Some questions for Christians (non-fundies)

Great Debates
41

Homebrew wrote:

Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger! :wink:

Diogenese wrote:

Hear hear!

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

— Jesus speaking to the legalists (Matthew 23:23-28)

I wasn’t familiar with him until now, and you are right. He and I seem to have compatible perspectives.

42

1.) Do you believe that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is necessary for salvation?
yes

2.) If the answer is yes, do you then believe that all non-Christians go to hell?
yes

3.) If the answer is no, then doesn’t that mean the crucifixion was meaningless?
The Crucifixion was the essence of God’s plan of Salvation, had the devil realized this Christ would have never been crucified.

4.)Is it possible to follow the pure ethical teachings of Jesus without a belief in Christ as a saviour?
yes, but if they still haven’t obeyed what was told of them to do in the Bible then they won’t be saved either.

43

Diogenes, the “Gandhi Paradox” has a long and honorable history on this board, and I’m fairly sure you’ll see better statements on it than the one I’m about to compose if you search for “Gandhi +Christian,” forum: Great Debates, time: unlimited. But here goes:

Mohandas K. Gandhi spent some years in South Africa where he saw the supercilious and racially dominant attitudes of whites who called themselves Christian. Nonetheless he was intrigued by the Man in whom they professed to believe, His teachings and life, His Atonement. And he was rebuffed by a missionary for asking questions rather than buying into the doctrine as an unarguable given. If any famous and saintly-in-behavior non-Christian can ever be described as “a seeker after Christ,” Gandhi must rank among the top few in this category in all of time. And I personally have little doubt that my compassionate Lord was in 1948 far more welcoming and responsive to his probing questions than was that nameless missionary.

But I take your point, and for once my answer matches that of C.S. Lewis, who felt that any allegiance and moral behavior done according to the dictates and doctrine of one’s own sincerely held but erroneous belief will be accepted by a God who knows men’s hearts better than all the doctrinaire evangelical separatists who ever lived. Saladin might be an excellent example of a man whose faith system was not Christian but whose behavior and attempt to follow God’s were modeled on Jesus’s.

As Scotti said, though, it’s not our place to decide who is or is not “saved.” That’s God’s business, and I’m quite confident He knows the hearts and minds of men and women well enough and cares enough about them to know and do what will be effectual for their salvation. The Orthodox have a saying, “We know where we can find truth…” [i.e., in the Orthodox Churches], “we do not presume to know where truth is not to be found.” What Joe, Jersey, CJ, His4Ever, Scottischer, Libertarian, and the rest of us have been trying to express is one sure means of coming to know the truth about a God who is not only Creator and Lord of the Universe but personally humble enough to take on human life as a helpless baby, and who is prepared to dwell within our hearts in Spirit at our invitation, something that is especially apropos to note this time of year.

Today in the liturgical churches is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remembering the small children who according to Matthew were killed by Herod in an effort to eliminate a potential rival for his shaky throne. It’s also the eighteenth anniversary of my wife’s life profession in the Third Order of the Society of Saint Francis as a tertiary. In my mind the two stand together as a vivid reminder of man’s inhumanity to man, often based on religious bigotry or the lust for power, and our call to combat that hatefulness in the name of the God who loves and seeks after all His children.

44

Hello Diogenes.
Sorry I’ve come late to the party. I only now discovered your thread. May I still join in the games? If I answer all the questions up until now, I should be caught up. For the record, I’m fairly conservative in my beliefs, though I don’t think I fall into your “fundamentalist” category.

Set 1, Q1: Is belief in the divinity of Jesus necessary for salvation?
No. I believe that Salvation is through Jesus only. Acts 4:12 states, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” However, I believe that salvation is available to those who have never heard of, or believed in Jesus, provided they have responded positively to the promptings of the Holy Spirit on their heart. I believe that the Holy Spirit touches everyone regardless of their religious beliefs. Of course, not everyone recognizes that it’s the Holy Spirit talking to them. Some refer to it as their conscience, others as the good angel on their shoulder, as so on. But however they refer to Him, they must respond favorably in order to be saved.

Q2: Do all non-Christians go to hell?
No. There are many good people who have never even heard of Jesus, but who have responded to the Holy Spirit and thus will be accepted. But those who haven’t heard of Jesus must do two things: 1. They must respond favorably to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. 2. They must avail themselves of every opportunity to learn more about what God wants of them.

