was it in the Hitchhikers Guide that we built the ship to send those buffoons on their way with? I swear we’re collecting some.
tell us College, how did you come to your conclusion. I’m not denying your faith in what you say, but you as well as Friend are making statements about “other” religions without having the slightest as to truthful knowledge about them. So without preaching, explain how you got to where you are as far as your religious beliefs please. thank you. have a nice day.
Hi everyone.
Soulsing, you asked Friend and College to “explain how you got to where you are as far as your religious beliefs.” Since I happen to agree with them, I can answer the question for myself. It’s simple, really. I read the Bible. I have faith that what it says is true.
A quote from pinqy:
“Additionally, Christianity could still be counted as “you can become a good person” or that people can “better themselves.” In fact you said it yourself “let Jesus Christ take over your life. Let HIM run it, and your life can improve dramatically.” The first step of the process you’re describing is to do something to better yourself and become a better person by letting Jesus into your life. After that presumably you will be a good person.”
I believe you took the quote out of context. It said abosolutely nothing about having to “better yourself and become a better person . . .” That is entirely not the point. The reason we need Jesus in our lives is because we are NOT CAPABLE of making ourselves better. By letting Jesus into your life, you will eternal life with God in heaven. Once Jesus is in your life, he will make it better. You will WANT to be a better person because you love Him; but it doesn’t happen automatically. And besides, being a good person, although Christians should strive to be good people, is not at all the point of Christianity.
Again, from pinqy:
“I won’t even get into quotes from the OT that question the standards by which the Christian God could be considered good and just.”
Good, because they all confirm that the Christian God is good and just. God gave his people more chances to behave than people deserve; this proves that God is good and more than fair. When his people still refused to follow God’s commandments, he punished them justly. When you were little and didn’t obey your parents, they probably punished you. You may not have liked it then, but now as you look back, you probably think that those punishments were fair. God is like this. He punished His people and they didn’t like it, but it was for the best; for without punishment, they would not have realized that they were hurting God.
Pinqy, re personal philosophy: Indeed, you can hardly do anything other than decide what reality is like for you. It is one of the powers and tasks of human sentience to try to understand the universe; this cannot be done using only facts. Eventually we move into opinions.
We are entitled to have faith as to things we can never know (provided of course that the faith is in line with things that we do know.)
The problem, as you point out, occurs when people mistake opinion for fact. However, this works both ways: when people mistake an unprovable opinion for proven fact, and also when people mistake an unprovable opinion for an unproven and therefore false factual statement.
I dispute those who propound their beliefs as fact, as much as I dispute those whose beliefs directly conflict with fact. For those whose beliefs (metaphysical and ethical) are neither supposed to be or conflict with fact, I have a great deal of respect. They are using all their faculties to try to find unknowable truth.
And like the elimination of poverty and the creation of a just society, finding the Truth is both an impossible goal and one which ought to be pursued nonetheless.
You are all closet Unitarian Universalists - resistance is futile. 
I was raised Methodist, found UUism in college, never looked back. Just feels right to me.
Esprix
Since you have all been so forthcoming, I guess a little disclosure on my part would not be inappropriate.
I do not believe in the supernatural, and firmly believe there is no omnipotent being. I guess I could agree with a statement that nature’s laws = god, but why call them by another name? And I consider statements like “God is love” to be pretty meaningless. If the human capacity for good will, love, etc. + god, then why trick it up with stories about burning bushes, nirvana, etc.
Seems clear to me that any particular manifestation of God is a manmade construction. The bible/koran/etc. were written by men, and have been interpreted by men.
Some people believe they have experienced something they believe is God. Why do they believe it is any particular manifestation? To a nonbeliever, the Christian story is no more farfetched than little green men doing mind control experiments. There certainly is smorgasboard of religious choices to choose from. I see no reason anyone can argue any one is more valid that any other. (And yes, matt, I think it is a common mistake for people to present belief as fact). If someone says they experienced God, how do you know, for example, it was Jesus? Perhaps it was the Buddha, and they misidentified him through their cultural baggage.
