That is not at all what I am saying, I think it is impossible for us to understand God completely, not that you can't have a personal relationship with God. In fact, I think all of us have a personal relationship with God, and that is where our little quality control meter comes from. Didn't Jesus go into the temple and toss the tax man't money onto the ground? Isn't that stealing? DD
Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags..." The filthy rags are literally women's period rags. That's your offering? A true Christian should have some works; the book of James tells us that. But the works come after we become a Christian. And any good work we do, we do for Him and because of Him. And how many good things must you do to be considered worthy? What if you are 1 short? Are you going to burn for that? How many bad things would you do to be considered unworthy? What if you are one over? Are you going to burn for that? Would some works be worth more than others? Would good works cancel bad works? What about motive? Do you think it's fair to have rules like this but no rulebook? Don't you think that arrogance is thinking that you don't need God's help or provision that you and your ways are the right way? He did everything He could to save us and made it so simple - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your only salvation. Why would you reject Him? Edit: It sound's like your judging God's work based on some bad "Christians" (who, based on your description, may or may not be). But, please don't judge His work based on that.
Me? Yes. This is what I believe. But I also believe that there is time. Also, "Believe in Jesus Christ" isn't right. That's like "Do you believe in Santa." I believe that Christ, God's Son, died for me.
While I am not an adherent of the "faith" over "works" theology, the rationale is that by your "faith" and acceptance of Jesus, there will be a concomitant change in your behavior, and the "works" will follow. For me, all religions, if their tenets are followed appropriately, provide a behavior structure for living a good life. Their deity's may differ, but at their root, the goal is the same: Live your life right, and by so doing, do right by others. Therein is your reward. Regardless of your belief system or religion, just live your life right and whatever reckoning that may or may not exist when you "shuffle the mortal coil" will sort itself out. Either way, your days here, and those you encounter, will be better for it.
Your belief, not mine. So, what of the person, who is not a Christian, who does good works because he/she wants to ease another person's suffering? Wants to make the life of coming generations better? These works are worthless? These works mean nothing to God? I don't think there's anything arrogant about someone basing the worth of their works on the results of those works. Give food to a starving person, that person will have a full belly. Simple enough. And I'm not suggesting some system of tabulation. Surely God would know a person's motives, right? I'm not judging people who live mediocre and inconsequential lives, many of us do and many of us will, but in your worldview, is this mediocre person, or worse, an evil person, going to enjoy an eternal reward simply for professing faith, while a person whose every action is aimed towards easing the suffering of others' will be cast down in flames simply because they don't profess faith? It sounds like a system of tabulation is already there - just a vastly simplified one. I think different people have different reasons for having beliefs and ideals that are not Christian. This brings up an interesting question - you used quotation marks (bad "Christians") - do you, personally, distinguish between people based on works? Are these bad "Christians" still going to Heaven? Are there people who go to church on Sundays, who profess faith, who are not going to Heaven? Is the single critical point the possession of genuine faith? Isn't God then judging someone's motives? I understand. But, given the number of people who profess faith, and the state of most of the world, I'd say this has been proven to be untrue in the majority of cases. It seems that, while much of the world professes Christianity, few practice it. But Heaven will still be crowded.
Basically, if you're a good person but you don't believe in Jesus Christ you should still have a spot in heaven right? Well, I certainly hope so. For "the rationale is that by your "faith" and acceptance of Jesus, there will be a concomitant change in your behavior, and the "works" will follow" statement, couldn't you already be a person helping others without even having heard of Christianity?
Of course. For me, an atheist who lives a "Christ-like" or "Buddha-like" or [fill in your deity-like] existence are just as "heaven-worthy" as those who believe in [fill in your religion]. My earlier point was that when you strip away the symbolism and metaphor built into religion to keep the masses "mystified" (and justify a priestly class) they basically provide rules by which to live your life right. Follow these rules (appropriately) and you'll be ok, regardless of the religion. For example, why the ban on pork? Because 2,000 years ago, eating unrefrigerated pork could kill you. Therefore, "Verily I say unto you, don't eat the pork. It's a sin." What better way to keep people from eating pork. Mmmm, bacon...thank god for refrigeration.
