Theological Quandaries 101

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Vehemence:
<STRONG>Kayless, in one simple post, you've boosted my tolerance of the human race. Honestly, that is possibly the greatest response to my somewhat hostile post.</STRONG>

That’s just about the nicest compliment I’ve ever received, Vehemence.

Originally posted by Vehemence:
<STRONG>Isn't abortion a sin? If so, then how can a christian be in support of a sin?</STRONG>

The whole abortion issue stems from when you believe a person is a person. Some people feel an unborn baby isn’t alive until it reaches a certain stage of physical development. Others feel it’s alive the moment the egg is fertilized. Pro-life people feel that abortion is murdering infants. Pro-Choicers believe it’s not yet a person (or at least I hope they do). So that distinction is why some people with the same faith can disagree on this controversial issue.

Originally posted by Vehemence:
<STRONG>Hmmm... this last sentence just doesn't sit right with me. You wrote earlier about how faith adds to an individual's independence, however, ("And Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved") just seems to me like the big brother sitting on you saying "Just say I'm better than you and I'll get off you." In a way, it's promoting dependence upon a greater power in order to find meaning in ones life. I'm sorry, perhaps theres something I'm missing, but it just doesn't do anything for me.</STRONG>

It’s basically acknowledging that God has opened the door for you. The choice to walk through is still yours, it’s just admitting that the man upstairs is the one who’s letting you in his house(not because you’re a super perfect person who has ‘earned’ his way in but because he’s a nice guy who’s letting you crash at his place for eternity despite the fact that your a sinful creature).

Originally posted by Vehemence:
<STRONG>As to your previous comment about the drugging and drunkeness, I agree that this is not to be considered fun. To me anyway. But who is anyone to say that because a person does such a thing that they shall spend an eternity being tortured? Doesn't the bible speak of forgiveness? Or is this behaviour considered too far over the line?</STRONG>

Bad behavior doesn’t get you out of heaven it’s just something God doesn’t like. Let’s assume God is your buddy whom you’ve made plans with stay at his cabin for the summer. Now let’s say your pal doesn’t like smoking. He’s not going to kick you out of his cabin because you smoke, cause he’s your pal and fairly nice guy. But it is kind of rude to dis him when he’s doing you a favor and letting you stay at his place.

Originally posted by Vehemence:
<STRONG>Ok, that's it for now. I have to say, Kayless, that your calm response to my post is definitely a nice thing to see. Nice to know that Game Banshee has decent rational thinking people. Even if they do belive in God </STRONG>

I’ve always felt that we can better serve our purpose by maintaining a cool head and a rational outlook. Sometimes a kind whisper will get you farther then an angry yell.

[Anatres]

I'm not a Bible scholar. Nor am I a member of an organized religion. I have studied both as a matter of course just to try to understand my world a bit better. I've even done some lay preaching.

@Nightfire; after rereading your post at the top of page 4 I have to add that prayer in the schools and/or the display of religious artifacts therein only constitute the 'slippery slope' toward a state sponsored religion if it is mandated by the State. The argument against school prayer stems from the financial and legislative support of the American school system by the State. An argument, in my estimation, that is thin at best.

@EMINEM/loner72; I cannot disprove the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazereth. No more than you can prove it through empherical evidence. This is a matter of faith, a faith I do not choose to hold. I do not choose to hold this faith because I do not believe that God intervenes in the matters of Man. Therefore He would not send his Son to earth thrugh any manner of conception to save us (die for our sins) or to preach us into a certain belief structure.

Jesus of Nazareth was a phrophet. So was Mohammed, Budda and in some was Confucius. As I stated I am not a religious scholar so my only defense of this position is my faith.

As far as heaven and hell are concerned I take on that same faith that neither exist. Once again this is due to a lack of empherical proof that either/both exist. Is there a 'life after death'? I don't know. Is there an existance after this one? I don't know that either. Therefore, I will make the best of this life that I can. I am justified in holding that belief in that I try to live my life in the most civilized manner I can. And as I've said previously in this post, that behavour stems from a moral concept bred by the foundations of religion. I can live that way without accepting all the teachings of any religion. Does this make me a lost soul? Perhaps in your view, but not in mine.

EDIT: spelling corrections......


[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[scully1]

@Anatres -- My post on the Resurrection wasn't intended to be addressed to everyone in general, only as an answer to EMINEM's question of me. I didn't intend it to be a flat statement of what everyone should believe...my apologies if it came across as such...

