Redemption for all?

[Overaged]

It lacks a lot of the "why" and the "how".

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

It lacks a lot of the "why" and the "how".

What does have those why and hows? Which whys and hows are you looking for?

[JoeMo]

OA,

In an ideal world, there would be a lot more black and white. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a broken world. For example, I have to deal with fc differently than I deal with you to "communicate" effectively (if I am communicating effectively). I have to deal with Woody differently than i deal with Gibs. God confronts me with different issues than He confronts you with. I have different temptations than you have. I live in a different social and church culture than you do. What is "black and white" to me is different than what is black and white to you. IOW, "black and white" is too subjective to call it "black and white".

Peace Bro,

JoeMo

[JoeMo]

MTCross,

You're correct none of us have any right to judge anyone else.

You're also right about the confusing nature about the diversity of "proof texts" we Christians use to try to prove our personal agendas. It's confusing,isn't it? How is a non-believer supposed to figure out what Christianity is all about when so many Christians think so differently; and think it is their duty to shoot any other Christian who doesn't believe exactly as they do?

On the other hand, there are people in non-Christian religions who do the same thing. Let's say that I'm interested in paganism. Who do I talk to to accurately learn what "true" paganism is all about? Wiccans? Non-Wiccan New Agers? Buddhists (are they pagan?) Maybe Hindus? I think there are tolerant people and intolerant people from all walks of life and in all belief systems.

You are one of the tolerant ones....

[Overaged]

You are one of the tolerant ones....

He is not so tolerant if we choose, with our "free" will to be judgmental.

[M. T. Cross]

MTCross,

You're correct none of us have any right to judge anyone else.

You're also right about the confusing nature about the diversity of "proof texts" we Christians use to try to prove our personal agendas. It's confusing,isn't it? How is a non-believer supposed to figure out what Christianity is all about when so many Christians think so differently; and think it is their duty to shoot any other Christian who doesn't believe exactly as they do?

On the other hand, there are people in non-Christian religions who do the same thing. Let's say that I'm interested in paganism. Who do I talk to to accurately learn what "true" paganism is all about? Wiccans? Non-Wiccan New Agers? Buddhists (are they pagan?) Maybe Hindus? I think there are tolerant people and intolerant people from all walks of life and in all belief systems.

You are one of the tolerant ones....

The first thing that you would get told likely is that paganism is not a religion. Its like the olympics - they are all Sports, but they are vastly different in a lot of cases.

One of the biggest things I love about paganism is extremly lower degree of bickering about who is right and who is wrong. But you are right - there are some pretty judgemental pagans as well. They of course are wrong

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

You are one of the tolerant ones....

He is not so tolerant if we choose, with our "free" will to be judgmental.

That depends on my current level of exhaustion. If I have had the right amount of sleep I find it amusing. So that is to say that I find it amusing about once a year.

[Overaged]

Maybe I should rephrase - hows and why's that make sense.

[Overaged]

lol

[cheddar]

Who are you to judge God with your evolutionary morality? I didn’t even know that Charles Darwin was moral. I just thought he was a phobic manic-depressant. What is the world coming to when the evolutionists are giving morality lessons.

We live in an imperfect world of sin and death which requires imperfect solutions. Your utopian ideal of ‘do no harm’ is a pipe dream. We can lessen the amount of pain and suffering but it will never be eliminated this side of heaven. As touching the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, I’m quite sure that he had rejected God long before he was ever stoned. So if God wants to sacrifice a few bad apples for the benefit of the good apples - I don’t have a problem with it. He’s just trying to save as many as possible. Someone who is bent on sin and rebellion is going to be nothing but a bad influence anyway. Maybe he can evolve into something better in the grave.

When evolution can conquer death and evolve into immortality, then I’ll be impressed. Until then it is just another fallen, hopeless religion.

[M. T. Cross]

Cheddar, some of the most moral people I know are evolutionists.

Also just wondering, just to be clear, do you consider any religion outside of Christianity to be a fallen hopeless religion?

[cheddar]

Cheddar, some of the most moral people I know are evolutionists.

Also just wondering, just to be clear, do you consider any religion outside of Christianity to be a fallen hopeless religion?

I don't think the focus of Christianity is being a moral person. I think the focus is learning how to be saved and getting to the next life. If we look at the track record of the faithful in the bible, the majority were not very moral people.

I think God has his people in every religion and every walk of life. Do I agree with evolution - NO! What hope is there in the idea that we evolved from nothing and will eventually end up as nothing. Sounds hopeless.

