Eljay wrote:
"Actually - the bible says no such thing. Jesus' sacrifice was for
the sins of the world - not just Adam and Eve's. The concept of
"original sin" is not a Christian tennent, but one of Catholicism. No
one is born with sin - only a sin nature. For it was through Adam that
sin came into the world. But sin is not something you inherit - it is
something done through commision - or omission. Therefore, an infant -
who is incapable of sinning - is not barred from heaven. It is the soul
who sins who will die, and there is only one unforgivable sin -
blaspheming the Holy Ghost. As to "people who don't know Jesus" - who
might that be?"

I believe you're splitting hairs here. The Bible is clear that it is
through Adam and Eve's sin that we have a sinful nature — and _that_ is
the concept of original sin. Catholicism may have labeled it, but the
idea is very much a part of Christianity. Adam and Eve's trangression
lost Paradise for all of humanity and the consequences are indeed
inherited. God later made a covenant with the Jewish people — his
"chosen people" — and Jesus forged a new covenant with all humanity.

Regarding the infant concept: Again, you are picking apart my post to be
contrary. If you read my post again, you will see that I'm actually
claiming that Christianity is not as literal as some people sometimes
make it and that I don't truly agree that the Bible says infants won't
go to Heaven. My point was that interpretation must come into play, for
several reasons, and then I laid out a picture of Christianity based on
key scriptural passages (some which many Christians use to justify the
opposing view) and an interpretation that takes a broad look at
different aspects of redemption.

'As to "people who don't know Jesus" - who might that be?' Again, you
seem to have latched on to such a minor detail, and are being a bit
belligerent in your tone, to make a non-issue into a focal point. I
didn't think this was especially important, but there are a lot of
people who never hear of Jesus. Even with the widespread communication
we enjoy, there are closed socieities, like North Korea, where it is
unlikely that many are familiar with Jesus or the Bible. And certainly
there are a lot of people worldwide who have heard of Jesus in the same
way that I've heard of Shiva — they are aware he's a religious figure in
Christianity, but really know very little about him.

In any case, I don't believe there's much reason to debate these issues.
I'm only clarifying my statements. It seems that you and I are on the
same side of the coin — Christianity is inclusive and open if
interpreted correctly.

I apologize that I cannot cite any sources in this post — I'm running
quite late for work.

Lonely: You started out fine, talking about your personal views, but
then began a diatribe about how women who have abortions are the worst
sort of murderers. You had to have expected a reaction from someone.
In this case it was Sorority, who clearly has strong feelings on the
issue. You told her to "be happy" after she made her point _and_ after
she clarified her point, as if to say, "shut up already." She continues
to defend her position — not once that I noticed calling you names or
making personal attacks against you. She did point out (rather
forcefully) that a man cannot know what it's like to be vulnerable in
the ways women are. And when she accurately described the fetus as
parasitic, you tell her to get out of your thread, call _her_ a
parasite, and tell her how sick she makes you. Just what was your point
in starting this thread, entitled "Call me a fanatic in this one," if
not to start a debate and create some controversy? It seems that you
wanted someone at whom to yell, someone you could loathe and despise for
having taken the bait.

Now, having said that...

Sorority: Although I agree with parts of what you've said, I disagree on
some of your points. We agree on the outcome (the right for a woman to
choose to have an abortion), but not on all the ways of reaching it. In
particular, you claim that dependence upon the woman's body is
legitimate justification for abortion. However, what about conjoined
twins in adulthood? Suppose one twin has all his vital organs and the
other is lacking and requires his brother's body to survive? Can the
"whole" twin ethically decide to terminate his brother's life through
separation merely because he's technically a parasite? While there may
even be some legal grounds for doing so, it would certainly be a
dispicable thing to do. On the other hand, it's not always so clear-cut
as that. Suppose that the brothers, as they reach adulthood, are
putting way too much stress on the single heart they share. It could
function normally for one brother (the one with all the vital organs)
for the next 40 to 50 years, but shared will give out in 5 to 10 years.
This is an ethical dilemma, certainly, with a much larger "gray zone."
My point is that merely calling the fetus a parasite isn't sufficient
justification and attempts to make the situation less complex than it
is.

Consciousness and self-awareness are much better indicators, as the lack
of development means that it has not reached its potential and is
therefore not yet what one day it might become. In other words, the
fetus has not reached person-hood. Self-awareness, or development of
the ego, does not happen typically until about the age of two years.
That, however, cannot be the cutoff, because in some infants it may
happen as early as 18 months (maybe even earlier). But limiting it to
pregnancy and, preferably, before the third trimester (i.e., before the
nervous system is "on line" to avoid inadvertently causing even the
slightest pain) is the most ethical time to terminate pregnancy. The
reason I mention pain is not to spark debate over whether pain
constitutes person-hood, but just to point out that it's always better
to avoid causing _anything_ pain. I won't kick a dog, I don't use
"sticky" mouse traps, and I wouldn't want a fetus — despite having no
personal identity — to experience pain of any kind.