Q3: Was the Crucifixion meaningless?
No. It is Jesus’ sacrifice which has made the salvation of humankind possible. Without that act, no one could be saved no matter their belief. But because Jesus did it, anyone can be saved who responds to God’s calling; whether that calling is from Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Even those who have never heard of Jesus but are accepted by God because of responding to the Holy Spirit, are able to be saved because of Jesus’ act even though they are unaware of what He did.

Q4: Is it possible to follow the teachings of Jesus without believing in Him as a Savior?
Yes. This is the same as asking if one could follow the teachings of Ghandi without believing he was the Savior; the answer is, “Of course.” One can admire someone else’s example and try to emulate it in order to be a good person. But it is not the act of following Jesus’ teachings (or Ghandi’s) which saves us; we can’t get into Heaven by doing good things. We can only receive salvation because God gives it to us as a gift, although we haven’t earned it.

Set 2, Q1: Is it possible for a person to never know about the crucifixion, resurrection or teachings of Christ, and yet still be saved?
Yes. God will save those who have responded to His calling whether or not that calling was through learning of Jesus or listening to the Holy Spirit within. For example, take the case of an aboriginal-type person living in a tribe in one of the deepest, darkest jungles of the world – such as Africa or South America. He will live his entire life never having heard of Jesus or what He did. Yet he will still have the Holy Spirit talking to his heart. When he and all his buddies go out hunting for unsuspecting passers-by in order to scalp them and chop them into stew meat, something inside will tell him that this isn’t quite right. He can respond to that little voice or not; and that will decide his fate. If he does respond and stops going on hunting raids, then he will be obeying what he feels is “right” according to the limited understanding he has; and that will be sufficient. But that acceptance will only apply to his case. Someone who lives in a developed country has access to much more information that does the native man. So the person who has an opportunity to learn more, but does not avail himself of it, is willfully choosing to be ignorant, and so cannot be accepted. We must active use the learning opportunities available to us.

Q2: Is it possible to not believe in the veracity of Christian doctrine and still be saved?
Yes. This is how the good people of other faiths will be saved – such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. As stated above, those who are not saved through a belief in Jesus will be judged by their response to the Holy Spirit. I believe that God accepts those who do not follow Jesus. John 10:16 states, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold.” By this I think Jesus is referring to believers in God who are not in the “fold” of Christianity. Whether you are following the Father, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, you are still following God.

Q3: If it is possible to be saved without knowledge of, or belief in the crucifixion, then how is the crucifixion meaningful?
This is the same as Q3 in the first set. It was Jesus’ sacrifice which made everyone’s salvation possible, whether or not they realize that they are being saved through Him. You made a comment just above your second set of questions to the effect that the Crucifixion was an act of love rather that a legalistic sacrifice. I would like to say I believe it served both purposes. Yes, it was a demonstration of supreme love for all mankind; but it also served to pay the debt incurred by mankind’s transgression of God’s laws. I may be taken to task over this as being legalistic, but it is what I believe, because it serves a part of God’s purpose. If one is legalistic, then a great punishment is due for all the atrocious crimes committed; if one believes in karma, then a great deal of “good” is needed to balance all the “bad” in the world; if one believes in grace, then a great act of Love is needed to counteract all the hate and suffering there is. But which ever your belief, a counterbalance is necessary. The Crucifixion served that purpose and thus it is through that sacrifice on the part of Jesus that anyone can be reconciled to God.

Q4: What do we have to be saved from, exactly?
We have to be saved from eternal death. I believe there is an afterlife comprised of immortality and direct access to God. I believe humankind had this in the past but lost it through an act of rebellion. Jesus has provided a way for us to be restored to that position again. While your statement is true that many other religions don’t have this paradigm, I don’t think it is critical to being saved that one believe this. But it IS critical that one follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit regardless of one’s dogma. And this addresses the second part of your question. If you don’t think you need to be forgiven for anything, then you are not listening to the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit convicts our hearts regarding everything we do which is contrary to God’s will. Granted, He doesn’t convict us of everything at once; we couldn’t take it. But He guides us throughout our entire live taking us step-by-step closer to God’s ideal. If we die before reaching that perfection, it doesn’t matter; because God knows that we were responding to Him and moving in the right direction.