I must say I have a couple of problems with the christian God.
Original sin. Sorry, but there is not much less “sinful” than my babies when born. Now after they learned to walk and talk is another matter!
I find much of christian ideology devalues our current life. Unless we want to go down the “is anything real” path, many of us agree that there is good reason to believe this existence, in fact, exists. Certainly more proof than some afterlife. Friend of God suggests “Give up control of my life…” “No such thing as a good person.” “Mankind has no hope in and of himself to improve himself.” Runs counter to my experience and sounds pretty depressing and defeatist to me. Whatever his defects, I see man as a pretty nifty creature and see no reason to adopt a mindset that devalues the inherent ability of man. Strikes me as adopting a pre-emptive excuse for being bad, or failing.
The way I see it, the old testament God is quite a stretch. But piling the whole Jesus story on top of it, unless it is considered entirely allegorical, seems to pile absurdity upon absurdity. Help me with the logic, are two absurdities no more farfetched than one? If I wish to believe in something that is “unknowable,” wouldn’t I want to make it a simple as possible? And don’t come back with “Jesus is love.” Nope. Every christian church preaches a lot more than that.
If you decide to be a Christian, there is still a selection to make. Do you believe in determinism? Why would anyone care about transubstantiation, let alone presume that they could say there is a right or wrong view of it? And on and on. Wars have been fought over these things. Can we say they don’t matter today? If not, what does matter?
To a non-believer it is striking how many people attend a particular denomination, but know little about what that church actually stands for. Depending on what you believe, you might not be able to be a Methodist, or a Lutheran. And this isn’t even mentioning political stances.
And it is very hard to take seriously folk who go to church x “because their parents did.” Don’t you make up your own mind at some time. And isn’t it important enough of a decision to not simply be made out of convenience and inertia? I think one’s personal religious belief is an important enough issue that it requires considerable thought. It is not surprising that the majority of posters on this board have undertaken that examination. I fear the same cannot be said about all churchgoers.
Once you determine your beliefs, if you wish to join a religious community I believe it behooves you to choose a denomination that best fits them. Sure, you will never find a perfect match. Same way you will never find a politician that perfectly matches your views. But you certainly don’t have the option of just picking and choosing which tenets you agree with and which you don’t. Hey, I have to respect the heck out of the Pope. “These are the rules. If you don’t like them, find another game.”
Finally, you can join a church for valid reasons different than, but hopefully consistent with, the reasons you have or lack faith. There is a lot to be said about the community building role of church. It also teaches children (and adults) spirituality, morals. I enjoy the fact that my church tries to equip each person to conduct their own spiritual search, and that that search need not be dependent upon the existence or any particular manifestation of God. Many christian churches strike me as somewhat insecure. So while Daoism may appeal to me, I am unaware of a community in my immediate area that will provide the support and stimulation I get at the UU church I attend. I also get a kick that my kids are getting education of many other religions. Some christian churches strike me as somewhat defensive and insecure.
Last point. Sorry if I am simply too dense to understand what has been said here and in other threads, but what happens to the virtuous Hindi. I assume a Catholic believes there is no reincarnation. And I’m not talking about someone who is ignorant of Christ - this hindi has heard the story, but decides it isn’t for him. So he leads a perfectly virtuous life, except he denies the deity of Christ. What happens to him? If your God doesn’t let him into the club, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that he’s infallible.
Final final point, I don’t see why a god has to be infallible. And based on my experience, a fallible god would be a lot easier to believe in that the alternative.
Sorry this was so long and convoluted. Thank you all for your responses to my OP.
FriendofGod said:
I would submit that there ain’t no such thing as a “logical religion.” Pretty much all religion requires faith. Faith and logic are on completely different planes. Thus, “logical religion” is an oxymoron, like “creation science” or “honest politician.”