Ordinarily, I'd be in favor of "states' rights." In this case, however,
I see it as a different issue. Belief that the moment of conception is
the moment of "life" has no weight except through religious faith. A
mass of undeveloped cells isn't a person until true consciousness and
self-awareness develops — that is our only empirical evidence for
genuine personal identity, though an argument could be made for life
starting shortly after birth (because certain life functions begin at
that time). But, we must have cautious guidelines so that we never
accidently take a self-aware life — so pregnancy is a pretty clear-cut
"safe zone." Any state, or the federal government, banning a woman from
having an abortion on such grounds is tantamount to legislating religion
or faith — which IS against our Constitution. Many religions believe
strongly that a zygote is endowed with a soul and that is the beginning
of a life. Otherwise, it does not have any of the characteristics of
life at the early stages. Religious people should be (and are) free to
bring their children to term if they see fit, but should realize that
their beliefs in the areas of faith and religion cannot be
state-mandated.

When a woman has made a decision to bring the fetus to term, she enters
into a contract of sorts with the fetus (or, more specifically, the
future child). By making that decision, she is ethically bound to do
everything reasonable in her power to have a healthy child. She cannot
smoke. She cannot drink. She must have routine fetal monitoring by a
medical professional. If someone deliberately or negligently causes
harm or the destruction of this fetus, there should be a legal
consequence. I don't think that it should be called "murder" or
"manslaughter" because that really wouldn't be consistent. However, the
person in question will have taken something very personal to and valued
by the woman from her and has done irreparable harm (as the fetus in
question is unique and can never truly be replaced), and there should be
a significant penalty for having done so.

There is only one other point on which I disagree, Sorority: that men
have no say in this issue because they are unable to become pregnant or
give birth. I do agree that perspective is important and that it should
be weighted accordingly, but this is an issue that affects all of
society, not just women. If we were to discover that a two-month-old
fetus were self-aware, that would shift the issue from "women's rights"
to "human rights." Here's a different example: Suppose for a moment
that we are at war (I know it's difficult to envision, but bear with me)
and that I'm physically ineligible for combat duty. Does that mean that
I don't have the right to voice my opinion about the treatment of the
troops or whether they have adequate body armor, or regarding the
validity or effectiveness of the war effort? Of course not. I am
entitled to those opinions, even if I would never be in the troops'
position — it affects us all on some level. It is not that men do not
have the right to an opinion on the issue of abortion, but to have
significant weight it must be an opinion backed by a solid argument.
When in strict religious circles, the argument is solid to everone
hearing it by virtue that everyone agrees on the premise that life
begins at conception. Outside those circles, however, the argument
lacks the power it held because the premise is subjective on religious
grounds and is contested by many.

I think this is a very good, and very important question that
"invisible" asks. The Biblical depiction of Jesus is very warm,
good-humored, and embracing of sinners — bringing them into himself.
The only people Jesus really seems to reject are those who place
themselves first — selfish, narcissistic people or the self-righteous
who believe they have a right to pass judgement upon the morality of
others. Overall, this openness is the depiction of Jesus that gives
warmth to Christianity.

The other side is sin and the moral theology that is written around
Jesus. The Bible tells that Jesus' sacrifice paid the debt of original
sin that we each inherited, freeing humanity from the clutches of Hell.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me." (From John 14) This passage can be read in such a
way as to exclude all who never know of Jesus or never accept him as
their Lord and Savior. So, infants cannot go to Heaven. If you are
trying to take a somewhat literal approach here, there is no qualifier
to grant any form of dispensation for infants, people who are mentally
retarded, or anyone ignorant of Jesus.

The problem, as I see it, is in interpretation. First, you can't take a
truly literal reading here. If that were the case, going through Jesus
would be a physical journy passing through his torso (or worse, through
his digestive tract). Why could he not be saying that being Christlike
is "the Way" — that through emulation of him, even unwittingly, one may
reach the Father? So, on what are we really basing the notion that
belief in Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
(From John 3) Taken literally, those who believe in Jesus will not die.
But, it does not say that no others will achieve everlasting life.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (From Romans
3) The full passage is rather long, and it seems to clearly state (in
some translations moreso than others) that faith in Jesus, not works, is
required to receive his gift of salvation. However, the passage is
really an affirmation of something else. It assures Gentiles that they
need not adhere to the works of Jewish Law to be included, for God is
the God — not only of the Jews — but also of the Gentiles.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law. ... Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of
the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. ... Do we then make void the
law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (From Romans
3)

The meaning is less about faith than it is about the inclusion of the
Gentiles. It is a message of hope and reassurance, not about fear of
eternal damnation. It is a new convenant, superseding the archaic laws
and expanding the "chosen people" to include all peoples.

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble." (From James 2) This passage clearly states that
faith is good, but works are better. Here it does not speak of Jewish
Law, but rather basic conduct. It says, I will show you my faith by my
works. There is Biblical basis for claiming that works show a deeper,
truer faith than mere outward belief.

I think a large part of why Christianity places such importance on the
faith aspect is because of a remnant from the Reformation, when the
Protestants split from the Church because of corruption, in particular
the selling of plenary indulgences. Clearly "selling tickets" to Heaven
was a horrible transgression that should never have happened, and Martin
Luther was right to speak out against it. The backlash, however, was
the concept that no action truly mattered — that faith alone was the
only way to achieve salvation. It was an understandable stance,
particularly if one wanted to keep such corruption from tainting the
faith again.