Interesting thread The problem that I see is you ask for "true Christians to stand up" implying that you know what a true Christian is and further as your response above goes you believe Christianity and Islam to have been bastardized. That implies that you as a non-adherent know something more about either of these religions than the people practicing them. As you know from many of my previous posts I certainly am worried about the mix of religion and politics and believe very strongly in a secular state. Still though I don't know enough about Christianity or Islam to say if as a true Christian or Muslim one shouldn't expect religion to play a role in politics and as agressively proselytizing religions a politics would help to advance the spread of the religion. Its not a matter of complacency. I certainly am concerned regarding the role religion plays in the politics and caution against it from a the standpoint of maintaining a civil multi-plural society. That doesn't mean that as a non-believer I will lecture someone on their beliefs. As I've said many times in the Evolution / ID threads science and faith are different things and what people believe as faith is their business. In the same way I will separate someone's faith beliefs from their actions in the public and political sphere. For instance someone could believe in Satanism and think that babies should be sacrificed on Halloween. IMO they're free to believe that as long as they don't act on it. You're mixing up two separate issues. One is what are someone's beliefs and the other is what role does religion play in society. These are obviously related but not the same thing. The former is a matter that is personal and not quantifiable while the latter is public and quantifiable. There's not a rational basis to prove that God exists and loves you while people getting violent over an affront to their religion is. So as a rational person you might say that there is no reason for religion to be so divisive and cause violence but then again the Bible, Qu'ran and several other holy texts are full of violence. I don't deny that I am arrogant and I wouldn't bother pontificating on the D & D if I didn't have a high degree of intellectual arrogance. What I'm saying isn't that the thread doesn't merit consideration but that I believe its a mistake for non-believers to try to tell others what their true beliefs should be and looking at the responses on this thread that just reinforces it. IMO Svpernaut's response was right on. If you don't have faith you won't understand. That doesn't mean we can't debate and even criticize the affects that comes from practicing one's faith in a multi-plural society but that's differen than saying that you know better than them what their beliefs are.
I think you answer your own question in your earlier posts: IMO this was the most spot on posts of the thread in more ways than you might have even thought of. You're accusing the followers of another religion as acting blindly and committing evil deeds. In their eyes though you are the one who is blind and your defense of defamers of what they consider the most holy is a great evil. In their mideds you don't have the faith or willpower to follow something that do and will. To their minds there's no discussion since you refues to understand why this is so wrong so therefore the only response is through violence. You see with just a few changes of perspective your point is the exact same as those Muslims attacking embassies. You're basically doing the same thing as TheGary is and stating that you as a non-believer (Non-Muslim) know how Islam should be practiced and that those attacking embassies aren't true Muslims and are being misled. Again as a non-Muslim and one who doesn't consider Mohammed sacred how do you know? Anyway my point about all of this is that these kind of attitudes on all sides are exacerbating the situation. Muslims should understand that violence just begets violence and ultimately won't help their cause. At the same time non-Muslims should understand that whether we think its rational or not Muslims are very offended by characatures of Mohammed and that it might not be a good idea to keep rubbing their faces in it.
Yes they are worthless. Isaiah 64:6 Matthew 7:15-23 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Only God knows if they truely believe. Some people will go to church on Sunday - may even be "high up" in the church, yet they will be cast out. Are all Christians perfect? No. Some may be very hard to tell but God knows. We should be able to tell by their fruits (works) whether they are Christians, but that doesn't mean that everyone who does good works in a Christian or going to heaven. Works for Christians come after believing in Him. But who is Jesus to you?
no. he didnt kick out any taxmen. he kicked out the private enterprise people who were making money off the temple worshippers.
Sorry if I derail the thread a little bit, but your positions seem to reek an air of double standard when it comes to Dalai Lama, his brand of Buddhism, and "Tibetan cause."
Why I am Not a Christian Bertrand Russell [March 6, 1927] An Examination of the God-Idea and Christianity As your chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word "Christian." It is used in these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.... http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm ...Fear, The Foundation Of Religion Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it. What We Must Do We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
I agree that a lot is based on fear of death. How many people would be Christians if they were not promised a life after death where there would be no suffering, loneliness, boredom, dissatisfaction, heartache, anxiety, remorse, frustration, pain and so on. Instead of looking into the nature of these feelings and perceptions, it just promises a world after death where they somehow no longer exist.
I would still be a Christian even without hope of life after death. That may have actually been my turning point. As I've said before, I went to church only to say a blanket confession and hurried out so I could go sin some more. At that point in my life, the reason I was there at church was because I wanted to go to heaven. Was I a Christian? I wouldn't put money on it. Now, I don't care if I go to a "happier" place. I know for a fact He does exist. I would like to thank Him, but if He were to say sorry, I'd still want to love and serve Him while on earth. I love Him because He first loved me.
that would be a funny post if you had used the instead of the please go to the link and read the entire lecture. it was far too long to post in its entirety. in other words, you didn't get it.
No offense, as I'm genuinely curious, but wouldn't that love be no different than an abusive father? You serve Him and for reasons beyond our comprehension He denies you, is that really love? In the most respectful tone, I would think that's obedience.
True. A fantastic lecture. I highly recommend reading it, along with my other favorites: Freedom and the Colleges and What I Believe. Bertrand is an amazing philosopher.