If it were so easy to “prove,” it wouldn’t be faith, would it? And if it were so easy to “prove,” then wouldn’t everybody be a Christian by now?
In many ways, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. But you are so Christian-centric that you probably can’t even see it. So let’s try it this way:
*
In many ways, there is only one religion in the world. There is atheism, the only logical choice, and religious belief. Doesn’t matter what they call it, it’s all the same.
The “everything else” religion says some variation of “There is a god (or more than one)” or something like that.
Atheism teaches the exact opposite. It teaches there is NO SUCH THING as a god, and that mankind has NO HOPE of having an afterlife. Atheism teaches that there is only ONE hope to improve your life, and that is to let your brain take over your life. Let IT run it, and your life can improve dramatically.*
I could go on, but I hope you see my point.
If you’re a Christian, you have to be ready to ask some tough questions that logically arise out of your beliefs, but that aren’t really answered in the Bible. These are:
What happened to all the people who lived and died BEFORE Jesus was born?
What happens to babies who die before they’re baptized, but also before they’re capable of choosing Jesus?
What happens to people who have simply never heard of Jesus, such as the Mayas before the arrival of the Spanish?
Of course, I do realize that some of the medieval church’s greatest minds have already tackled these questions. However, I don’t find all of their answers satisfactory, especially considering it’s all just speculation and is not answered in the Bible. For instance, in Dante’s Inferno, Dante said that the virtuous pagans, that is, those people who led good lives but didn’t believe in Jesus, were sent to a layer of Hell in which there was no torment, but was still separated from God. The Catholics believe, though not as a matter of official church policy, that unbaptized babies are sent to “Limbo”, which is sort of like Dante’s first Hell listed above. Regarding question #1, I’ve heard that some Christian denominations teach that when Jesus died, he descended into Hell and gave all the people who died before he was born a chance to accept him and enter into Heaven. Great, but why did they have to wait in Hell for thousands of years first? If God is just, doesn’t he give everyone a CHANCE to get into Heaven? If so, then how do you answer the questions above? Please note, this is not meant to imply that the existence of these questions “proves” that Christianity is wrong. It “proves” nothing either way. It DOES prove that we don’t know all the answers, though, and I’d just like to know what answers other people have come up with.
CollegeStudent opined:
I mean this in the kindest possible sense, but I think you might want to reconsider this analogy.
It sounds very like Heaven’s Gate to me. And I really don’t like Nikes.
-andros-
To say the least, there is no way on earth I can reply to each and every comment that’s been made, so I’m going to pick and choose. Waiting Too Long said some of the things I wanted to say to pinqy and soulsling, so thanks! 
CollegeStudent, I LOVED your analogy.
Dinsdale: I want to respond to you especially since you started this topic. You quoted several of my statements about mankind and then said this: “Runs counter to my experience and sounds pretty depressing and defeatist to me. Whatever his defects, I see man as a pretty nifty creature and see no reason to adopt a mindset that devalues the inherent ability of man. Strikes me as adopting a pre-emptive excuse for being bad, or failing.”
First: it IS depressing and defeatist IF you leave out the solution. The solution is to give Jesus Christ control of your life. HE knows what makes me tick and HE can improve my life dramatically. So there is hope, it just isn’t in ME!
Second: let me give you some food for thought. From what I can gather, you are essentially disagreeing with my notion that there is no such thing as a good person. I would like to give you one of a multitude of arguments to prove that there is, in fact, no such thing as a good person.
Suppose you put people in a society that basically gave them freedom to do anything they wanted. No restrictions. If mankind is basically good, would it not follow that the people in that society would be the kindest, most faithful, most giving of all societies? In other words, if man is basically good, and they are given total freedom to go what ever direction they want, they will choose the good way.