I also never meant to imply that the Resurrection can be proven; in fact I think I said it cannot be proven one way or the other...and that if it was ever disproved (assuming that to be possible), Christianity would not cease to exist. We would just have to sit down and think about what is meant by "resurrection." As I see it, many things in our world defy proof, but we know they exist nonetheless. For example, we still don't fully understand the human brain and its functions, but we know it's there. (Well, sometimes, anyway )

Heaven and hell? Who knows? Really...I think that focusing on the "afterlife" can prevent us from making this life and this world a good one. And, in fact, I believe that is what the major religions, including those that teach an afterlife, intend: that their teachings be applied to make this world a good place. The teaching has become twisted a little, I think.

[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[Anatres]

@loner72, no appology needed (at least not to me). I think I understood you.

Unfortunately I see too much intolerence (especially for not believing in my relegious tenets ) in Western faiths. They may be trying to establish a set of standards to help make this a better existance for everyone but does intolerence really contribute to that end?

I'm more comfortable with 'do unto others' in and of itself without all the ritual surrounding it. Even though I know that that in and of itself does not insure that I will be treated well by my fellow man.

[scully1]

Anatres -- I know all too well where you are coming from on the intolerance issue. It saddens me to no end the awful things done by some people who claim to be followers of a way of love. It gives Christianity (or whatever other religion is at issue) a terrible name. For example, Bob Jones Unversity with its anti-Catholic polemic (I looked up their website out of curiosity and had nightmares for a week). People are always trying to convert my Jewish friend...I've been berated for my own religious beliefs...All this is not in accord with the truth. We are to love one another, end of story.

But then you have very devout religious folks like Oscar Romero and Dorothy Day, to portray an accurate example of their faith...too bad there aren't more like them...

[hermetic]

Wow lots of stuff to address. First let me apologize for my pretentious and leading question earlier in this thread, namely what the etymological roots of "Zeus" are. I was trying to shed some light on the whole identity of God issue. I don't think the God that is intended for school prayer in the US is necessarily the Judaeo-Christian God. The United States was founded by enlightened despots of a sort, intellectual soldiers who sought to form a nation free from the Old World prejudices. Thus, the continent was colonized by religious nuts who wanted their freedom. It just so happened that there were no Asians or free Muslims coming over, so "Allah" or "Buddha" wasn't included in the founding fathers' rhetoric. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons, and Masons quite explicitly claim that they do not believe in the same dogmatic divinity that Christians do, but rather the philosophical staple that is the Creator, a concept common to all the world's traditions. So back to Zeus...in ancient Greek the "z" is pronounced as a "zd", the dental "d" sound coming after the "z". cf. "Deus", the Latin form of "God". My point? The modern world is quick to label Zeus as a pagan deity, a relic of the past, when in reality the ancient Greeks were invoking the same divinity that is OUR God.

Enter Comparative Religion. This nice little academic pursuit was invented by the now quite villified Alistair Crowley, infamous theologian and "sorcerer" of a century past. The man spent a great chunk of his life adventuring in the exotic east, absorbing all sorts of great information on the customs and dogma of the regions. The similarities to Western thought and mysticism were so startling that he spawned a whole movement which is in fact the single most devastating argument against any religion in the world: comparative religion.

@loner72: tackling a PhD in Biblical Studies and you actually believe in the Ressurection? The doctoral material in such a weighty subject ought to be entirely devoted to proving such things as the Ressurection, and what better a place to start than in the primary sources. Do you discount the claims in the Koran and esoteric Jewish texts that Jesus was in fact an Essene who faked his death and fled to Massada where he aided his fellows for years to come in their struggle? Don't worry, I'm not one of those kooks who believes that Joseph of Arimatheia (sp?) travelled to the French riviera to establish the line of his brother Jesus safe from the perils of Romanized Judaea. Heh

However, using Comparative Religion I can deduce that Jesus's "teachings" were eerily similar to the teachings of the Essenes and other mystery religions such as the Hellenistic Bacchic and Eleusinian cults. How about the apocryphal writings? Do stories of the little boy Jesus turning clay into a living pidgeon to impress his friends, and zapping schoolyard bullies with lightning bolts irk you at all? hehe I like that story

Well if you're a good Christian, these stories ought not bother you, but they do lend credence to every agnostic or seeker's argument. After all, the truth of the matter is far more discouraging. Jesus only became the literal Son of God after the fact, after the supposed martyrdom, and only to those gentile Greek paedophiles. Up to that point, he was nothing more than the direct descendant of the Levites, the line of David, whom the power players at the time feared and thus quickly vanquished. I'm talking about all those badass rabbis who ran the show in the first century, not the occupying Romans with their imposing Scythian mercenaries. He was Son of God in name only, as was David before him. And the esotericists of the era, including Jesus himself the most successful esotericist of all time (since he's been the most influential historical figure ever), much like the esotericists of today, were not fooled.