Set 3, Q1: Is it possible that there are miracles in other religions?
Yes. Again, God has followers besides those in Christianity. He works with them in the ways they need and can accept, just as He does with us. So, while I’m not familiar with the beliefs and traditions of the other faiths, it is certainly possible that God has worked miracles for them.

Q2: If non-Christian miracles are possible, does this give you pause in choosing Christianity over other religions?
No. I was reared in a Christian environment. I know and am comfortable with this belief system. If I had been born into a Muslim environment, then that faith would be what I prefer. But as an adherent of any faith, I must follow it to the best of my ability and constantly strive toward a clearer understanding of what my God desires.

As for the discrepancies between different inspired texts, and discrepancies even within the same text, this can be attributed to writer’s error rather than a contradiction in God’s character. I can best explain by re-using an example I gave in a different thread several months ago. The Bible is not a single writing by a single author; it is the collected writings of dozens of authors written over many centuries. What is more, it is not the case that God dictates His message while a prophet writes down word for word what is said. Imagine: God, “In the beginning …” Prophet, "Wait, wait. Does beginning have one “g” and two "n"s or is it two “g"s and one “n”?” God, “In the beginning, I …” Prophet, “Wait. When you say “I”, do you mean yourself, God, or “I” as in me the prophet?” It is more like the prophet sees a movie – a vision, then describes it as best he can in his own words. He is, of course, going to be limited by his experience and writing ability. His understanding of the message is also going to be affected by the culture he is from. This helps explain why much of the Bible is male-centered; virtually all of the prophets came from male-dominated societies, so that is the bias with which they related the message they had seen.
Viewed as a recapitulation of a vision they’ve seen, told in their own words, the discrepancies in the Bible are now understandable as stemming from the limitations of those who are relating the messages. This explains the need for understanding who the messenger was, what his culture was like, and who the message was directed toward primarily. Perhaps you’ve heard biblical scholars talk about this and wondered why it was such a big deal. Well, it affects the understanding of the message. This also explains how there can be apparent contradictions between different inspired writings: the messenger did not relate the message perfectly. So then, how can you trust any of the messages? By comparing the various messages, using your reasoning ability to analyze the most likely meaning, and allowing your understanding to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Q3: How can you say that Christian miracles are any more credible than Hindu miracles?
I can’t and don’t. As stated earlier, I am not versed in the traditions of miracles in other faiths. So I can’t dismiss or discredit them. However, I have also stated already that I believe God does work miracles for other religions. What is more, I believe He works miracles for ordinary individuals on a regular basis. Miracles are not limited to a few perfect “Christians”.

45

I maybe shouldn’t have replied here, as I think I am a fundie, I am not sure.

However,
1 John 2:22 says “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is Christ.”
Anyone not belieivng that Jesus was God is not a christian.
No 2 ways about it.

Colossians 1:16 For by Him (Jesus) were all things created.

If one rejects Jesus, they most certainly will go to Hell.
IMHO.
Seems to be God’s too.

46

Poly wrote:

It pains me to have to pull out of such illustrious company, but I have to nonetheless. At the very least, I have to clarify.

It is not the case that I believe that Jesus is one sure means as though there are other means as well. He is not just one means; He is in fact the ONLY means.

He is Who He is.

When a person speaks of a petty and vicious god of the gaps, stating that the thing’s name is Jesus, it is not the same Jesus Whom I worship. In fact, the Jesus Whom I worship will tell the person that He never knew him.

When a person speaks of a gracious and merciful God of Love, stating that His name is Wudfittle, I recognize Wudfittle as the God Whom I worship. When I say Jesus and he says Wudfittle, we mean the same God.

47

Well, my friend, I was attempting to pull together the variant stances we have into a common whole, and I completely agree with you (as of course would Jack Lewis). But I’m confident that Joe and Jersey and maybe Vanilla would be inclined to say that we’re pettifogging with words, and that the call is to know and follow Jesus as He is presented in Scripture. “No man comes to the Father but by me” is part of a message of compassion to Thomas, who is devastated at the idea that the Master whom he has followed is leaving, and leaving in a way that will preclude his following Him. So: (a) he who follows Jesus’s Way is following Jesus (remember that the early church did not call themselves Christians but “Followers of the Way”), but more specifically (b) one who affirms Jesus as his Lord and Savior and keeps His commandments is doing that in a more specific way, and the one that we are given in Scripture to understand is assuredly efficacious. That, I think, we can all agree on.