Well, guess what. It’s 2000 in America, and we ARE that society. The concept of personal freedom has never been stretched as far as it has been in the past 3 decades. And look at society. I could go through the litany of social woes and how much worse they’ve gotten in 30 years, but you hear them all the time. The point is, we as a society have been left to our own devices. We have virtually no restrictions. Within that environment, we’ve chosen to become a deviant and reprobate society. This is to be expected. Man, when given a choice, will tend toward evil, not toward good.
Again, there IS hope. ONLY through Jesus Christ can this awful trend be reversed. You know that cheezy Christian cliche you’ve heard for years - ‘born again’? Maybe now you can see what it means. It literally means God gives you a brand-new soul that DOESN’T lean toward evil anymore. Sure a Christian will still sin, but the tendancy and direction of a Christian’s life is toward good. NOT because of themselves, but because Christ is living in them.
For another quick example, you mentioned kids. Perfect, perfect example. Children do not have to be TAUGHT to do BAD things, they have to be TAUGHT to do GOOD things! Why is that? If man is basically good, won’t children just NATURALLY want to clean up their room and NATURALLY want to go to bed on time and NATURALLY want to obey mommy and daddy (are you cracking up yet :))? You can see my point.
ONE last comment, for David B. You said: “Faith and logic are on completely different planes.” Well, I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I don’t believe God asks us to believe anything that doesn’t make sense. Faith is a very misunderstood word. It doesn’t mean “throw your mind away and ‘just believe’”. That’s about as opposite of faith as it can be. I would even submit that ALL faith should be ROOTED in logic! I know I’m really rattling some cages but I really do believe that.
As one tiny example: I BELIEVE Jesus can run my life better than I can. Why? Common sense. The Creator of the universe knows me a lot better than I know myself. He made ME for pete’s sake! It makes sense that He knows what He’s doing. So I have faith that He can run my life.
David you also said “And if it were so easy to “prove,” then wouldn’t everybody be a Christian by now?” No, because first of all, many people haven’t heard the evidence pointing the way to Christ. Second of all, many who HAVE heard it have chosen to reject it anyway. Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean everyone will do it. Truly accepting Christianity forces you to face things about yourself that most people don’t want to face.
And lastly, you said, “In many ways, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.” I thought that was a funny response! I have no comment other than it made me laugh (NOT derisively, just thought it was a funny play on my words).
whew lotsa typing, thats all for now!
Friend of God, a couple questions, if I may.
Firstly, you said:
So you don’t see any parallels in that analogy to the Hale-Bopp cultists? 'Near as I can tell, the only difference between the model of Christianity that College Student set up above and an “ascension cult” like the Heaven’s Gaters is that you know you’re right and they’re wrong. 'Course they thought the same thing, reversed.
Please don’t get the idea that I’m comparing Xtianity to Nike-wearing suicidists. That’s far from my intent. I simply think it was an unfortunate illustration.
Secondly, you mention that
By any chance, have you ever studied any of the history of the early Church? In the fifth century, during the formation of what would eventually become the catholic/Catholic Church, a priest named Pelagius preached (among other ideas) that mankind contained from birth a “divine spark,” endowed by God. He maintained that everyone is born with the ability to decide for themselves between right and wrong without need for intermediaries (such as a church structure), and that Christ was sent to guide mankind in those decisions, in addition to His blood atonement.
Pelagius was declared heretic and excommunicate, paving the way for the theologies of intercession/intermediation (exemplified strongly by the Roman Catholic Church) and salvation solely through Christ (exemplified by many Christian sects, especially the more conservative). Until the elimination of the Pelagian Heresy, many Christians did believe that humans could be good people. And that there could be good people who weren’t Christian. And that good people who weren’t Christian wouldn’t burn in Hell for eternity.
I don’t have much of a point, except that Pelagius makes for fun reading and very much demonstrates the bridge between “paganism” and modern Christianity.
(If I ever need a new user name, I think it’ll be “Pelagian.” Or maybe not.)