Ack! I guess this has degenerated into a rant against Christ when really i never meant it to be so. I think I was trying to throw in as much food for thought as I could and I hope you guys can dig it. For the record, I'm not an atheist because I find atheism as dogmatic as most other religions. I'm not an agnostic because that implies ignorance and apathy. I continuously search for God, or rather for a solid relationship with my Holy Guardian Angel. Right now my research is leading me to believe that God is a certain seemingly useless gland in the back of our brains, with Whom we can communicate via LSD-25.

Anyhoo, call me a gnostic, an occultist, a mason, whatever, but answer me this! Who is more worthy of entrance into Heaven? The sycophant who does not question the Creator's existence, or the genius who hopes to emulate him?

[Anatres]

@Hermetic; <sound of applause>, great dissertation! I too believe that the search is far more rewarding than the capture.

Do you ever read Newsweek? Two weeks ago their cover story was about how our minds are 'preprogrammed' for divinity, or at least the concept of divinity. Interesting article.

[EMINEM]

No one deserves to go to heaven. That is why Jesus Christ was sent to earth in the first place.

RE: Intolerance. I hear this much of this word, usually by politicians who understand its slanderous power. The people who call others intolerant do so because they do not conform to the beliefs they themselves hold, proving themselves to be what they detract.

Anyway, being a evangelical Christian, I've pretty much heard all the criticisms.

"Don't force your views on me!"
"Who gives you the right to call me a pagan?"
"How can you hold onto those beliefs?"
"Why are you trying to convert me? I'm Jewish!" (Or Muslim/ Buddhist/ Agnostic/ Atheist/New Ager).


I sometimes ask myself this, too. Why do I strive to persuade others to become Christians?

It comes down to obedience and followship. Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was to make disciples. His last command to his disciples was to "go into all the world and make disciples," irrespective of race, culture, or religion.

If I had the cure for cancer, it would be wrong and selfish for me to keep it to myself. I would be obligated to share it with those in need, right?

In the same way, I believe that every human being has spiritual cancer (a malignant tumor called sin), and that the only cure for it is faith in Christ. I am obligated , therefore, to share my faith. Jesus did so when he was here. He commanded me to do so as well.

Skeptics and doubters full of sound and fury can rail all they want, but that's pretty much all they will do and can do, while Christians continue to convert non-Christians one by one by one, not with philosophy, truncated principles and fine-sounding arguments, but with their courage, faith and lives.


Do you have more credibility than Christ?

Should I believe in Jesus Christ... or you?

Should I believe in the Bible, or the books that you have read?

What can you promise me after I die? Are any better than the ones promised by Christ?

If I follow your teachings, will I be happier and more secure in the truth than I am now with Christ?

I don't know about anyone else out there, but if anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth, then I would prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth.

[Anatres]

@EMINEM; I can only speak for myself but it has never been my intent in this thread or any other to try to sway anyone from their core beliefs.

My only question to you is 'when do you reserve judgement' on those that do not believe your way or won't accept your views? How do you see those of us that choose to quest for knowledge in many and diverse readings rather than accept one world view as right/wrong? (OK, more than one question). Do you consider yourself somehow better or more enlightened than me? (Since I don't share your world view).

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by Anatres:
[QB My only question to you is 'when do you reserve judgement' on those that do not believe your way or won't accept your views? How do you see those of us that choose to quest for knowledge in many and diverse readings rather than accept one world view as right/wrong? (OK, more than one question). Do you consider yourself somehow better or more enlightened than me? (Since I don't share your world view).[/QB]

Thanks for the response, Antares. I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.

Before I became a Christian, I was practising Buddhism, reading the Koran, browsing through the Upanishads and worshipped at the temple of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. My quest for the truth was sincere but personally frustrating because no matter how much I read and understood, I could not find what I was looking for, and that was, a pure heart.

