Right. And where, exactly, has dotchan said, “people who do X go to Y”? What values has he assigned to X in this thread?
Because that’s as arbitrary and meaningless as saying “we don’t know what God’s going to judge.” We totally know what God’s going to judge. He judges you on how you’ve lived your life, whether you’ve been a good person, whether you’ve acted true to your spirit, whether you’ve taken the time to understand another’s words before shouting “you fuck” at him.
I think dotchan’s “I win, you lose” philosophy is absurd, but even he/she acknowledged that how you live your life is what’s important. But where I completely disagree with dotchan is the idea that God is vindictive and arbitrary enough to divide His creation into the winning team and the losing team. Your attempts to simplify it even more than that don’t do anyone a bit of good.
Now that this has gone in a complete circle, I’m going to bow out. Convince yourself of whatever you want to happen after you die, it’s no skin off my nose if you keep the obnoxiousness out of it. I guess you can’t, but oh well.
Dick.
I can’t say for sure but I’m willing to bet that there is an asshole in there already. 
I read this quote from dotchan as meaning that how you live your life does *not * matter. Perhaps I misread it.
“Works (good behavior, religion, proselytising, acting like an obnoxious prick) is not a qualification for being on the Winning Team. That’s the Bad News.”
That’s how I read it too. I grew up among, and still live among a bunch of Calvinists, and that’s their philosophy also. Belief is all that matters, works do not matter because good works can be done by nonbelievers, it’s all been decided by God ahead of time anyway.
On the other hand, he also said:
Which indicates that he doesn’t believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved. Basically, dotchan hasn’t said anything about what’s required to be on the winning team, he’s merely expressed the belief that there is a winning team and a losing team, and that he is in no position to determine who is on which team.
Doesn’t sound terribly judgemental to me.
I don’t think he’s being judgemental. If I am interpreting the rest of his statement correctly–
- “…and I’ll be very surprised to see who makes it in come that last day. (Conversely, there might also be a lot of self-proclaimed Christians who will be shocked to discover that all along, they never knew Jesus!)”*
—he is assuming that he is one of the chosen. And that should certainly qualify him as arrogant, given what he has said about the way to heaven.
I guess. But really, how many people out there are convinced that they, personally, are going to go to Hell? Most people tend to think that they’re good people, and if they are religious, that they are acting in accordance with what their god(s) want. You could argue that the idea is arrogant in the abstract, but it seems to be such a universal “failing” that it’s kind of pointless to complain about it on a personal level.
Well, he’s certainly got every right to his opinion. But to me it smacks of the usual assertion of the christian that “there’s a right way and a wrong way, and the right way is christianity”.
I interpreted this to mean other christian faiths. Though I admit I could have gotten this wrong.
In my area, enlightened ecumenicism means being willing to eat with or pray with other faiths that are considered mainstream Protestant. A lot of people I know still won’t knowingly pray with or share a meal with a catholic. And certainly not a jew. Given that background, I’d be very unhappy to be considered a christian by the majority of folks in my neighborhood.
Again, perhaps I’m misreading this completely, just because it sounds like what I hear around here. If so, apologies. But after reading this thread thru, I really am even more sure that I don’t want to be considered a christian by christians.
You’re right, it could be interpreted that way, and it didn’t even occur to me to do so. Guess we need dotchan to come back and clear things up for us.
It would have been so much clearer if all the Christians said He told us to love all of you, whether you are Christians or not. It pretty much describes the nature of the relationship between non Christians, and Christians, and doesn’t exclude anyone.
Come to think of it, we could actually love everyone, instead of just talking about it. That would be even better.
Tris
I have nothing to add to the discussion, except to note that the OP reminded me of a scene from a Holocaust movie I saw a long time ago, possibly Escape from Sobibor. It went something like this:
*The slimy (natch) Nazi officer sidled up to the cowering inmate, and said:
“You know, Levi, I don’t actually know your name. Tell me… what is your Christian name?”