-andros-
ricksummon asked:
In the book of Hebrews the eleventh chapter it gives examples of people of the Old Testament who were sved. Verse 4 says …By faith he [Abel] was commended as a righteous man who God spoke well of his offerings. Verses 13 says “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised.”
In the book of Romans Paul writes that Abraham was known for his faith and it was counted towards his righteousness. Back in the Old Testament people were saved the same way we are today by faith and looking towards the cross.
The age of accountability is the key factor here. A person is “protected” for a period of time before they come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. If they die before this time, they will be taken to heaven. BUT if they can understand what it means to be saved and they reject him, they are damned to a devil’s hell for an eternity. BAPTISM IS NOT A KEY FACTOR IF ONE WILL BE SAVED!! Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the grace of God not of works lest any man should boast.”
Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Scriptures declare that at the day of judgement no one will have an excuse for accepting Christ. There are three witnesses here that declare of God:
Creation. Creation declares that there is a God. All of this could not come about by some accident. Let’s take a watch for example. You hit it with a hammer, breaking it all into. Then you put it into a bag and shake it up for millions of years and then it comes out a watch again. That is what is like saying that this world came about by accident. There are materials within the earth’s core that had to be cooled within a 1000th of a second to form the way that they did, thus proving it was an instantaneous event.
Conscicous. Our conscious declares that we are doing wrong and tells us that there is another way.
The Holy Spirit. God’s spirit is sent to convict us of our sins and bring us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
[Edited to fix about 18" of blank space that somehow crept in, as well as remove the appended full text of ricksummon’s post that I don’t think was supposed to be in there–Gaudere]
Hi andros, you brought up some interesting points.
Regarding CollegeStudent’s illustration, I have to plead ignorance because I’m not familiar with the particular teaching of the cults you mentioned. The reason I liked it was simply because it illustrated that God is pursuing us in love and wants a relationship with us. The whole rocket thing is just an illustration of Jesus like he said. If you would explain your objection more fully maybe I can comment more fully.
As for the 5th century guy you quoted, that sounds interesting. You said: “Until the elimination of the Pelagian Heresy, many Christians did believe that humans could be good people. And that there could be good people who weren’t Christian. And that good people who weren’t Christian wouldn’t burn in Hell for eternity.”
Well, here’s the deal. Just because the church or a church leader says something doesn’t make it true or biblical. Just because a Christian believes something doesn’t make it right! I’ve known new believers who understood their OWN sinfulness and need for God, but still didn’t grasp the concept that mankind as a whole was hopeless without God. But over time they learned it from the Bible.
So anyway, the fact that Christians believed this at one time just means one of two things: 1) there were a bunch of decieved Christians in this area in the 5th century, or 2) they were among the many people on the earth who believe they are Christians and are not.
Whether you believe the Bible or not, read Romans 3. Can you reach any other conclusion about the state of mankind according to the Bible after reading this? Remember that the Bible wasn’t widely available to all Christians in the 5th century like it is today. Maybe Church leaders weren’t teaching it like they should have at the time.
Interesting points.
I was under the impression that the deity worshipped by Jews, Christians (including Mormons and Catholics, you might note), and the Muslims was the same deity; it was just the details of the Story (big S) that were under dispute.
Let’s leave that aside for the moment and hit a couple of other points:
A. Religion, by definition, is Faith.
B. Faith, by definition, is not rooted in Proof.
C. Logic, by definition, is rooted in Proof.
Let’s do a logical exercise. Using the three premises (A through C above) given, prove that A=C.
Since A=B and B is not equal to C, then A does not equal C. Therefore, A is not equal to C, our exercise fails and Logic is not Religion.
That being said, there are a number of believers on this board (I’m one of them and I’m LDS) who understand that:
Hope you don’t think this was too strong a response.
Cheers!
