is stated to have made these statements you referenced - can this be reconciled in a reasonable way, or does this show a logical flaw in the Bible?

Elfhelm, what I'd like to do is just give a brief response to this, and then save more detailed discussion for another thread (again, this thread is for the whys of belief, and I want to keep that focus), and then give another summary like the one I did at the beginning, but for where I'm at NOW.

Even as you looked into it, you saw that it wasn't quite as simplistic as perhaps it looked like at first, because you mentioned the peace offers. There's a few other things, too.

One of the biggest ones is that these people had years and YEARS to change their ways, but eventually it was time to deal with their choices. These people were into cruelty, bestiality, even sacrificing children and babies by burning them alive. Now look at Ninevah (the story of Jonah) - these are also people into awful things, but - they repented, and God spared them. (The funny thing is that Jonah got peeved about it at first! ) So the pattern we see is God wanting people to repent, giving lots of chances, and if they DID, they were spared; but if they DIDN'T, the judgement came. And we also see patterns of individual people who were righteous being saved out of a culture (for example, Rahab and her family out of Jericho).

And as far as women and children - it's pretty safe to assume that most would have fled before the fighting, as was the pattern, to leave the warriors to fight. Again, there was a LOT of time for this to happen. So any that would have STAYED would have been those that were totally committed to the evil ways. And as you stated, the rules of conduct were to offer peace first.

And technically, God decides when ANYONE dies, anyway. God takes the life of EVERY human being - it's called death. The only question is when and where. God, who GAVE us life, has the moral right to TAKE it.

And btw, 72% of the uses of the word "mercy" are in the OLD testament! So again, context, and view of the WHOLE, is important. And the pattern is that for those who repent, God is compassionate, merciful, gracious, and kind. In fact, Rahab the harlot, who was saved out of Jericho, is in the line of Jesus Himself! Pretty cool!

Finally, remember the Bible records things, but doesn't necessarily approve them. Given God's character, if He thought it absolutely neccessary, for the best possible outcome, to order that people be killed (after TONS of chances to make peace or leave), then it would be consistent with His character that it be as humanely as possible, so if the Bible records an inhumane treatment, it's important to see that it doesn't condone it.

[Nurvingiel]

Your post got me thinking Ri. You don't have to answer if you're tired of hot seating, but...

What if there are "mistakes" "logical flaws" or whatever in the Bible for the express purpose of getting us to make rational choices and decisions? What if this is another way God teaches us?

How do you know what the Bible was recording, and what it was approving? (Some of the approved list are obvious, 10 Commandments, Jesus, but there are some more difficult passages.)

[Elfhelm]

RÃ*an, thanks for giving me your take on it. I won't kneel to a "god" who instructs followers to commit genocide. I'd rather die. And unlike Abraham, if some voice told me to sacrifice MY child to it, I wouldn't. But, for the record, I take a culturally relativistic view of The Bible and embrace the progressive model of Man's understanding of God (as previously stated), so I don't have to "throw out the baby with the bathwater".

I still don't follow 100% on what is evangelical. My friend is a Mennonite and he isn't anything like the people who are evangelical. In the dictionary definition it was easy to follow. Sacraments, no. Faith over works, yes. That's pretty straightforward. But when you included that wording that comes from the concept of "being saved"...

... acknowledge their sin and their inability to atone, and accept the atonement offered by Jesus, and to give Him His right and proper place as Lord in their lives.

Don't all Christians believe this?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Don't all Christians believe this?

I believe all true ones do. I also believe, as Jesus Himself says, that not everyone that calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian. Jesus says you'll know them by their works.

Originally Posted by Nurvaroo

Your post got me thinking Ri.

Good! I think thinking is a good thing

This reminds me of a bit from a George MacDonald book, about a young lady named Helen, who is quite intelligent but hasn't been a deep thinker (the two don't necessarily go together) -

from The Curate of Glaston, by George MacDonald
Now thinking, especially to one who tries it for the first time, is seldom a comfortable operation, and hence Helen was very close to becoming actually uncomfortable. .... Helen had supposed she could think because the thoughts of other people had passed through her quite regularly, leaving many a phantom conclusion behind. But this had been their thinking, not hers.