Are Christ's teachings new? Original? Superior to that of the other philosophers I mentioned? Perhaps, perhaps not. The important difference is this: through a personal relationship with Christ, I was able to break the circle of intellectual futility, moral degradation and powerlessness.

I am no better than you. No better than anybody. I think I am just more convinced of the truth that is in Christ. Does that give me the right to judge them? Of course not. Judgement is reserved for Christ alone. You can take it up with him when you stand before him. His words on this subject are clear. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one cames to the Father except by me."

This claim excludes all other religious leaders and philosophers. You can keep searching and searching for the truth, go on quest after quest, but unless these journeys lead you to Christ, it would have all been for precisely nothing. You will go to hell with a mind full of intersting ideas... but you will still go to hell. These aren't my words. I'm just paraphrasing Christ.

[scully1]

@hermetic -- the Resurrection needn't be proven. Primarily, I think, because it is not possible to prove, one way or another. The Resurrection is a matter of faith. I don't study the Bible in hopes of proving or disproving anything, but because it is the book of my faith, and it fascinates me. Aside from all written accounts, including the canonical New Testament, there are other reasons of my own to believe in the Resurrection, one of which being that God, as all-powerful Creator and master of life, can do whatever He dang well pleases, including raise someone from the dead. God created life from nothing in the first place...and I realize that that, too, is a matter of faith...There are plenty of scholars who believe in the Resurrection; I don't see a conflict of interest...It would be like a Jewish scholar of the Torah believing what it says. So what?...

I know of the texts to which you refer -- but logically, should they be given more credence as evidence simply because they are controversial? The theory that Jesus was an Essene is a popular one; however, while there are obvious similarities between Jesus' own teaching and the teachings of the Qumran community (as we know them from the Dead Sea scrolls), there are also vast differences. There are so many ancient records that contradict one another, it almost comes down to what one would LIKE to believe, and choosing to call that the real truth. There is no proven answer for any of this...that is why debate continues to rage on the issue, and probably will for a very long time indeed.

[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[Nightfire]

Somewhat late reply, but my online time is rather restricted by monetary concerns. Bloody German Telekom.

@Anatres: I assure you, the "no atheists in foxholes" quip is wrong, some might even call it slander if the speaker is serious, which I, being bad at reading people, can never tell.

... after rereading your post at the top of page 4 I have to add that prayer in the schools and/or the display of religious artifacts therein only constitute the 'slippery slope' toward a state sponsored religion if it is mandated by the State.

I'm not sure I get your point, I must admit. It does if the State requires these actions, or grants special treatment and resources to one belief over another.

The argument against school prayer stems from the financial and legislative support of the American school system by the State.

It stems from the the objections of people (both theists and atheists).

Maybe both of us should clarify what we mean with "school prayer". What I object to is any form of mandatory religious activity or proselytizing to a capture audience, be it teacher- or student-led. The rights of individuals to pray (or not) is a competely different matter ... as long as they do privately and of their own will, and without interrupting class. From your other posts in this thread, I gathered that you're in agreement there, so maybe we're arguing over nothing?

Or maybe my brain's just gone to sleep already and I should follow.

[Nightfire]

@Kayless RE: Pascal's Wager ...

Pascal's Wager is indeed from a Christen perspective. So many of it's 'flaws' are not flaws from a christen standpoint.

See, that's the problem. If a Christian tries using PW or similar "arguments" in order to convert an outsider, he or she cannot expect that the other person will take Christian axioms for granted. Quite to the contrary: the would-be evangelist must "think outside the box" and first demonstrate ... without invoking those axioms (to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning) ... why his/her religion should be given any special consideration over all the others.

If a believer cannot do that, then I think any kind of meaningful conversation just isn't possible because he'll basically be speaking one language while the other person is speaking a different one.

Pascal is basically saying that religion is spiritual insurance.

I know -- I understand the Wager just fine, I just flat-out disagree with it. Your opinion may differ, but I wouldn't buy a fire insurance from someone who's pointing a flamethrower at my head.

Most converts join a church for some ulterior motive anyway.

That's not a plus in my book.

What you're basically saying is having insurance is bad because it's possible you might be swindle by insurance fraud or the company might not be legit. So you'd rather not have any insurance at all.