Some denominations of Christianity are much less accepting than others,
too. Calvinism, is truly a "closed" faith — it's members believing that
all actions, even belief in Jesus, is by God's hand alone and that no
one can change their wants or actions unless God deems it so. They
believe that free will does not exist (at least not anymore) and that
humnaity is too depraved to ever willfully turn to God. Surprisingly,
Catholicism (a denomination that has oft been criticized for it's rigid
theology) is rather open in many respects in regard to accepting people
of other faiths, etc. (though this certainly wasn't the case not even 50
years ago). Episcopals are more accepting than Catholics, typically.
Many denominations are very accepting, within and without the church
walls. Not all believe that non-believers will be denied Heaven and
experience the eternal horrors of Hell.

ArtGurl wrote:

"The love then is unconditional but the relationships aren't always. It
isn't that the love stops but more that I need to set parameters around
the places I am willing to go. The amount of me that I can invest
without losing myself."

I think that rings very true. To be willing to take unconditional
action, even on behalf of a single person whom one unconditionally
loves, would result in a significant loss of self. That's not always
bad, of course — caring for a child requires unconditional love from the
parents _and_ unconditional action that flows from that love. Parents
cannot help but be forever changed and "lose" much of themselves in
their children. If one were to have that sort of unconditional
relationship with everyone, however, it would quickly become
overwhelming. We must have limits and boundaries to preserve personal
identity while continuing to be loving, helpful individuals.

I reread my post and noticed one thing that may be ambiguous depending
how it's read:

"... that does not mean I must place myself in harm's way to love
someone who is self-destructive."

I do not mean that loving someone puts me in harm's way, but that the
act of loving someone does not _require_ that I put myself in harm's
way. I apologize for not being clearer when I wrote that.

To me, the question is pretty straight forward: unconditional love vs.
an unconditional relationship are very much different concepts.

This is how I think of it: Given the same biochemical / genetic makeup
and identical antecedent environments, I would be identical to anyone
here. Nature and nurture would both be identical. We would be,
essentially, the same person. So, how can I have anything but
unconditional love for everyone, knowing that in their exact situation I
would behave identically?

BUT, even though I empathize with the plight of others and have great
sympathy for all whose lives are spiraling out of control, that does not
mean I must place myself in harm's way to love someone who is
self-destructive. Sometimes genetics or conditioning simply cannot be
overcome, or the toll it would take to break them would be an
overwhelming undertaking.

So, while I may love everyone unconditionally by virtue that we are all
conceptually different aspects of a single entity, that love does not
entail my own self-destruction by surrounding myself with entirely
damaged and unhealthy people.

It's similar to how I love animals and have no malice toward any beast.
But, I wouldn't put myself at great risk to reach into a lion's mouth to
remove poisoned meat. A lion's nature is demonstrably dangerous to my
well-being and there are limits to the risks I will take to save the
lion — despite how much I may wish I could (reasonably) safely help.
Likewise, in the case of human interaction, I won't allow myself to be
in a position where I am likely to be taken advantage of or harmed
(physically or emotionally) if the person in question has proven
him-/herself to be untrustworthy in those ways.

People tend to have different ideas about what constitutes a
"Christian." Many would say that anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity
and follows his teachings are Christian. Fundamentalist Christians take
that concept a little further, claiming that to be a true Christian you
must turn your life over to Jesus. Catholic scholars claim that one of
the defining elements of Christianity is not merely the belief in and
following of Christ, but the belief in the Holy Spirit as well. (To be
honest, I never really understood why the latter is required of
"Christ"ians — perhaps it's the concept that redemption through Jesus
requires or involves the Spirit, but I'm sort of guessing. We covered
that in one of my theology courses, but it was a long time ago and I
don't recall that it was fully explained at the time. However, it was
clear that it was considered a requirement of Christianity, not just
Catholicism.)

In very general terms, if someone calls himself or herself a Christian,
then s/he is a Christian. Some people claim that Catholics, for
example, are not Christian because they interpret scripture differently
and have a different doctrine, but it seems a little odd for one person
who follows the teachings of Jesus to claim that someone else is
following Jesus incorrectly and therefore is not a Christian.
Christians typically all believe in Jesus' divinity, the Holy Spirit,
the death of Jesus as salvation for humanity, and the resurrection.
While some of the details may differ, the overall concept is pretty much
the same.

A friend used to tell people she wasn't religious — even though she was
strictly a fundamentalist Christian — which I thought was somewhat
misleading. She was drawing a distinction that almost nobody else draws
— between faith and religion. She insisted that Catholicism is a
religion because of its rigid structure and formal nature, but
Christianity is faith. She attended a Baptist church, was part of a
congregation, and held strongly to a belief system. Christianity is a
religion, which entails faith. Her distiction wasn't especially
apparent to people unless she went into great detail.