Earlier, someone had said that Christianity was the only “logical” religion. I’m not going to pretend I know a lot about religion because the truth of the matter is I don’t. I do know, however, that before modern Christianity came around, and even afterwards, that most religions in the world were polytheistic. Christianity came up, and was almost forcibly pressed upon the people and told that it was the only good religion. I honestly don’t think that anybody has much of a right to say whether their religion is the most logical or not. It’s just not our right to say.
Monty - no problem at all w/ the response.
I find this thread interesting in illustrating how differently members of the same species can operate. Biologically, FriendofGod and I are operating with the same basic equipment, but each of us “knows” things the other is incapable of accepting/believing/perceiving.
To perhaps focus this discussion, I feel no one has answered one basic and perhaps childish question I have posed twice. Does the practicing Catholic believe the virtuous Hindi goes to heaven? ricksummon, interesting variations on this theme. Thanks. CollegeStudent, the quotations to bible verses you provided are only convincing if you accept them as infallible truth, and the work of God other than man. Would the believers like to weigh in on this. Further, could you suggest whether you believe your views are those commonly held by members of your faith? (Gee, big surprise that on this board even the folk I disagree with seem more reasonable than most I meet in daily life!)
Sidenote, Monty, I’m not sure all Christians and Muslims would agree they worship the same God. Does anyone else know?
I do have to disagree with the position that a believer “knows” his belief in the same way you can “know” things about the physical world. I’m not saying the belief is necessarily invalid, inferior, or anything else, but it is different and not entirely logical/reasonable. And then I wonder why, if someone believes in this one unprovable/supernatural theory, why not others?
I appreciate the opportunity this thread has provided me to put some of my thoughts/confusions/questions/concerns/prejudices “down on paper”.
Now get to work! It isn’t the weekend yet.
I tried to give Jesus control of my life today, but he kept steering my truck into oncoming traffic. What a jerk.
Anyway, premise: God is omnipotent. He (I use the pronoun “he” because God obviously has a penis) can do anything. Why then was a symbolic blood sacrifice (Jesus) necessary for the redemption of the human race? Could God not have just said, “Okay, you’re all redeemed, let’s go home”? Or, perchance, was a blood sacrifice the only way primitive goat-herders knew of attempting to commune with the Powers That Be?
See, religion follows a natural cultural progression as the culture becomes more advanced. In religion at its most primitive, there is a God for everything (thunder, rivers, the Pika-Pika plant, what have you). Ritual governs almost all aspects of behavior, because the gods are everywhere, in all aspects of your life, and they’re easily angered in a world where death is as close as the nearest leopard.
As people grow to understand their surroundings, live in cities, and so on, the multiple-god religions give way to monotheistic religions. Why this occurs is unclear, but it likely has something to do with the separation of man from nature. Living no longer requires a daily hunt, so one no longer offers the blood of his kill to his gods. The various gods aren’t as apparent in the Big City, so they’re gradually forgotten.
My guess is, when we’re touching the stars ourselves and colonizing other planets, we’ll realize how silly even the one deity is; there’s nothing particularly special about our one blue rock among the other billions and billions. So, we’ll leave God back on Earth, head for the second star to the right, and fly straight on till morning. And we won’t pause to glance in the rear-view mirror.
Let’s get back to the OT, shall we?
The #1 reason people end up in one religion or another is because that’s what their parents were. Everyone confronts questions about the faith, though, so they then ask questions, try to find answers, try to decide on a religion that best suits them. I consider myself a Christian, and while I would say that “I don’t believe it just because my parents did,” it would be dishonest of me to deny that they had an influence over my spiritual development. They even influenced my choice of denomination. Once out of high school, I tried a few other denominations and nondenominational churches, but, like most people, I came back to what I was most comfortable with.
People who question the religion of their fathers (so to speak), and do the whole spiritual awakening or realization thing, do one of 3 things: 1) Accept that religion for their own, 2) Reject that religion and all others, or 3) Embrace a different church or religion.