I think that it's fairly clear most of the time what is recorded and what is condoned. For example, the Bible records King David's adulterous affair with Bathsheba, yet it is clear that God says adultery is wrong. And David really suffered for it - God pointed his error out to him in a very clever way with the prophet Nathan telling a story about a rich man and his flock, and a poor man with one lamb, and the rich man stealing the poor man's lamb. David was furious, and said that rich man deserved to die, and Nathan said - that man is YOU, King David! David was stricken to the heart and utterly repented, but God still had some severe consequences for his actions.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

RÃ*an, thanks for giving me your take on it. I won't kneel to a "god" who instructs followers to commit genocide. I'd rather die.

I'm sorry, I forgot - are you an atheist? You said you're an apostate Catholic, but you talk about God - do you think a god exists?

[Nurvingiel]

You, again, got me thinking Ri... heh heh Nurvaroo

Originally Posted by Riaronni

I believe all true ones do. I also believe, as Jesus Himself says, that not everyone that calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian. Jesus says you'll know them by their works.

My works, though small, are hopefully good and useful. I also consider myself a Christian for various reasons (see my hotseat posts ).

However, my works are not any more good or useful to God and the world then, say, the works of a Muslin forestry student who (very) occasionally volunteers, and who wants to make the world a better place by ensuring that the world's forests are properly managed.

What makes my works more Christian than the Muslim person's works? Is it becaues I am a Christian at the same time that I do these works? What if an atheist does the same thing?

If we are known by our works, and our religions (or lack thereof) do not dictate what we do (in terms of good things), then how do our works define us as Christians?

Or, are you saying that this statement means... two people say they are Christians, and they are known by their works when one insults a homeless man, and the other gives him a club sandwich. Now we know that the sandwich giver is a real Christian?

[Rían]

Sorry, Aragorn - your post slipped my mind for a bit - I've been awfully busy! I'll address it now.

Originally Posted by Aragorn

I come from the land of Star Wars Role-Playing, on a very specific board called TRF (The Rebel Faction) where this kind of stuff is debated all the time. Heavily. Unfriendly. With many insults going back and forth. I'm not interested in debating there, and I sure as hell am not interested in debating here. So I'm not going to search through this thread lest I find something that I absolutely cannot resist retorting to, which will probably draw me in anyway, whether I like it or not.

I think you'll find that we're different here

I consider myself very educated about the Christian belief system, as I constantly have to defend my atheist beliefs from idiots who think that the Nazis were pretty cool guys.

That's unfortunate that ANYONE, Christian or atheist or otherwise, could think that about the Nazis.

Unfortunately, there is only so much one can no without ever actually having gone to church.

Of course - that makes perfect sense That's why when people make remarks that I think are wrong about Christianity, I correct them, and can give references (not that it proves that Christianity is RIGHT, of course, but Christianity is a worldview that refers to documents; namely, the books in the Bible.) And if I make a remark about Hinduism that is incorrect, I would sure hope a Hindu would correct me.

I'm still a little unclear on what you're saying here, but if its 'No, if people are ignorant of God then they'll go to hell.' then its pretty much the same thing, yeah?

Well, I'm not saying that. I think it boils down to the following points that are documented in the Bible - God is loving, God is just, all people have sinned which rightly separates them from God, God has provided a way to bring us back to Him because He loves us so much, NO PERSON that denies God has a valid excuse because there is SUFFICIENT information in nature and in our hearts to lead people to God if they so desire. So it is NOT a matter of ignorance at ALL. Does that explain it better?

I apologize if this is what you aren't trying to say, but this is what I'm getting from reading your post, and as such I'll respond to it. Keep in mind, I'm responding to THIS argument towards my claim, which would be completely irrelevant to anything you're saying if this wasn't the point you were trying to make.

OK, so I won't deal with the rest of your post, because it wasn't my point.

Alright, back to the 'No, if people are ignorant of God then they'll go to hell.' Thats just terrible. I mean, it really is.

I totally agree!

So, in closing, changing the phrasing of my two cents, I'd really find it hard to accept a belief system in which people are burning for all eternity, in excrutiating pain, even if they're good people, and having no idea what the hell just happened.

So would I, and I don't think the Bible teaches this.

[Rían]

Nurvi, I think what that verse about works means is that if a person says they are a Christian, yet they are characterized by not acting like one, then they are probably not a Christian. Jesus says they'll be some surprises about who is in heaven, and who is praised most.

(But remember to give reasonable allowance to where they are coming from; IOW, it's easy for me to not steal, but if a hard-core kleptomaniac becomes a Christian, his/her weakness in this area must be taken into account when evaluating his/her actions.)

And now - I'm not going to take any more questions until I make a summary post! I think it's a good time for it.