I am not religious, not Christian, not spiritual. I'm an atheist in
most regards (regarding cognizant deities or the existence of an
afterlife) and agnostic when it comes to the existence of any
non-physical reality separate from physical universes. Some people
would still say I'm spiritual, if they define spirituality as a deep
connection between mind and body and reflecting upon inward and outward
states. I think that's different from spirituality, though the end
result (a deeper appreciation for self, for one's environment, and for
other people) may be the same or very similar. I think of it as two
roads that arrive at the same location — they aren't the same path, but
get you to where you want to go either way.

In any case, if you consider yourself Christian, then as far as I'm
concerned that's what you are. If you consider yourself religious, I
take your word for it. If you say that you're a spiritual person, I
believe you. As long as you don't make very subtle distinctions, I
think most people will know what you mean when you describe yourself.

Following are my views on the subject, for what it's worth.

First, homosexual tendencies are not chosen. Aside from the medical
evidence that there are chemical differences and distinct brain patterns
between homosexuals and heterosexuals, if you are heterosexual consider
whether you could actually _choose_ to be gay. And by "choose to be
gay" I don't mean merely to force yourself to have sex with someone of
your own gender; could you actually enjoy and desire it? If your answer
is "yes," you may have just learned something about your true nature.
For anyone who's genuinely heterosexual, there is no choice in enjoying
the physical pleasures of the opposite gender. Why should that be any
different than for someone who's homosexual? A lot of gay men and women
don't feel comfortable in their sexuality because family, friends,
society, etc. have told them over and over that homosexual behavior is
unacceptable. Many supress their sexual desires for years and undergo
great emotional stress as they fight to keep such desires buried. Think
back to when you were in school; were there not a few people (guys who
got along just a little too well with the girls and had a bit too much
exhuberance, or girls who were called "tomboys" and liked to roughhouse
with the boys) who you realize now to have been gay? Certainly they
weren't actively choosing a homosexual lifestyle between the ages of 8
and 12.

Second, whose right is it to shun someone else, to belittle others and
make disparaging remarks about them? The people who tend to be most
vehemently opposed to homosexual behavior are fundamentalist Christians.
Jesus himself never said homosexuals weren't going to Heaven, and he
preferred the company of "sinners" over that of the so-called righteous.
Further, fundamentalists believe that by faith alone are people saved
and that actions play no role — that through grace alone are people who
believe saved. The homosexual who cannot endure the loneliness of life
without a companion with whom s/he can be fully intimate could as easily
be Christian as anyone else. It's strange how people will tell you that
good works can't "earn" anyone a place in Heaven because "all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that "Jesus is the way,
the truth, and the life and nobody can go to the Father but through him"
— but those same people often claim that certain sins will earn you a
place in eternal Hell. If everyone falls short due to sin, it seems
that the grace of God can touch everyone equally. And did not Jesus
tell the people "he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"
According to the Bible, none but God is without sin — so casting the
stone (judgement) is God's right and God's alone.

It bothers me especially when churches / religions, which have the power
to do so much good in feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, and to
help guide people into deeper spiritual growth, often shun those they
consider to be sinners. First, it's outright hypocrisy (since everyone
is a sinner), and second, it goes against what most faiths claim to be
central — loving God and loving one's neighbor. Does anyone really
believe that God will look more favorably upon someone who disowns a gay
son, or who rejects a lesbian from a particular church, or who makes a
point to tell everyone of a particular group that they are going to
Hell? People who espouse such notions are people with whom I do not
wish to associate. Find people who are warm and welcoming, even if they
disagree with some personal lifestyles — those are the people who are
most Christ-like and the ones who are truly living their faith.

Um, hmm...

Spider: I've heard nothing from you that provides a stronger reason to
be Christian than to be Hindu or Muslim or any other major religion.
You claim to be guiding people onto the right path so that their souls
may be saved, but that's what people from every major religion do. Your
evidence is the Bible as the infallible Word of God. The justification
for believing that the Bible is without error is that the Bible tells
you it (the Word) is without error — a circular argument. There is no
evidence, only conjecture. Your argument for Christianity isn't so
different from a devout Muslim championing for Islam, or many other
world religions that have a devout base of followers and have what they
consider to be a sacred book of scripture.

Frankly, I don't care if anyone believes or not. It's not any of my
business. I respect your right to be a devout Christian. I'm not sure
your motives are as pure as you claim, considering how hostile your tone
tends to be in virtually every message you post. However, what truly
troubles me is your intolerance of everyone else's view. It's okay that
you express yourself and tell everyone else they are wrong, but if
anyone defends his or her view you go far beyond merely try to point
out the errors as you see them.

Instead, you resort to name-calling (e.g., "sick man with a twisted
heart") and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of merely wanting to
argue. You can proselytize all you like, but I fail to see how you are
"forced to debate" with anyone. You could easily make separate threads
for explaining your point of view and merely express a difference of
opinion in the other threads while encouraging those who want to discuss
to check out your other threads or to contact you directly for open
discourse.

You want others to admit they are wrong, but have you conceded anything
in this forum? Other than your assertion that the Bible is inerrant,
what sets you apart from anyone else who holds his or her religious
views near and dear? Even if everyone else is wrong, does that give you
the right to belittle people who see things from a different
perspective? AdventureBegins wrote a post worth consideration,
wondering if God — infinitely beyond the comprehension of our limited
understanding — may find our futile attempts to define "God" to be a
comical spectacle. Even if Jesus is God, our understanding of what that
means isn't the totality of God. I think that's all AB was pondering,
yet he gets attacked for his remark.