[M. T. Cross]

No indeed they are not. Actually some of the biggest names in the Bible were pretty rotten people at one point or another.

I would suggest however that this life is the only life we can be 100% assured of, and that to live it to the highest standard we can possibly live it too, with the most zest and gusto we can will only enrich whatever - if anything - happens on the next step of the journey. I believe that is the purpose of our manifestation in this form of existance.

[cheddar]

No indeed they are not. Actually some of the biggest names in the Bible were pretty rotten people at one point or another.

I would suggest however that this life is the only life we can be 100% assured of, and that to live it to the highest standard we can possibly live it too, with the most zest and gusto we can will only enrich whatever - if anything - happens on the next step of the journey. I believe that is the purpose of our manifestation in this form of existance.

I completely agree.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Maybe I should rephrase - hows and why's that make sense.

This is exactly the problem though isn't it? "making sense" to you would be nonsense to another. Everybody in their own little bubble?

I see the Bible as having plenty of hows & whys. Maybe you could give a specific example of a how and why in the Bible that does not make sense to you?

[M. T. Cross]

I completely agree.

Well.......

You are simply no fun to argue with if you are gonna be like that....

[Overaged]

Do you mean to say the Bible as a whole doesn't make sense to you; or that individual statements therein don't make sense?

[fccool]

Quote:

The origins and validity of human morals are not simple and the Biblical pictures of morality cannot be discounted on the basis of cultural history, or other anecdotal phenomena.

Bible is a narrative of cultural history. You are offering some thoughts that are a bit conflicting in nature. Likewise, we can argue that much of the Biblical narrative is in fact a collection of moralistic anecdotes.

Quote:

It is true that many people habitually rely on the values they learned in their upbringing to inform their thinking and decisions for today; they conscientiously or subconsciously set up their upbringing as the final authority in the decisions they make in deciding their morality and living out their life.

Yes, that's how we transfer generational morality, while we improve it and modify it based on our current and present experience.

Quote:

But others rely on their current experiences and conditions, i.e. the presenting situation; still others are guided by the ideology of their teachers and professors, or church who taught them; or even the books they read, such as Christians would do with the Bible.

Of course, but Biblical morality is a-la-carte type of morality. Evangelicals pick and choose one set, Jews pick and choose other sets, Adventists pick and choose yet another set. There is no unified consistency, other than that, which is commonly practiced by Christians and non-Christians alike.

The claim of the divine origin really dissipates when you observe the progress, and the current practice. If God of the Bible would order somewhere against such despicable treatment of women, I really would be impressed, because God 4000 years ago would demonstrate his infinite wisdom. But, we only arrive at this degree of moral gender equivalency just now through a very complex evolution of ideas and behavior that discarded and dismissed a lot of traditional thought. And saying that "well, God had to work in the framework of existing culture" is a bit of an ad-hoc cop out in that sense, because morality's claim is absolute (unchanging) and God should not command something that's inherently immoral.

But, what we observe historically is quite contrary to the claim. The "Christians values" and morals are constantly shifting and changing, even by God himself.

Quote:

The growing Christian, (2 Pet 3;18), for eg, is conscientiously “putting off” and “putting on.” He or she is leaving behind invalid and limited epistemological presuppositions,and in their place he or she is reprogramming such worldly thinking with a biblical epistemology. We can see this in Ephesians 4:22-24:

Epistemology is dealing with KNOWLEDGE. Bible deals with belief and faith. What you would be calling "epistemological presuppositions" is actually the valid way we come to the truth. Biblical reasoning turns the idea on its head. It says, don't reason, search, verify, and question... just believe and that will be counted to you as righteousness. That's a terrible epistemology that even Christians don't use in their day-to-day life. They question everything and anything but their belief system. (of course, we can equally apply it to Islam, and 1000s of other exclusive religions)

Quote:

This passage is in the same context of Paul’s earlier pronouncements regarding the fallacy of human reasoning apart from divine revelation (cf. 1Cor.1:18-25; 3:30 and Job 5:13, Psa. 94:11). The word speculations carries with it the idea of the world’s ways of reasoning, its philosophies and its false religions.

This is a really silly assertion because it first pre-supposes the divine, then it claims it as the origin of all of the Ideas in the source - the Bible, and then it uses such source to vindicate itself.

We know that Bible is true because it is the word of God. How do we know that it's the word of God? Well, because it says so.

I think it's obvious to anyone reading the Bible that it's written by people to whom a wheelbarrow would be an emerging and progressive technology. I find it very questionable that God would only directly reveal himself to such ignorant generation of humanity by means of rules and rituals that's consistent with it's existing barbaric culture.

