Easy n Dirty

Any Really Smart Christians Out There?

Recommended Posts

az, are you disputing that a christian is essentially someone who takes on the belief that jesus died for their sins in order that they may be saved? muck has provided the essential definition and it is indeed accurate. you may choose to classify the books of the bible according to your tastes, that is certainly your right, deciding which ones you find more or less accurate and which ones put milk in your cocoa puffs, but central to the faith is what muck states.

 

well if muck limited his litany to this notion that a christian is someone who believes that "jesus died for the sins of the world", i could probably more or less agree. in one form or another, this powerful idea IS central to any notion of jesus as "christ". the only problem with that particular wording is it starts taking you down a path to the later allegorical theological doctrine where jesus is a blood sacrifice to god the father to expiate the blood sacrifice we owe him....and while this idea is religiously valuable as myth (i.e., as a way of contemplating the meaning of jesus' sacrifce, relating it to mosaic traditions, etc.), the literalistic way this idea has been taken over the centuries has actually taken the church down a lot of wrong paths, IMO. so i prefer a definition less pregnant with theological controversy. a christian is one who professes jesus is "christ". very simple.

 

if you want to follow jesus' teachings because you like the man but you can't bring yourself to believe that that husk did indeed transmorgify, causing that stone to move, providing our means for salvation, you are indeed missing the boat.

 

 

well see there you go, already adding authoritarian doctrinal crap to the equation. :D

 

i guess i just fail to see where the actual physical re-animation of a corpse is necessary to believe jesus was the messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well see there you go, already adding authoritarian doctrinal crap to the equation. :D

 

i guess i just fail to see where the actual physical re-animation of a corpse is necessary to believe jesus was the messiah.

 

 

i'm really just reading the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the dinner table conversation with God and Jesus regarding the Jews.

 

As postulated here, since they do not believe Jesus was "Christ", they should go to hell.

 

HOWEVER, they are God's "chosen people", so clearly they should not.

 

Hmm, I wonder if there are any slammed doors in Heaven over THIS one... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm really just reading the book.

 

 

yeah, reading it as if "the book" itself is the object of your faith, not what it describes. as if the book itself were the incarnation of the logos of god -- essentially putting the original writers, editors and compilers all on the same divine level as jesus himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, reading it as if "the book" itself is the object of your faith, not what it describes. as if the book itself were the incarnation of the logos of god -- essentially putting the original writers, editors and compilers all on the same divine level as jesus himself.

 

 

translators, don't forget the all-important translators. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Sklansky's point exactly - tonorator's follow-up point notwithstanding, because I don't get his argument either. Understood that we are all sinners and noone is perfect, but is perfection the standard for getting into heaven, or short of that some sort of acceptance of Jesus and belief in the resurrection?

 

I am a Christian, though not as devout of one as many in this thread, and I do believe in the resurrection, but to use the words of one blogger who commented on Sklansky's proposition, and who is far more eloquent than me:

 

"I will admit that I agree with David (Sklansky) that the belief that an omnibenevolent being would consign people to hell for not believing in Christ is pretty hard to rationally justify, given that the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived, and even the majority of humans who have lived since Christ, have never even heard of him. It would make no sense to create people, give them no opportunity to save themselves, and then punish them, especially if you buy into the whole free will thing. How can you have free will if you are never introduced to Christ and therefore have no possible fate other than damnation?"

 

Now THAT is some damn fine logic right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will admit that I agree with David (Sklansky) that the belief that an omnibenevolent being would consign people to hell for not believing in Christ is pretty hard to rationally justify, given that the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived, and even the majority of humans who have lived since Christ, have never even heard of him. It would make no sense to create people, give them no opportunity to save themselves, and then punish them, especially if you buy into the whole free will thing. How can you have free will if you are never introduced to Christ and therefore have no possible fate other than damnation?"

 

 

 

Now THAT is some damn fine logic right there.

 

 

 

What if a person chooses to flee from the presence of God (in essence casting themselves into hell)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a person chooses to flee from the presence of God (in essence casting themselves into hell)?

 

That isn't the point that is made. And isn't it Christ that is the "redeemer" here, not God? If that's the case, a Muslim / Hindu / Buddhist that spends his/her entire life doing nothing but good works is destined for the pit, no exceptions.

Edited by Ursa Majoris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the point that is made. And isn't it Christ that is the "redeemer" here, not God? If that's the case, a Muslim / Hindu / Buddhist that spends his/her entire life doing nothing but good works is destined for the pit, no exceptions.

 

 

Click the link on Karl Rahner. It is addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Az...

 

You have some great points, a few of which I agree with quite strongly, a few that I'm sorting through for myself, and a few others that I'm not sure I buy. I stand by my points, however I acknowledge that some of the words / phrases may not have been developed as thoroughly / accurately as they should have been. I agree with more of what you said above than you may think I do...

 

One thing I'm pretty sure you and I can agree on is that there will be people who enter heaven who will be a bit surprised they are there and there will be people in heaven who are surprised at some of the other people who are in heaven.