I originally came to the Religion Chat forum to freely and respectfully
discuss different perspectives and ideas about religion, but every
thread is hijacked by a few who don't want to discuss or introduce new
ideas. It becomes the Christians vs. the heathens in every thread. I
have yet to see a genuine, in-depth discussion of non-Christian or
non-traditional beliefs that hasn't included the Christian "we're right
and you're wrong, and if you don't convert then you're going to hell"
sentiment.

In previous posts, you've claimed that there is a growing process to
being a Christian and that deeper understanding comes with time. Who is
any of us to tell someone else what to believe, especially if virtually
all Christians lack a comprehensive understanding of the tenets they
purport to believe? I may be wrong in what I believe, but by your own
admission you are somewhat lacking as well.

If the Biblical Jesus were here, posting to this forum, do you think he
would avoid discussion of differing views and just flatly say "you're
wrong?" Or would he embrace everyone who approaches and has an open
heart? Do you not think he would persuade by example, rather than
through a verbal assault? (Okay, he'd probably perform a couple of
miracles along the way, but I'm not expecting anyone here to manage that
particular Christ-like behavior.)

I, like everyone else, cannot prove my religious views, nor can I
provide evidence of any tangible sort. I have an argument that makes
the most sense to me — but that's a perspective. Everyone here has a
slightly different perspective (by the very virtue that we're all
different people). That is likewise why there are several Christian
denominations, as the interpretation of the Word (or Spirit, as the case
may be) of one person doesn't always make sense to everyone else.
Catholics, for example, analyze scripture on three distinct levels that,
when viewed together, they think paints the most complete picture.
Others believe in the most literal interpretation possible, but even
then it requires a certain level of perspective, a deep knowledge of the
original language, and an understanding that the oldest available
transcripts were modified versions of the very earliest original
writings which are lost to history.

I'm not engaging in a religous battle here. I'm not claiming your views
are false or that mine are valid. What I'm doing is pointing out that
not everyone holds your views, and they have as much right as you have
to express their values and beliefs. You are free to disagree, but why
attack? Most Christians would agree that the infinity of God is clearly
beyond the finite limitations of our minds. AB was pointing this out in
a humorous way (e.g., "... God might be laughing at our feeble...").
Please, continue to express your ideas — I think we all encourage
everyone (Christians, too) to contribute to the conversation, without
calling you a murderer or a baby-eater. However, if it's going to
become little more than a shouting match you consider to be fruitless
(i.e., "... you guys refuse to ever admit wrong"), if discussing your
faith is something you feel "forced" to do, and if you get no pleasure
from proselytizing and spreading the Word of your Lord, Jesus Christ,
then why bother? Why feel the need to tell everyone they are wrong and
that you have cornered the truth? A lot of people here would enjoy
discussion, not just the preaching of a single viewpoint.

Can we at least make a small effort to get along and accept that we have
different views, even while expressing some disagreement? I think we
all can. I have faith.

Redykeulous wrote:
"But this topic started out discussing the infamous Tower of Babel."

Good point. I latched onto a minor comment and ran with it. My
apologies for hijacking the thread and diverting from the original
question. Please, carry on.

Spider wrote:
"Those who seek, find. Simon Greenleaf was an athiest who read the Bible
in an attempt to disprove it, he was saved."

My response:
Do you not see the contradiction?: If only those who are saved can
understand the Bible and correctly interpret its meaning, then an
atheist whose goal it was to disprove the Bible could never understand
it well enough to become a convert and be saved. (Further, you should
be careful about this sort of argument. It's uses an argumentative
fallacy that can easily be flipped, and some opponents will present
examples of devout Christians who became atheists. It's not proof, nor
evidence, of anything either way. I'm not trying to be hostile, but
genuinely trying to help you to make strong arguments in the future.)

--

Spider wrote:
"You can't read the
Bible like you are reading a text book or a novel, you have to read it
with your mind open to truth."

My response:
In you statement about Simon Greenleaf, you said he did exactly the
opposite — he did not have an open mind and, in fact, claims to have
been strongly opposed to scripture. It would seem, based on that
testimony, that keeping one's mind open to the truth isn't a
requirement.

--

Spider wrote:
"If you open the Bible and think "I'll try
to believe this, but if God doesn't like x sin, then I'm out", because
why would God reveal the truth to you if you love sin? God wants you to
accept that you are not good enough. That you are not wise enough.
That you will never be good enough or wise enough, so that you finally
break down and give yourself to him."

My response:
First, you seem to make a huge assumption (and I could take offense, but
I don't) that I "love sin" and that's why God has yet to reveal the
truth to me. In reality, except for not following the God-specific
Christian teachings (like reaching the Father through the Son — which,
as an atheist, lacks meaning for me anyway), there is very little in my
behavior that would set me apart from most devoted Christians. However,
that aside, isn't Christianity's objective to help those who sin see the
error of their ways and bring them into the fold? Why would God
withhold the truth that would allow the sinful to see the path to
righteousness and salvation? It's circular logic to consider one who is
not a follower of Jesus (i.e., not saved) and does not consider his/her
actions to be sinful in such terms, to be unworthy to receive the truth
and the Holy Spirit, recognize their errors and sinful ways, and be
saved. Who is in greater need of salvation than the wretched sinner?