Quote:

In summary, it is normative behavior, and the very expectation of God that His called-out representatives who have been redeemed by the blood of the lamb, hone in exclusively on a biblical epistemology, and morality, forsaking all other presuppositions of truth. Every way of thinking must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

I think we need to clear up epistemological norms here. Truth is not pre-supposed. Truth is known. Beliefs are pre-supposed. Biblical epistemology largely relies on unsubstantiated beliefs that present personal experiences as "evidence". Everyone has personal experiences, be it a Muslim in a cave, or Buddhist meditating for several days. Personal experiences are subjective, and can't be presented as evidence.

Biblical way of thinking works backwards... you fist believe without any direct evidence for doing so, and then your experience supposed to validate your belief, although you already pre-suppose that it comes from Biblical God and Christ.

If Biblical morality is to come from divine source, then at the very least there should be some consistency, instead of scattered cultural norms that are justified by ascribing it to a "Thus says the Lord".

For any reader who picks up the Bible, they already have a moral direction, because they recognize the repugnant values, and they agree with those that are admirable.

[fccool]

Quote:

Who are you to judge God with your evolutionary morality? I didn’t even know that Charles Darwin was moral. I just thought he was a phobic manic-depressant. What is the world coming to when the evolutionists are giving morality lessons.

Who are you to judge and reject Allah, or Thor, or Zeus and their morality? If you had any idea of what I was talking about you would understand that I don't reject or argue against God. I reject and argue against an Idea or a certain concept of God.

Concepts have to be justified. All of us have reasons to reject Allah, Thor or Zeus. Even you. In fact, you would probably present the same arguments for you rejecting Zeus, as I would present for me rejecting the concept of a Biblical God. By saying that, I don't reject God. I think that if God exists, it would be much more gand and less insecure and petty as the god of the Bible seems to be through the narrative which was obviously patched together and barely holds as a consistent narrative form.

Quote:

We live in an imperfect world of sin and death which requires imperfect solutions. Your utopian ideal of ‘do no harm’ is a pipe dream.

The legal systems of the world are based on the principle of minimizing harm. Your ideals are utopian, because they demand perfection from humans, and if they are anything less than perfect you think that they deserve to die.

Quote:

We can lessen the amount of pain and suffering but it will never be eliminated this side of heaven. As touching the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, I’m quite sure that he had rejected God long before he was ever stoned. So if God wants to sacrifice a few bad apples for the benefit of the good apples - I don’t have a problem with it.

It's only a wonder why we had dark ages with such mentality

Statements like these are really make me question the validity of religion as a "universal comforter", because it will inevitably outgrows into a violent "sacrifice of a few bad apples" as you would put it. Well, at least you are honest about it.

Quote:

He’s just trying to save as many as possible. Someone who is bent on sin and rebellion is going to be nothing but a bad influence anyway. Maybe he can evolve into something better in the grave.

We don't evolve in the grave. We evolve by giving a way to life that outlives us, and we've been doing so for a while now. God does not make babies. People make babies .

Now talking about pipe dreams, eternal life and resurrection of the dead - that would be an interesting phenomenon. How many have you observed lately? I thought so... they only happen in the past, where we can't verify it.

Quote:

When evolution can conquer death and evolve into immortality, then I’ll be impressed. Until then it is just another fallen, hopeless religion.

Evolution is a theory that's made based on observation of reality. It does not attempt to conquer anything. It merely attempts to describe how things work .

Of course living longer and surviving death is desirable to the point of making up stories of what comes after. Virtually every culture does that. I don't dismiss that believing in these things are comforting... of course it's a lot more comforting to think that you will be re-united with someone who is no more after death. The question is about the truthfulness of such claims.

I have not seen a single person resurrected so far. Everything that we have are mythological stories from the past that don't carry a single shred of evidence of such things are possible. And any people who "hear voice from God", we generally consider clinically insane. Even Christians do so, especially if a God calls you to get rid of a few bad apples, as you would put it. There are plenty of people who do these things today. Do you find it justifiable too?

[fccool]

Quote:

People judge each other everyday, don't they? They have to. As a contractor; if I didn't judge people; I could get ripped off for thousands of dollars in the blink of an eye? Why would this be so wrong to do in matters of religion or spirituality? There is Biblical counsel to judge correctly, and Biblical condemnation of not judging correctly. That's the kind of how & why i can go with, even if I don't have all the answers. And believe me; I sure don't, except on week ends...