48

Unique to Christianity? I dunno. A matter of faith? I’d say that it’s one of the most easily verifiable statements in Christianity. There is abundant objective evidence for the idea that human beings are basically a mess; there is some Good in us, but even at our best we tend to screw things up.

Re: the questions, I think I’m going to agree with pretty much all of the Christian posters here. Jesus’ sacrifice is the only thing that makes it possible for people to be saved, but Faith, in the Christian sense, is something more and different than just knowing His name. I don’t know how God provides for Those Who Never Heard, or those who just haven’t been able to intellectually accept Christian doctrines, but I think He can.

49

But if you are obligated to do this, surely there must be others who are similarly obligated. Obviously there is not a commandment in Christianity directed at you personally. So I would ask what category of person is obligated as you are, and would be lacking if they failed to accept these principles (even if they performed good deeds etc.)

I don’t understand what this might mean. Either an obligation exists or it doesn’t exist. By saying that an obligation exists, you imply that - at least in some cases - God will be ticked off, despite his providential love. If OTOH the providential love means that He doesn’t ever really care, then the obligation never actually exists.

50

I see your point. But the metaphor Jesus principally used for God is Father, so I’ll work with that.

If a child is told to do something by its father, it has an obligation to go do that thing. Another child of the same father, away for the weekend, may not be so obliged, not having heard that instruction from the same father. And if the child fails to do that thing, or even refuses to do that thing, it may be subject to discipline, but it will not cease to be the child of the father and the father will continue to love it and provide for it and do his best to bring it up to be a worthwhile adult.

If you insist on the law metaphor, on the other hand, even criminals have constitutional rights, which may not be violated by governmental agencies even in prosecuting and imprisoning them.

God is obviously saying something quite different to Gaudere than He is to me at this precise point in time. And, knowing her to be a honest, open, and moral atheist, I don’t think it’s because I’m “listening better” than she is. And clearly Joe Cool and lekatt are trying to follow one and the same Lord, but with quite different perspectives on what He expects of them individually.

Does that help to clarify my sense that I am obliged but that I don’t see it incumbent on me to insist that others are similarly obliged?

51

Sorry, but this fundie needs to step in for one second. I’ll be quick, for I see I am not wanted in this thread.

I have read enough of Lekatt’s posts to know that he and Joe_cool are on totally different pages, and maybe even reading a different book altogether.

I am sure if Joe reads this, he will agree.

Ok, over and out. didn’t mean to step into your thread, but I felt it necessary.

52

I have that in common with Joe also. Lekatt and are in totally different books, much less pages. I’ve read enougn of Joe’s posts to know I’d probably agree with what he has to say.

53

Jersey, the last thing I want to do is to start an argument, but I’m convinced that both Joe and lekatt are talking about the same Lord who is referred to in John’s “For God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” and who said “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Joe tends to focus on what’s implied in the second passage, Lekatt on the first. And I think every single one of us is trying to keep a balanced perspective on God’s love and His expectations – but like all human beings discussing anything at all important, we have different perspectives on what the proper “balance” is. Certainly His4Ever’s idea of what constitutes “balance” in her postings on Christianity is far different from mine – but I know she means well in what she’s doing.

And as far as “welcome” goes – I personally think your perspective on this stuff would be beneficial. My impression is that Diogenes was trying to get a handle on what us Liberal types really believe, and so phrased the OP to seek us out. But I for one would very much like to see your answers to the questions asked – especially the “good non-believer” (Gandhi) question. I know that asking you to post that might be exposing you to hostility, and I will completely understand if you decline on those grounds – but I’ll be the poorer for not seeing what you have to say. :slight_smile:

54

Polycarp,

I would reject your father analogy, because a parent’s love for his children is an emotional one. But if that were left aside, I think a parent who had one child who consistently fulfilled his obligations and one who did not - while they would not completely reject the wayward one - would not feel the exact same way towards them as toward the other one. Certainly they would be justified in having a feeling.

But it also misses the point on another level. Supposing we grant that the parent would indeed treat and feel towards the children exactly equally, this would not mean that the obligation would cease to exist. This is because while one might describe a God as a Father, a father is not a God. Thus one might view the child as having obligations toward the parents that are beyond the scope of the actual relationship of parent and child. This, because of the existence of a larger morality. IOW, it is not inconsistent for there to be a moral obligation for a child to obey a parent even if this obligation does not manifest itself in any way in the actual relationship of parent and child. OTOH, the relationship of a person and God should ostensibly reflect the totality of all moral issues at hand, particular as God is a (and in the case of the type of obligations we are dealing with here, the sole) source of the moral demands to begin with. So that if the person is lacking in some way, it should be reflected in this relationship.