--

Spider wrote:
"The truth is, there are parts of the Bible that are too hard for some
believers. As your spirit grows in strength, you can tackle more
difficult concepts and scriptures. Becoming a christian is a
never-ending process. Nobody can just sit down and understand the
meaning of all scriptures on the day they are saved. I doubt many are
spiritual enough to understand the whole Bible by the time they die.
It's a growing and learning process."

My response:
If there are parts of scripture that a Christian cannot understand
presently, but may think s/he understands, or has some confusion about
which parts are clearer than others, etc., how can s/he know if anything
s/he reads is correctly interpreted? I don't typically get an "I don't
know" from my Christian friends when we discuss such things — they
clearly believe they understand the passages — so how are they (or we)
to know if their interpretations are correct? In a forum such as this,
how do we know if your interpretation is correct, or any other
Christian's interpretation is correct, by mere virtue of following the
Christian teachings and having been saved? You may be reading the
spirit, rather than the word, but what if you haven't reached the level
of spirituality you claim is necessary to speak authoritatively on a
particular passage? How can people seeking truth trust that any
particular Christian has the understanding and wisdom to lead them down
the path of righteousness rather than down the road to perdition?

--

Clearly, I'm not a Christian — though some of my best friends are and we
often have in-depth discussions about religion (always good-naturedly
and always respectful). I wasn't reared without faith, but early in
adulthood I found myself unable to believe in that faith any longer. It
wasn't a decision, but a realization that the things I was taught as a
child and fought to hold onto as a young man had eroded to the point
that I no longer owned those beliefs. To say that I rejected God or
turned my back on Christianity would be overly simplistic, and would
marginalize the ordeal and pain I experienced when I came to my
realization. And to say that I haven't sought the truth or to suggest
that it's my love for sin that keeps me from knowing God, the spirit,
and the truth is to say that you know me and the path I've traveled —
which isn't the case. I genuinely sought out the religions of the
world, Christianity included, trying to find something to fill the void
that seemed to appear so suddenly. But over time, that feeling of loss
was replaced by a certain peace and serenity, an acceptance that I
hadn't really known before. (I suppose it was sort of like the feeling
you have as a kid when you first take the training wheels off the
bicycle — you start out feeling horribly frightened and unsteady and you
fall a few times, but after awhile you feel like you can do more
disencumbered by the training wheels.) As an atheist, I haven't
suddenly started stealing, killing, or kicking puppies. I am pretty
much the same person I was before and, if anything, I focus even more on
trying to help people and do as little harm as possible. My issue with
Christianity, then, is that I haven't been "closed off" to it or
belligerent regarding the potential for truth, yet its tenets state that
I'm bound for Hell because I do not (nay, cannot) believe. That is why
I consider Christianity something of a contradiction — a message of love
and forgiveness followed by a message of damnation for all who never
find that path.

AdventureBegins:

Has it been your experience that many preachers/priests/ministers still
deliver their sermons from the pulpit? It's been my experience that
most realize that it elevates them to an untouchable level, creating a
rift between "us and them." The ones I've known who prefer to stay at
the pulpit are generally the ones who are very nervous / self-conscious
or who need to have extensive notes to keep their thoughts
well-organized. My observation has been mostly of Catholic priests, who
spend a lot of time in the seminary learning to deliver effective
homilies and to speak well while building rapport with the congregation.
I've had a little experience in fundamentalist Christian churches, but
only recall once when I became quite agitated by the demeanor of the
minister — a man who clearly (by his words and gestures) saw himself as
so much closer to God than anyone else in attendance. But I figure that
was an exception rather than the rule.

So, I'm just wondering if your overall experience has been considerably
different from mine.

Spider wrote:
"Because you interpret the words and Christians interpret the spirit.
That is why you two and anyone else who isn't saved are not qualified to
interpret scriptures. You must have received the Holy Spirit to
understand those things which are of the spirit."
--

I don't care too much about the story of Babylon; it doesn't make that
much difference to me. But Spider's statement that Christians (i.e.,
the "saved") are the only ones qualified to accurately interpret
scripture seems a bit odd. That suggests that _all_ Christians are able
(by the grace of God, or whatever) to correctly interpret the Bible.
I'm not so sure. If we took 100 Christians (i.e., the saved) who are
NOT biblical scholars and do not have formal biblical training and had
each one individually provide an interpretation of 20 passages that the
rest of us (i.e., hell-bound sinners) find tremendously confusing and
contentious, will we have 100 versions of each of the 20 passages that
are perfectly consistent? (I don't mean exact wording — just so long as
they each provide a detailed explanation that doesn't differ in core
meaning from the other 100 Christians.) According to Spider, all who
receive the perfection of the Holy Spirit will have full understanding
of scripture and be fully qualified to interpret it.