I really appreciate your light-hartedness in discussing the manner. It's very easy to come across as angry and cynical in these debates. I hope that it's clear that my point is not to humiliate or to hurt someone's feelings either.

The problem with judging one's religion and spirituality deals with epistemological knowledge. A claim to truth is not truth. If we are standing in front of a shut door, and all we have are two conflicting letters that both claim to describe what's behind it, then my claim is just as good as mine in that sense.

The best we can do is to address the consistency and logic of the letters themselves. If there's a lack of consistency, and blatant untrue statements, I think that it would be fair to say that there fewer reasons to take such claim above other that has more reasons, and less pre-suppositions.

In that sense, what bothers me is the arrogance with which Christianity usually treads on other people's beliefs. It rides in on a white horse and claims with all certainty that everyone else is wrong and only Christians are right, even though they get their information through centuries of disjointed dogmas written by anonymous writers for whom a boombox would seem like a miracle from God.

And then, based on that pre-supposed belief, Christians ride into the science classrooms and critique the scientific theories based on how closely these adhere to their story. Many do so without even understanding the theories and the facts behind these.

[OzarkWoman]

Of course, but Biblical morality is a-la-carte type of morality. Evangelicals pick and choose one set, Jews pick and choose other sets, Adventists pick and choose yet another set. There is no unified consistency, other than that, which is commonly practiced by Christians and non-Christians alike.

BINGO!!!!!!

[Overaged]

I really appreciate your light-hartedness in discussing the manner. It's very easy to come across as angry and cynical in these debates. I hope that it's clear that my point is not to humiliate or to hurt someone's feelings either.

The problem with judging one's religion and spirituality deals with epistemological knowledge. A claim to truth is not truth. If we are standing in front of a shut door, and all we have are two conflicting letters that both claim to describe what's behind it, then my claim is just as good as mine in that sense.

The best we can do is to address the consistency and logic of the letters themselves. If there's a lack of consistency, and blatant untrue statements, I think that it would be fair to say that there fewer reasons to take such claim above other that has more reasons, and less pre-suppositions.

In that sense, what bothers me is the arrogance with which Christianity usually treads on other people's beliefs. It rides in on a white horse and claims with all certainty that everyone else is wrong and only Christians are right, even though they get their information through centuries of disjointed dogmas written by anonymous writers for whom a boombox would seem like a miracle from God.

And then, based on that pre-supposed belief, Christians ride into the science classrooms and critique the scientific theories based on how closely these adhere to their story. Many do so without even understanding the theories and the facts behind these.

Why would it follow that the Bible is "a la carte" just because thats the way SOME people treat/use it? That does not compute for me.

I wonder; have you considered, that what you (and a few others) call "arrogance" on the part of Christians, may infact be something else? Atleast with some?

[Gibs]

True there is redemption for all but the sad thing is all will not come and partake of the living bread as prescribed.

Jesus don't all at once in one place lay out the whole requirement plan but for he who is truly interrested it is there and plain and simple.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Then notice!

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

So you see folks it is not a "surface" thing or just the icing on on the cinamon bread but it is the ALL of it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[JoeMo]

fc,

I more or less agree with most of your statements. There is one, however, that I disagree with:

"I find it very questionable that God would only directly reveal himself to such ignorant generation of humanity by means of rules and rituals that's consistent with it's existing barbaric culture."

It was not God's choice to reveal Himself to ignorant people through a set of rules, regulations, and rituals - especially ones that (on the surface, at least) make little-to-no sense. God wanted to reveal Himself to the Israelites through a relationship. He invited them to Mt Sinai for a "visit". All spititual beings (at least the ones I've met) are intimidating to say the least. The Israelites were scared poop-less of God; and told Moses "Uhh - you go deal with God Moses; and you tell us what He says; and we'll do it." The Israelites preferred a contractual relationship with God rather than an intimate personal relationship. We know how that turned out. They became so focused on the stipulations of the contract and alienated from God that they didn't even recognize Him when He came to earth.

You would think that we would have learned our lesson by now; but no! So many still insist on living in contractual relationship with God rather than intimacy that they fail to recognize God (in the form of His Spirit) in the midst of them. They rely on man-made denominations to tell them the do's and don'ts of interacting with God, rather than going directly to Him.

I find it both amusing and discouraging that non-believers (pagans) as a group understand the necessity of intimacy with their deities better than believers (Christians) as a group understand our need of intimacy with God. When are we as Christians going to start living with the our God out of intimate relationship rather than out of rules?

[M. T. Cross]

Do you mean to say the Bible as a whole doesn't make sense to you; or that individual statements therein don't make sense?

In ways - both.