The inmate reached into the pile of blankets he was carrying, whipped out a shiv and stabbed the German in the gut.
“I don’t have a Christian name,” he growled, “Just a Jewish one.”*
I’m pretty sure He did tell us to love all of you, whether Christian or not. I’ve repeated the Commandment about loving your neighbor as yourself often enough. I think the parable of the Good Samaritan is pretty well know, but what leads up to it and what follows it gets left out some times. Here’s the beginning:
Jesus answers by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan. To summarize, a man travelling to Jericho was beaten, robbed, and left to die by the side of the road while . When a priest saw him, the priest not only didn’t help him, he crossed to the other side of the road. The same with a Levite. A Samaritan saw him and, instead of crossing to the other side of the road, did basic first aid, bandaged him up, took him to an inn and paid for him to stay there until he recovered. Now, keep in mind that priests and Levites were ultra-respectable pillars of the community types, the epitome of Jewish faith at the time. Samaritans, on the other hand were blasphemous pond scum who had rejected Judaism and, by extension, the God of Abraham and Isaac. A good Jew wouldn’t speak to a Samaritan, let alone have dinner with him.
At the end of the parable, Jesus asks this:
(The full story can be found here, thanks to Bible Gateway.)
It seems to me Jesus was being pretty clear about what “neighbors” are and how we are to treat those who share our beliefs.
On the other hand, if you believe rwjefferson, I’m a Pharisee, an oppressor, a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, and someone who wants the government to ram Christianity down everyone’s throats. :rolleyes: (Link) I’m still trying to work out an appropriate response suitable for GD. The problem is, I’m not sure where exactly to begin, other than saying the person he describes is nothing at all like me.
CJ
I’m rather ignorant of Christian doctrine and dogma… but I’m struck by the passage you posted Siege. (in a good way.)
The guy who responded to Jesus was quoting the Shema: " And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."
And what would, essentially, later become Hillel’s famous reply to a question about Torah. A non-Jew (Goy, if I was planning on being a lil’ offensive) came up to Hillel and told him that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could explain the entire Torah while standing on one food. Hillel responded:What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.-
Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
I can’t help but wonder what other similarities there are between our two traditions.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Damnit, on one foot.
Yeeeesh.
Although, if one had to stand on one food, I suppose that pizza would be a good choice. It’s got a nice ammount of surface area on which to stand, and unlike a watermellon, it’s much harder to fall off of 
That’s all right, I’ve just realized I left out a very important word. What I meant to write was this:
It is too blamed early and I am too blamed weak! I’m going back to bed!
Before I do though, let me say that I suspect there are a great many similarities between our traditions. After all, Jesus was Jewish and familiar with the Torah and, I suspect the Haddith (If I’m using the term wrong, please accept my apologies. As I said, it’s early and I’m not at my best.). He’s described as a “Rabbi” by His own disciples.
I’ve also come across the story about Hillel (Rabbi Hillel?) and I like his response. Actually, he’s one person whose teachingings I’d like to learn more about. He strikes me as being both wise and sensible.
As for what food I’d stand on, I’ll take a pita bread – the tomato sauce and the cheese on the pizza could get messy! :eek:
CJ
The Hadith, I believe, is a collection of the conversations between Mohamed and his companions.
Perhaps you were refering to the Tanakh and Talmud?
However, it is more likely that Joshua Ben Joseph (sorry, it makes me feel weird to refer to him as Jesus Christ all that much) would have been familiar with some of the oral law, but not the Talmud as we know it today, as it was codified in the fifth century.
As for Rabbi Hillel, my favorite quote of his is:
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”"
I was. Thank you for the correction. As I said, it’s early.
I came across your favorite quote while I was Googling to see if Hillel lived before or after Joshua Ben Joseph (I don’t blame you for not being comfortable calling Him “The Anointed”) and I agree with it whole-heartedly. I just wish I’d come across the first part of it, “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?” when I was in high school. It might have saved me a lot of grief.
Good night, my friend,
CJ