Not quite. First, as I said, I do not take kindly to extortion (and no matter how much people try to whitewash it, that's what "believe or burn" is). And second, I wouldn't buy the "Hellfire insurance" just as I wouldn't buy an insurance against Alien infestation (you know, the acid-for-blood kind from those fabulous movies with the even more fabulous Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley).

Just because someone has thought up an outrageous idea of what could happen doesn't mean you have any serious reason to act accordingly. For example, I don't suppose you're chasing rainbows just in case some leprechaun's buried a pot of gold at the end, right?

God didn't write Pascal's Wager, Pascal did.

Of course. Remember, I do not believe in the deity called "God" (or any other), so I cannot make that claim. However, Pascal based the Wager on the tenets of his religion; it's not like he invented the concept of Hell. Therefore, if that deity was real, yes, "bad" would be one of the milder terms I'd use to describe it.

Pascal's Wager is one of the most inoffensive debates for religion that I have come across.

Not from an outside point of view, or at least my POV. Again, let me repeat my mantra that if you want to talk to (or especially convert) an outsider, you must put your opinions and taken-for-granted concepts of faith aside long enough to listen to and understand the other's position, or you'll simply talking at, not to, each other.

Yikes. Is this long or what?

[hermetic]

@loner72: I really had no reason to attack your comments since it had nothing to do with what I was thinking. I just find it hard not to go after someone who presents his academic authority as his introduction. It was rude of me and I apologize. As regards the resurrection, on the other hand, let me give you the real poop and not the conspiracy theory. According to science, there was no resurrection. No ontology in the world can argue with science.

@EMINEM: Hey man, I'm sorry for you too but for different reasons. I understand that you've been flamed many times in the past, etc. and that you can take it, but dear God, you are worthy of nothing more than a big fat old fashioned flame: You are a clown.

Aw there I go again offending people. Well, we are discussing religion, the most heinous ****-disturbing topic of all time. Heh I guess that's all for tonight folks...ciao!

[scully1]

@hermetic -- I had a reason for introducing myself as a scholar, since that post was addressed to one person specifically. It's much the same as talking to a mechanic and saying "I'm a mechanic too."

Re science, many would argue that the Creator made eveything which science attempts to explain. That's all I'll dignify that comment with.

You are becoming extremely insulting. We've been doing very well here so far, respecting opposing beliefs and arguing our points in a logical, intelligent fashion. It's been understood and followed in here that there is no flaming, and I think everyone has stuck to that guideline. If you can't, please leave. Don't be the reason this thread shuts down.

[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[hermetic]

Doh! There I go again, forgetting something!
Heh

@Anatres: Hey man I appreciate the applause but looking back on what I wrote I think I was being a pompous a$$, much like I was in the last post. I also had some spots of faulty reasoning, but yeah some of it was pure gold. Hehe As regards your question I haven't read that article but I'm going to the Doc's soon so I'll look out for it if they actually keep up to date. It sounds rather enlightening.

[Anatres]

@Nightfire; the foxhole quote was to demonstrate that everyone finds faith when times are stressful. We are not arguing about prayer in school but mandatory school prayer. And I don't believe that anyone needs my, or the State's, permission to pray.
@hermetic; be as pompous as you like, others are, just don't be intentionally insulting.

@EMENIN; regardless of your background you are now leaving no room for desenting views. I'm of the material world, I have flesh etc., but that does not make me morally corrupt, as your comment about thinking everyone has moral cancer
implied. Your belief fits you just right because you want it to. Fine, you are entitled to that view but your attitude, and the way you express those views, does imply judgement. This is the main reason I reject those views. Truth? Jesus of Nazereth as the 'end-all-be-all' of truth? Or that your truth is the only truth? Not in my world. And I also reject your final epitath on my life 'when I stand in judgement before Him' because I stand in judgement every day in front of the harshest judge of all, myself.

[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[ 05-17-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[Weasel]

@Anatres ...Well said.

[scully1]

Glad you brought this up, guys...

I would indeed be unfair if I neglected to inform EMINEM that telling people on here they will land in Hell is not kosher (no pun intended) either.

*sigh* I can see this deteriorating...I had a feeling I'd regret starting this post...ah well, we made it through four pages, anyway...it's been real...

[Anatres]

@loner72; I'm sorry if I have contributed to what you see as a deterioration of this thread.

I will refrain from engaging in fruitless debate in the future.

But you have to admit that dessenting views is what makes threads like this so entertaining.....