I have sometimes received contradictory answers from my Christian
friends about various aspects of the Bible that I determined _ I _
wasn't qualified to interpret and so enlisted their help in my
understanding. Does this mean that the _spirit_ of the text is somehow
subjective? Or does it mean that some of the people who place their
complete trust in Jesus and believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are
actually _not_ saved, despite having fully devoted their life to the
Word? Or if it's an issue of me being so devoid of the Holy Spirit that
not only can I not interpret the text, but those who _can_ interpret the
text cannot present it in a way that I can even understand, then how can
a heathen as godless as I am ever encounter the spirit and thereby
become saved? According to Spider, the spirit is revealed only to those
who are already saved, since none of the rest of us is capable of
interpreting the "things which are of the spirit" and, apparently,
cannot even gain a satisfactory understanding when Christians present
their superior understanding to us. What hope have any of us who are
not already initiated into the exclusive club of the saved?

I'm, of course, being somewhat facetious here. But I'm trying to make a
point — that most Christians know the details of their faith from the
guide by which they live their lives, i.e. the Bible. If those of us
who read the Bible looking for answers — but are not yet saved — cannot
interpret the Bible and cannot get our answers from those who _have_
been saved, it appears that we can never become saved. In addition,
those who follow the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the Bible but
who differ in peripheral theological beliefs (e.g. Catholics,
Episcopalians, Eastern Orthodox members, etc.) must be lacking the
spiritual gift of interpretation as well. It seems that none but a
select few can ever attain salvation. If Christianity is supposed to be
about love and forgiveness and inclusion (think of the new convenant
that involved spreading the Word to the Gentiles), isn't the notion of
exclusivity in interpretation contradictory? Were many Paul's letters,
for example, not written for those who were not already saved?
Certainly he wasn't setting up his audience for failure, was he?

> resserts it is refreshing to see someone who studies the word and beleives what it says and not what your preacher says.

First, thank you for your very kind words, Miles. I truly appreciate
it. I should mention, however, that I'm an atheist — and it's been a
long while since I've studied the Bible.

That said, however, I think most religions tend to be born of the
goodness in humanity. It is only a few misguided or opportunistic
people who twist that goodness into something perverted and evil. I
consider it to be, by far, the exception rather than the rule that
people are disingenuous in their faith.

One of my best friends is a fundamentalist Christian, and he and I have
discussions at length about the existence of God, the nature of ethical
behavior, etc. Not once have we accused each other of stupidity,
dishonesty, or ill will in our debates. It is that sense of respectful
give-and-take that I'd like to see in these discussions on JSH, but
standing in judgment and accusing one another accomplishes little more
than creating an atmosphere where people feel at odds with one another,
rather than celebrating our different perspectives and learning from one
another — even when we strongly disagree with the opposing views. At
the very least, we can gain an appreciation of each other's beliefs.

I rather enjoy reading Abracadabra's entries in these topics, because
his view is sort of a marriage between atheism and theism. While I
don't believe the universe to be sentient, I appreciate his concept
greatly.

I understand what you mean, Redykeulous, when you say that you sometimes
find it frustrating to not understand the logic of people with a
different world view. I often share that frustration, but I think it's
because we want to be sure we see a situation from all sides. When we
are lacking that perspective, we feel unsettlingly disconnected from the
people with whom we are speaking.

Although I think it's unlikely that there is a sentient God who created
the universe, let's consider the following: If a limitless, perfect God
were to exist, would such a God not create a universe that is a perfect
system? I'm not talking about a system in which everything, including
people, are perfect in every way, but a system (i.e. science) that is
perfect in overall function and form. In physics and mathematics, there
is an effort among some to show that the universe is a closed system
with no singularity (i.e., starting point), but even if this theory is
shown to be true it doesn't discount the possibility of a perfect,
limitless God creating a perfect system that has no beginning and no end
as we think of it. (An alternate view is Abracadabra's in which the
perfect, limitless God _is_ the universe, which fits this scenario
also.) The other side is if the singularity is proven, but that doesn't
necessarily prove that the external cause were God; it could be an event
from another universe or dimension that triggered the singularity (for
example). So, I just don't see the debate ever having an end — I cannot
imagine how anyone will ever, beyond doubt, prove or disprove the
existence of a creator God.

My point, which I realize I'm taking my sweet time in getting to, is
that I can never be certain that there isn't something I'm "missing" —
and a theist can never have such certainty either. We each may have the
feeling of certainty, but that feeling can never be more than mere
illusion. I consider using the concept of God to explain the universe
is the needless multiplication of entities, but Occam's razor doesn't
rule out the _possibility_ that there's a more elaborate explanation
than what seems irreducible. It's really a guideline of sorts and, of
course, we cannot know with certainty that we ever have all the
information necessary to derive a valid conclusion.

So, I think we can all acknowledge each other's views as being sincere
and still express our own views in a respectful way. I don't have to
agree with an opposing view (and I don't expect everyone to agree with
my views), but I think we can make our points without resorting to
name-calling, passing judgment, or making hurtful accusations.

And in the interest of admitting to my own mistakes, I should not have
made the comment about "self-righteous a-holes." That was a cheap shot
that did nothing to enhance my point. I was speaking of those I
consider to be perverters of the faith they purport to uphold, but that
was no excuse to resort to name-calling.