 

And for whomever it was that asked...regarding the "plan for salvation" for those who never heard the word "Jesus"...I believe some point to Romans 1:19-21 for some guidance... But, as noted by a few other posters, to ascribe human emotions and our screwed up sense of right, wrong, fair and unfair to God is a bit silly. So, I'm not really that sure how God will handle these situations (and for anyone else to say otherwise is probably a bit silly, too).

Edited by muck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can otherwise intelligent and rational people actually believe these fairly tales about heaven and he11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can otherwise intelligent and rational people actually believe these fairly tales about heaven and he11?

 

How can otherwise intelligent and rational people believe everything before our eyes, in our souls, and the myriad of occurances through out the universe are is merely the product of random chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can otherwise intelligent and rational people believe everything before our eyes, in our souls, and the myriad of occurances through out the universe are is merely the product of random chance?

 

 

Because of reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of reality?

 

 

Truth is not always packaged in a form that our senses can directly perceive.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is not always packaged in a form that our senses can directly perceive.

 

:D

 

 

My definition of truth is more scientific than philosophical.

 

I want you to know that I respect your ridiculous illogical point of view though. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of reality?

 

Faith in the existence of a higher power is no more or less absurd than faith in the absence of one.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith in the existence of a higher power is no more or less absurd than faith in the absence of one.

 

what about ... maybe , maybe not, no way to prove anyone religion is right or wrong.... or that there is not a valid religion, higher power....

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to try to convince or prove for anyone the existence of a God. But I will just say this for those who do not believe.

 

Proving something is often very difficult when you cannot simply provide factual scientific proof. 2 + 2 = 5. Drinking that 7th Lemoncello....not a good idea if you are going on national TV for an interview.

 

But some things are not as easy.

 

If someone were to ask you if you loved your spouse or your children...most of you would answer yes. But what if the question were......

 

Can you prove it?

 

There is nothing wrong with not believing, it is a personal choice. lt simply requires faith. You either have it or you do not. You should be comfortable either way.

 

Wow...

 

Sorry, I am usually do not tread into these waters here.

 

Either way...

 

Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. And of course....

 

Good luck

 

Hardrocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about ... maybe , maybe not, no way to prove anyone religion is right or wrong.... or that there is not a valid religion, higher power....

 

:D

 

I'm not arguing that any one faith is wrong, or right. Merely that faith, in and of itself, is not inherently moronic. At least, it isn't any more or less moronic (or intelligent) than the absence of faith. Each is equally unprovable, so neither side has any right to feel superior to the other.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that any one faith is wrong, or right. Merely that faith, in and of itself, is not inherently moronic. At least, it isn't any more or less moronic (or intelligent) than the absence of faith. Each is equally unprovable, so neither side has any right to feel superior to the other.

 

It's not moronic, but it is illogical. It should also be harmless. Unfortunately, we have boatloads of proof that in the hands of the weak-minded, it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not moronic, but it is illogical. It should also be harmless. Unfortunately, we have boatloads of proof that in the hands of the weak-minded, it isn't.

 

The fault is in the people, not the faith. I happen to believe that faith is one of the more nobler things to which a human being may aspire. And it's not a matter of logic. Real faith takes place in spite of the facts, not in ignorance of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not moronic, but it is illogical. It should also be harmless. Unfortunately, we have boatloads of proof that in the hands of the weak-minded, it isn't.

 

 

Abuse of power in the name of religion is much more likely to be a big indictment against the person than the particular faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that any one faith is wrong, or right. Merely that faith, in and of itself, is not inherently moronic. At least, it isn't any more or less moronic (or intelligent) than the absence of faith. Each is equally unprovable, so neither side has any right to feel superior to the other.

 

 

 

The fault is in the people, not the faith. I happen to believe that faith is one of the more nobler things to which a human being may aspire. And it's not a matter of logic. Real faith takes place in spite of the facts, not in ignorance of them.

 

 

 

this discussions goes deeper than just to have or have not...... we are talking about man condemning man for difference in practice. we are are talking about damnation of morally good people because they don't follow the teaching or specific beliefs of christ or the christ.... we are talking about a faux moral superiority. there is a lack acknowledgement that other pathes could be righteous

Edited by Bier Meister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not moronic, but it is illogical. It should also be harmless. Unfortunately, we have boatloads of proof that in the hands of the weak-minded, it isn't.

 

Which is more logical: (1) belief that there is a reason for all things, even those we can't currently explain; or (2) that there are some things that exist that somehow defy explanation?

 

Faith (regardless of its brand name) is merely an expression of belief in the former. The alternative would require us to accept the proposition that something can exist without a reason for its own existence, which results in a circular contradiction.

 

I think, perhaps, that the hang up with some folks is that the tenants of one faith or another strikes them as illogical, and I can understand that. But raw faith that there is an explanation for all things is not only logical, it is a recognition of a universal absolute: nothing can exist without a reason for how it got there.

 

ETA: and yes, I recognize that there are those who pervert and manipulate their own faith, or the faith of others, towards evil ends. But that's more an indictment on organized religion and certain unscrupulous religious leaders than it is on the core concept of a belief in a higher power.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more logical: (1) belief that there is a reason for all things, even those we can't currently explain; or (2) that there are some things that exist that somehow defy explanation?

 

 

What defies explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.