I’m not sure how or if your examples of Gaudere et al tie in with the first part of your post. Here, you seem to be saying that whatever an honest, open, and moral person believes to be the proper path to take represents the actual message that God is saying to them. So that the obligations you speak of would apply only to a person who happens to believe in them. Which would imply that if you should suddenly decide that you no longer acepted the sacrifice etc. you would no longer be obliged to accept it, simply by virtue of having decided this. To my mind, the term “obligation” is meaningless under such circumstances.

With regards to your last sentence, I want to distinguish between your insisting that other specific people are similarly obligated, and merely acknowledging in principle that there are others who are similarly obligated. IOW, there is a difference between saying that “a person in Category A or Circumstance B is required to do X” and getting on the case of an actual person who you have decided fits the criteria. (I tried to make this distinction in the latest Kill-the-Fundie Pit thread, but made little impact).

55

**

Okay, fair enough. Here is what I believe. We are all sinners and the eventual consequence of sin (without the grace of God’s redemption) is eternal separation from God. This is what the Bible teaches (insofar as I can interpret and if I can depend on the translations…which I assume I can) and it is what I believe.

So if I have to say that if what I THINK is true, then Christ is the only way to reach God. Where I think you see me “equivocating” is in my belief that it isn’t MY place to judge whether or not someone HAS accepted Christ. (Although I am sure that if you HAVEN’T, you know it.) Babies, of course, go to Heaven. Babies aren’t able to decide ANYTHING on their own, so they go straight to heaven. As does anyone (IMO) who doesn’t have the ability to understand or comprehend Christ…but I believe that if you seek Christ, He will find a way to make Himself real to you. Again, IMO. In what way, I have no way of knowing. Nor would I feel myself competent to make a judgement.

Now, if you KNOW the truth, as I understand it, and you REJECT Christ, then I guess you are in for eternal separation from God. Or at least, that is what I believe.

You know, I have NO idea if Ghandi is going to be in heaven. And I feel that it is (was) between Ghandi and God and I assume that the both of them were entirely competent to work it out between them. Son of Sam? You are saying that you think he is going to heaven? Well, I’d be surprised, but…again, only God knows what is in a man’s heart. I would be VERY surprised to find him in Heaven if he had died during his reign of terror, but maybe he came to accept the Grace of God during his incarceration. (I don’t even know if he is still alive, sorry.) If he TRULY did so, not just because he was afraid of dying, then yes…I guess he’ll be there.

I am not an eloquent or learned woman, and I don’t know. (I know how you hate when I say that, sorry…) I don’t know how many of those people were actually seeking God and how many were rejecting Him…and it isn’t my place to make any of those judgements. And I am not GOING to try to make those judgements, because IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS! Did they “reject” God or didn’t they know? This is where I get into the “I am SO GLAD that it isn’t my place to judge, but God’s” thing. HE is all powerful and knows men’s hearts…I don’t have the answers, but I believe that HE does.

I guess that I can’t help you there, assuming you are actually seeking God and not finding Him or His love to be acceptible. THAT, my friend, is between YOU and GOD. If you are seeking Him and he is not who you WANT Him to be, then you are not finding in Him Whomever or whatever it is that you seek. I feel badly about that…

I’m not entirely sure, but I THINK I have just agreed with Lib here…the Wudfittle thing got me somewhat confused.

But no matter WHAT you believe, decide or accept, it DOESN’T make me love you any less. And THAT is the love of God THROUGH me, it isn’t the love of this humble, sinful person. Of THAT I am certain. God instructed us to “Love one another”…and it is the one commandment I have been gifted with never having had a problem keeping. The rest I admit I have been shaky on.

For which I thank God, because it is part of me and I would be so very much less if I didn’t have it. (Just for clarification, I am NOT talking about the “shaky” ones…those don’t make me happy or peaceful at all.)

I’m afraid that if you STILL think I am ‘equivocating,’ I probably cannot help you with it.