I know I've covered a lot of ground here; I apologize for the length and
scope of this post. To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, I have made this post
so long because I hadn't the time to make it shorter. (In other words,
I'm exhausted and heading for bed.)

What's a 'virus' ? I have a Mac, and I've never heard that word before.


(Actually, to all Mac users, don't get too lax — security isn't just
about plugging holes, it also is about wise computing and being vigilent
that _you_ don't open yourself up to any security risks.)

I fully respect the right of anyone to believe in whatever metaphysical
manifestation makes sense to them, but I find it odd when people do not
extend that same respect to others. By its very nature, faith lacks
evidence. One can say it's a spiritual revelation, epiphany, etc., but
those are all personal experiences in which no one else can share
directly. Such "evidence" for one person cannot be transferred to
another.

So, while most Christians — including many fundamentalists — fully
respect other people, we have a handful of Christians who not only
believe that only through Jesus Christ can one attain the splendors of
Heaven, but also that they are justified in chastising — nay, judging —
others for their beliefs. The goal they have is not to proclaim the
glory of Jesus and save the souls of those who have yet to see the
light, but to exalt themselves and look down upon the sinners around
them.

For the Christian, the Bible provides a guide by which to live — not by
which to judge others. It is a source for personal guidance, not a
means for anyone to force their beliefs onto others. "Judge not, lest
ye be judged ... why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's
eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" For those who
think they have removed the log from their eye, "all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God." That's the present tense — all fall
short right now, whether a believer or not. The Bible clearly indicates
that no one but God, not even someone who's bound for Heaven, can stand
in judgement of another in spiritual matters.

Further, such public proclamations of personal righteousness by such
religious elitists is against the spirit of personal worship outlined in
the Bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and
when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and
thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

For those who praise themselves for their faith and rebuke the myriad
others who don't follow said faith, they are making a public spectacle
of themselves and as such, "they have their reward." Still think Heaven
is in their future?

Such "you're going to Hell" people are, thankfully, few and far between.
Most religious people embrace the tenets of love and peace their faith
emotes. But consider for a moment those who are quick to pass judgment
upon others — suppose they are right and only they will have earned
(through their superior faith) the reward of Heaven. Is that the place
you'd want to spend eternity anyway? with _those_ people? That, to me,
is the very worst kind of Hell I can imagine.

On a side note, the concept of a Hell ablaze has its roots in medieval
religious marketing — the Church taking it upon itself to scare the
pagans into believing the Christian doctrine. It was wildly successful
and convinced most people to toe the line (and those who refused were
generally tortured and/or killed). Dante's "Inferno" was a
magnification of the Church's propaganda. Prior to that, the concept
was generally that all souls were in waiting in Sheol until the end of
the world when Judgment Day arrived. It was then that the faithful were
to be rewarded with eternal Heaven. The others, not worthy of Heaven,
were either to remain in Sheol or be blinked out of existence (there
seems to be some question about exactly which was to happen). The
Biblical justification people use for the torturous nature of Hell is
based not on the word "torture" (a Biblical misnomer) but on the word
"torment," which is clearly not the same thing. The idea was that the
separation from God was cause for great distress, but not that there
were eternal flames or the wailing and nashing of teeth as demons eat
you entrails, etc. (Torture and torment are often used interchangeably
in contemporary usage, but in it's Biblical context have distinct
connotations.)

So, faced with the option of spending my eternity in the company of
self-righteous a-holes or spending it feeling the absence of God's
presence, I would gladly choose the latter.

Putting aside my opposition to the Iraqi war, this is my take on Prime
Minister Tony Blair: After the first day or so of invading Iraq, Tony
Blair and George Bush each held a press conference. Bush appeared
well-rested, invigorated, and even happy. Blair looked haggard, tired,
and truly stressed. Guess which one cared more about the welfare of his
people? I fully believe that Tony Blair considered Iraq (i.e., Saddam
Hussein) to be a very real, present danger, but it was also clear that
he struggled with the gravity of having sent troops to war, to have put
anyone's life in danger in the hope of securing his nation and
protecting his people. Bush, on the other hand, was having fun. He's
said it since then quite plainly: "I'm the Decider!" He makes decisions
without considering consequences, and never questions those decisions no
matter how failed they happen to be.

So, what's my impressin of Tony Blair? I think he's a lot more sincere
than George W. Bush and I have a lot more respect for Blair for that
very reason. I realize that's setting the bar pretty low, of course, so
to clarify — I still believe the decision to go into Iraq was horribly
misguided, but I truly think that Tonly Blair believed the threat to be
real and took his role as Prime Minister very seriously. In my book,
that's worth a lot.

"It's not a lie if you believe it's true."
-- George Costanza, Seinfeld

Everyone lies. It's not always consciously, but we all do it. We're
especially adpet at lying to ourselves. I can't point to any specific
time recently when I lied, but I'm sure I have — it's human nature, and
often so subtle we never realize we're even doing it.

I'm joining lulu, phoenix, lark, and shadow in the ranks of Leo. I
don't place any value on that label, however.