Well, being Christian, it’s only natural to accept God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as the supreme being. I was born in a Christian home, so it’s none too surprising that I chose that route for myself. I spent my childhood learning about Jesus. But the real questions didn’t start until college. I faced some personal trials during that time, which tested my faith. I decided that God proved Himself to me. During this period, many people reject God (or their perceptions of Him, anyway). I accepted God.
Is this really for us to be deciding? This point could be debated for centuries, and no conclusive evidence would produce itself. I know what I believe, based on the Bible, but a lot of people have a problem with the idea of Hell. I believe in Heaven and Hell and that people will go to both, but the only person who truly knows who is going to which is God. I’m not going to say you’re going to Hell (even I suspect you will), because God didn’t appoint me as judge and jury for this. The only thing I can do is to tell you about how I believe you can get to Heaven.
I enjoy the sense of community in my church, but the doctrines of the church is more important. I couldn’t attend a church that I felt was teaching false doctrine. I don’t agree with all 16 doctrines of my church, but I believe with 15 of them, so that’s probably as close as I’ll get. However, if the doctrine is sound, but the people themselves are just mean, snotty, judgmental, whatever, that would be a problem and I’d be looking for another church. Personally, I go to church for the teaching. The social aspect is a bonus. If I wasn’t interested in the teaching, I’d socialize elsewhere.
And I’m going to FASTidiously refrain from entering the religious debate I see going. The anger displayed on both sides is hurting the agendas.
Atheism is the only religion that makes sense. You don’t have to spend your life worrying about sinning, going to hell, or earning your way into heaven. You have no spiritual obligations to anyone or anything, and you still get the holidays off.
Friend of God:
Well, very briefly a very charismatic man told his followers the following: all one had to do to get to heaven was shed worldly concerns and live purely spiritually. Many failed to make it. So one day the agents of (for lack of a better term) God sent a comet to help those who were willing to travel with it spiritually to seek paradise. However this comet demanded a lot. It required leaving one’s old life. Some agreed and boarded, but others said that they would find another way or make it on their own.
Their means of leaving their old lives was to die.
And that’s my objection.
Re: Pelagian theology:
So do you accept the possibility that you are wrong?
While that theology is appealing to many, there remain many who do not agree. And they also learn their viewpoint from the Bible. What we’re left with, as always, is that you believe your interpretation to be the “correct” one.
With no offense meant, a theology based in abdication of personal responsibility and a belief that one has all the Answers is a very seductive one. I find it, personally, very insular–an internalized faith which (since one knows allt he Answers) ultimately destroys the intellect. While many Christians believe intellectualism to be a negative thing, I cannot help but believe that the human mind is the single greatest gift of our creator, and to close it is to reject that gift. Again, my opinion, your milage undoubtedly varies.
I find it interesting, from an historical perspective, that those who do not share your theology are either “deceived” or “not Christian.”
Have done, more than once. Yes, actually, I can reach several conclusions, not all of them complimentary to Paul, honestly. But more importantly:
Well, the “Bible” as we know it didn’t really exist at the time. It was still being assembled and took a long time to become dogma. For four hundred years after Christ’s death, there were good Christians living, serving God, and dying, without ever having an instruction manual beyond the teachings of the Christus Himself. Pretty heady stuff.
Until the Church rose as an entity rather than a community, it was assumed that Christ’s job was to teach and die. Paul was, obviously, of minor importance compared to the Angus Dei, the Lamb of God, dying and descending into Hell for the sins of mankind. Paul was a teacher, yes, a leader, a founder of the Church, a dedicated servant of the Lord, but not until the canon was established and used as the textbook were Paul’s writings regarded as part of How to Be a Christian.
Four hundred years of seeing Paul as man and teacher rather than lawgiver. Four hundred years of seeing Paul as a servant of God rather than an infallible conduit for God’s voice. Four hunderd years.
As I said, pretty heady stuff.
-andros-
Angus Dei? The holy Scot?
(Contemplates rude joke involving Angus Dei and Agnus Dei.)