56

Just to add to Scotti’s well-spoken words, let me point out that we’re looking at things with imperfect knowledge of what goes on in other people’s hearts and minds, only what happens in this mortal life, and at one given moment in time. God sees far more than we do, and He is the one who ultimately decides what satisfies His expectations.

There is not one of us Christians who is prepared to say that you have to accept Christ here and now in this life or you will absolutely with no questions be damned. We do not know if His grace is available to the sinner after death – there’s one passage that at first glance suggests not, but there’s no “immediately” inserted. We do not know what He will accept as following Christ – was not Gandhi’s compassion and satyagraha Christlike? We do know that a commitment to Christ and the attempt to live as He commanded is efficacious, so that is what we teach. I am not prepared to pontificate on what are the limits to God’s mercy – but I am prepared to suggest that if one way is sure and others are not, the prudent man will follow the sure way.

I think Lib’s point is apropos this issue – God sees love of Himself and one’s fellow man as the most important things one can do – Love of Him, not because He is insecure and needs to have it, but because it’s the best thing for us.

And it’s not a matter of accepting dogma – it’s a matter of admitting that you are not omnipotent and that you need help, which is there for the asking. You have to humble yourself and ask for it, that’s all. (And that’s a lesson that this last week has brought home to me with a vengeance!)

57

This is a hijack, disregard if you wish. (I voted for the hijack smilie, and for GOOD reason…)

Could someone explain…what exactly IS dogma?

58

As I understand it, the general objection to the idea of dogma is that a sterile intellectual adherence to a formalized non-rational (not “irrational” but meaning “not reasoned but revealed”) system of doctrine is lacking in heart; there’s no personal investment of self in it.

On the other hand, acceptance of dogmata as attempts by finite and fallible humans to wrap their minds around the characteristics of a God with whom they have a personal relationship and who is Lord of their lives, is a good thing. It’s not for nothing that the creeds begin “I believe in God…” and then go on to describe who God is in numerous subordinate clauses.

59

Basically Poly is correct here. I think that the fundamentalist/conservative views of Christianity are easy to find (in fact they are difficult to avoid). This branch of Christianity is so vocal that I think it tends to drown out more moderate or liberal voices and tends to distort the perception of Christianity as a whole by non-Christians. Many people believe that fundamentalism is Christianity. (many fundamentalists think this too btw.) Unfortunately, I think that this perception leads to some of the hostility that we see expressed towards Christianity by non-Christians. When we read news stories, for instance, about fundies burning Harry Potter books, many people will respond with a knee-jerk response of condemning those *#@$% CHRISTIANS without realizing that the vast majority of Christians think those book-burners are just as idiotic as we do.

I wanted to get a better idea of Christianity which is more…well, I hate to keep saying “moderate and liberal,” because I think that sounds too political to convey what I mean…“more thoughtful” I think sounds gratuitously insulting to fundies…“non-fundie” sounds too broad…I guess I’ll just appeal to the common sense of Dopers and trust that they know what I mean. Perhaps somebody can even provide a more appropriate term for those whom I’ve addressed this thread to.

As to JerseyDiamond, Scotticher, vanilla and any other fundamentalists (even H4E, for all the angst she creates, this would not be the SDMB without her. :wink: )I have no objection to anyone posting on any thread that I start. I always feel flattered if anyone at all finds one of my OP’s worth responding to. I read, and I think about, every word that gets posted, even if I don’t respond to them all directly. Having said that, though, I think I do have a question for the fundies:

jjrt said this in resonse to question 4.

If you agree with jjrt that ethical behaviour alone is not enough for salvation (the old “works alone…” saw) then how do you respond to these words of Jesus?

Do this and you will live. Love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Nothing about belief. Nothing about being born again or accepting Christ as one’s “Saviour.” Also, let’s not forget that Jesus defined “loving God” thusly:

In other words, compassion not *belief * is the key to salvation.

What do you think?

60

Well, apparently I finally answered your questions to the extent that you didn’t ask me to clarify, so YAY me! :slight_smile:

However, I would like , once again, to remind you of my friend’s (it was iampunha, BTW) distinction between fundamentalist Christians and “fundies” (which Polycarp in conversation yesterday reminded me that HE calls “fundiloooneys”…heh…) so might I request that you remember that not ALL (I think actually not MOST) of us are not rabid, book burning, abortion clinic burning CRAZY people running around trying to prevent people from having any thought or belief that differs from their OWN?

Thank you, thank you VERY much. :smiley: