Redemption for all?

[M. T. Cross]

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?

I would say that regardless of the motivation behind it, it still comes across as arrogance. It can be found to a degree in almost every religious system - including atheism. It just seems to exist to a much larger degree in followers of the Abrahamic religions.

The thing is that IMO anytime someone does the whole "I am right - you are wrong" thing when it comes to religion it is somewhere on the scale of disallusioned to arrogance. I say that cause in the end religion is based on personal experience and interpretation. Lets just take a look at this forum. Remove people like myself, fccool and other non Christians. There is so very much that those of you that follow the same holy book disagree on. Based on personal experience and interpretation. Remove the non SDA Christians from the forum and you still have the same thing. I mean really - there are whole sub-forums dedicated to the things you guys can't agree on. A great deal of that is because you have all experienced things differently and you read the same words and get a different meaning out of them. There is no right or wrong in this - ts simply the path your God has shown you, likely based on what he thinks you - the individual is ready for.

[Overaged]

The thing is that IMO anytime someone does the whole "I am right - you are wrong" thing when it comes to religion it is somewhere on the scale of disallusioned to arrogance. I say that cause in the end religion is based on personal experience and interpretation.

I mean really - there are whole sub-forums dedicated to the things you guys can't agree on.

Well; it is possible that "disillusioned arrogance" pronounces things that call it right or wrong as being arrogant. I don't see it as "wrong" to call something right or wrong. I would think that that is half the trouble with our world; no one wants to call something "wrong;" for fear of being labelled as hateful or trouble-making. I think we adults need to learn much better ways of teaching our young people right and wrong, leading by example and not being afraid to say something is wrong - whether it's religion or how to fix a car.

Having the wide variety of forums as we do here serves several advantages; the major one being that there is something here for everyone. "Each one can reach one;" as the saying goes.

[M. T. Cross]

Well; it is possible that "disillusioned arrogance" pronounces things that call it right or wrong as being arrogant. I don't see it as "wrong" to call something right or wrong. I would think that that is half the trouble with our world; no one wants to call something "wrong;" for fear of being labelled as hateful or trouble-making. I think we adults need to learn much better ways of teaching our young people right and wrong, leading by example and not being afraid to say something is wrong - whether it's religion or how to fix a car.

[JoeMo]

MTCross,

I think people interpret the same Bible verses differently is based based on how they view God.

If one thinks God is an angry, vindictive, judgmental "Dirty Harry", they will read the Bible with that attitude - every verse is a curse of some sort. If one views God as a loving Father seeking intimacy, those same verses are a blessing and an encouragement.

[Overaged]

As usual my friend; i always enjoy your challenges! Just lettin you know I am out of time for now and will not be able to come back for a couple of days due to work...but Ill be back. (lol, is that a threat or a promise).

[Felix Florimon]

So what is the right way to play the harmonic minor scale? Well if you go to 4 different guitar teachers they will likely show you 4 different ways to play it...

Which one of us is right? Which one is wrong?

I think that each of us should have those things that we feel are right and wrong. I just don't think that when we base these beliefs on a religious viewpoint we have the right to tell others that if they do not think the same as us that they are wrong.

[fccool]

Quote:

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.

It's sort of like asking, why would you think that Subway is a-la-carte just because someone does not order everything, or the right ingredients on the menu?

You can't argue an objective morality and then say that there is a different sets of morality for different situations and different times and cultures. That by the very definition is a subjective morality.

You can't say, oh... stoning was justifiable for them but not for us. That's not an objective morality. Bible is a-la-carte not because some people use it that way, but due to inconsistent prescription of morality within its own narrative.

Quote:

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?

Arrogance is really an overconfident valuation of self. There are two aspects of Christian (and Muslim or any like theism) arrogance in terms of their misunderstanding of epistemology of knowledge:

1) Not only they claim to know with certainty that there is a God, but that they know with certainty that it's the God of the Bible, because Bible tells them so and based on whatever vague emotional and life subjective experience that they had that they dub the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think we can agree that if one would come to knock on your door and declare you to be worthy of worst punishment in the world because you are merely trying to be the best version of yourself (which is not good enough), but you happened to eat cow meat... that would be extremely arrogant.

What Christians do is much worse

2) There's usually a sense of pride in certain ignorance and of faith over knowledge. There's a sense that faith is much better than knowledge or even solid evidence, which usually results in a very silly and arrogant arguments like "No matter what you tell me, you can't shake my faith in God and Christ". Basically it means that "You are wrong, I'm right... I don't really care about why. End of story."

Both of those concepts are fairly arrogant.

[JoeMo]

Hey fc,

You stated above "Not only they claim to know with certainty that there is a God, but that they know with certainty that it's the God of the Bible, because Bible tells them so and based on whatever vague emotional and life subjective experience that they had that they dub the work of the Holy Spirit."

I agree; people who say that are relying on circular logic - totally invalid. You seem to be a believer in the scientific method (i.e., hypothesize, experiment, and observe) If the results of your experiment agree with your hypothesis, it increases the likelihood that your hypothesis is, indeed fact.

What do you do with someone who has indeed witnessed bonafide miracles? I'm not talking about "they read them in the Bible" or "heard about them from a friend of a friend's cousin - I'm talking about actually being an eyewitness to or a participant of a real miracle. Like people who have been blind from birth regaining their eyesight. Like people as deaf as a stone regaining their hearing? Or seeing a totally whithered arm put on flesh and become totally functional? Or people with spinal bifida getting up out of their wheelchairs

and walking.

Is this what Paul meant when he told some folks that he doesn't just give words; he backs them up with signs and wonders?

I have been an eyewitness to several bonafide miracles of the types mentioned above. I'm not talking just Christians being healed, either - it didn't seem like God cared that much about the faith of the person being healed..I myself has prayed over and cured of bladder cancer recently verified by my primary care physician.

So what do I do - modify my world view based on what I have seen/experienced, or deny the input of my senses and go on being agnostic? (Hypothetical question - I am a follower of Jesus)

I don't even expect you to believe my story - you don't know me from Adam (or MTCross, or OA). But if you saw what you considered to be an undeniable miracle performed in the name of Christ, what would you think?

[fccool]

Quote:

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.

. Imagine me knocking on your door and saying that God secretly revealed Himself to me, and now he wants you to follow a certain odd rules and rituals. He told me that through me all of the people will be blessed if they will follow the rules that I set up which includes performing appendicitis surgery on infants and adults, eating only raw food, and having your kids adopt a cat every year so that the would put it to death by the end of the year.

On top of that, you have to give me a certain percentage of your money so that I can re-distribute these between the poor.

I think you'd demand some evidence for that. And I'll present you with several letters that contain some questionable things that are not generally observable, but tie into real events and places, and interpret certain events as a prophecy fulfillment that were written about in other letters dated prior to these events.

I can talk about the personal relationship that God wants to have with you. I can talk about the personal experiences that people had with God by following all of the rules that God revealed to me. I can talk all I want, but I doubt you would believe me in such scenario. It just sounds very odd and self-serving on my part. You would probably find it more plausible that God would reveal corroborating information to several groups of people worldwide, and not just one. That would truly be amazing, if you had geographically disconnected nations having the same exact prophesies, stories, morality, and ritualistic systems. There still could be a possibility of cultural transfer, but it would at least hint at non-locality of religious base.

Here's what I'm pointing to. Almost every culture in the world has a god that revealed something to them and made them a "chosen people of god" that have some set of morals and instructions from that god. So, this argument from selection simply does not cut it. It seems more like a self-serving aspect of the culture that attempts to elevate itself as "God-chosen nation", rather than a rational approach as to why an omnipotent and all-knowing being would choose to limit the exposure to his wisdom through culture and language of a primitive savages for whom a wheelbarrow would be an emerging technology.

Quote:

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.

You are talking about a lesson from a parable narrative here, and not ontological reality. We can get plenty of lessons from a wide variety of religious narratives. Many of these are dealing with sacrifice, heroics, rebellion, and etc.

Of itself, the narrative of the story does not justify nor necessitates the demands or truthfulness of the religious claims.

Quote:

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?

Once again, if Biblical context would talk about "personal relationship with God", it would be clear. Such context is largely invented by cherry-picking certain verses. You can't have a relationship with a concept. God is largely a concept. A person is a person. A person you can see, and a person has limited dimensionality when it comes to personal attributes. You can't have a relationship with unlimited concepts that you can't understand, can't grasp, can't see, and can't hear.

When you are talking about "personal relationship" it generally translates into reading the Biblical narrative (which was cherrypicked for you out of a wide variety of writings) as the "Word of God". It means praying and talking to a being, which you largely have to imagine as existent through your belief and interpreting any events that are going your way as this being "answering your prayers", and anything that goes against you as either "trials that shape you" or "devil that attacks you". It means living according a collection of modified ancient principles that are modified in order to awkwardly fit into our modern society.

What's so "personal" about that?

[fccool]

Quote:

What do you do with someone who has indeed witnessed bonafide miracles? I'm not talking about "they read them in the Bible" or "heard about them from a friend of a friend's cousin - I'm talking about actually being an eyewitness to or a participant of a real miracle. Like people who have been blind from birth regaining their eyesight. Like people as deaf as a stone regaining their hearing? Or seeing a totally whithered arm put on flesh and become totally functional? Or people with spinal bifida getting up out of their wheelchairs

and walking.

People are very easy to deceive. If you are familiar with techniques that modern-day healers are using, then you would be as skeptical as I am about these things.

There are a number of ways to simulate a miracle. For example, not all of the people wheeled up in a wheelchair can't walk. They have difficulty walking, and that's why they are in a wheelchair. Likewise, not all people who are "blind" can't see at all. Some see, but with great difficulty, and only high contrast objects. The same with deafness. Some are deaf, but still can hear.

Most miracle healing scams rely on adrenaline, and a partial conditions that can exploit the audience. The miracles are not for people who are "healed". Such miracles are generally for you to observe, believe, and donate.

If such things would be possible on command, then why in the world are these healers, and prayer warriors are not running around the hospitals and healing people? Why do we even need doctors?

The fact is, I can scam you by presenting an illusion of healing, by carefully scouting audience and choosing my targets.

Quote:

Is this what Paul meant when he told some folks that he doesn't just give words; he backs them up with signs and wonders?

Why won't these signs and wonders be a conclusive evidence? Why would people not miraculously grow a limb? That would be insanely conclusive! Or an autistic kid would suddenly begin talking sensibly and live a normal life... that would be conclusive! Why would people who need it the most not get it?

There is a concept of spontaneous regeneration, and suppression of pain through adrenaline rush. I know it personally from sports. I could barely walk before the game, and then when ,the rush kicks in, I can jump and run like nothing happened. The morning after it gets worse, but if the condition is not permanent enough, it can just seem to be gone and never comes back.

Quote:

I have been an eyewitness to several bonafide miracles of the types mentioned above. I'm not talking just Christians being healed, either - it didn't seem like God cared that much about the faith of the person being healed..I myself has prayed over and cured of bladder cancer recently verified by my primary care physician.

Again, there's nothing miraculous about that. Cancers do go into recession quite often. If does not merely happen when people are praying. Our bodies can fight them off by correcting genetic abnormalities. That happens with many other sickness and disease. Something that naturally happens is by definition is not a miracle.

Again, a miracle would be something quite conclusive... something that does not happen naturally, and something that's clearly an act of God. Let's say a person's limbs just grow back. That would have me seriously reconsider.

Quote:

So what do I do - modify my world view based on what I have seen/experienced, or deny the input of my senses and go on being agnostic? (Hypothetical question - I am a follower of Jesus)

I'd say, be honest as to what you would consider a miracle. Consider this thought experiment. It's called a "Battlefield prayer effect"

A 2000 soldiers are going to their sure death to the battle. Each of them are praying to God so they would make it, and for protection. 1950 of them die, and a 50 are left. All of the 50 claim miraculous intervention from God due to their prayer. Each of them can say that a bullet got deflected somehow. Or a bird miraculously caught the bullet.... etc... etc... The problem is that 1950 of these people are silent, and can't claim the opposite. The are simply silenced by their inability to speak.

For every answered terminal cancer healing there are 95 unanswered. For every answered regeneration of the crippling disease, oddly enough prayer works by means of normal statistical data. The chances of you being healed if you prayed, or if you have not are about the same.

Likewise, if God chooses to heal people, then why not choose to heal the ones who need it the most? Why not heal a father who is the only provider for a family? Why not heal a 9 month baby who has aids or cancer, or a serious heart problem? Why do we even have the medical profession.

All of these are legitimate questions that Christians yet to answer before running to fast claims of supernatural healing. If there's a God, I think he would prefer me to be honest about what I see. I'm not saying that you are dishonest, I'm merely saying that sometimes our wishful thinking can have us believe in something that does not really happen.

When I was a kid, I used to think that I could have a bus around the corner when I need it simply by counting down from 10. Sometimes it did not help, and I'd counted down more. Sometimes a bus would appear from the first try, which made me think that my powers and concentration grew stronger . The point being is that we can believe a lot of things, but these don't necessitate the reality that we can statistically plot and verify.

[cheddar]

They would't believe even if Charles Darwin rose from the dead!

[cheddar]

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.

Aren't these comic book characters?

[fccool]

They would't believe even if Charles Darwin rose from the dead!

So, to support you belief, you triumphantly give us an impossible hypothetical scenario ? I gave you plenty of scenarios that would cause me to at least question my current beliefs. If someone I knew would no have an arm, and all of a sudden as a result of prayer to a Christian God their arm grew back, that would make me seriously reconsider.

Darwin raising from the dead is a silly example, because it would be difficult to verify as a fact. Someone could have doug up the body and placed a well-trained double actor to make it happen. If there are no people alive who can corroborate the authenticity, the what good is the supernatural claim?

That's exactly the point.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: fccool

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.

Aren't these comic book characters?

Allah is not, but the others are and will always remain that way.

[fccool]

Quote:

Aren't these comic book characters?

Allah as a comic book Character? I'd like to see what happens to the poor guy who attempts that.

[JoeMo]

Hey fc,

I guess that's why they call it "faith". I can't prove to a skeptic that there is a God any more than you can prove to a believer that there isn't one. If one of us could explicitly prove our premise, it would be called "fact"; not "faith". I have to base my reality on my experiences and my worldview; you have to do the same.

I have no reason to "disbelieve" in the existence of Allah, Thor or Zeus - they could very well be "real". They just are not the gods I choose to serve. I serve YHVH and his Son, Jesus. It's not my job to make a believer out of you or any other non-Christian. My job is to relay my experiences (i.e., be a witness). You are free to judge for yourself.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: fccool

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.

Aren't these comic book characters?

Poetic Edda

Prose Edda

I will look a bit later for a link to the lore and mythology of Zeus.

All of these Gods were worshipped LONG before Christ walked this earth.

[M. T. Cross]

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.

[cheddar]

So if I was to come up with a comic character named G.I. Jesus and said Jesus was a comic book character and would always remain that way how would you feel about that?

Jesus is a big God, he can take it. He’s been called a lot worse.

I wasn’t trying to offend the pagans and atheists it’s just that fccool can be so dogmatic and judgmental. He wants to act like there’s no evidence at all for believing in a Christian God. There’s lots of evidence, he’s just closed his eyes to it.

If I were on an atheist forum, I would expect to get a few negative responses.

[M. T. Cross]

You didn't offend me either. I know that at least Odin and Thor can handle the fact that some folks at Marvel borrowed their names and a little bit of their story and turned it into a comic book thing.

That said, it does bother me when people seriously think that is their origin. That they are no different than Spiderman or something. It makes me sad that they have never treated themselves to the rich stories found in the edda's and saga's.

[M. T. Cross]

He wants to act like there’s no evidence at all for believing in a Christian God. There’s lots of evidence, he’s just closed his eyes to it.

There is evidence for sure, just as there is evidence for believing in other Gods. THing is there is no proof. I can't "prove' my relationship with Odin, Manannan, etc any more than you can prove anything about your God.

But we can respect each others beliefs

[JoeMo]

Quote by MTCross: "There is evidence for sure, just as there is evidence for believing in other Gods. THing is there is no proof. I can't "prove' my relationship with Odin, Manannan, etc any more than you can prove anything about your God. But we can respect each others belief."

I love that answer. Respect and honor are the basis for all meaningful relationships. May the other people on this board have the same insight as you.

[M. T. Cross]

Thats just it Joe. Around a thousand and a bit years ago the Christians marched into Northern Europe and declared that they were there to convert the people - to bring them a new light. (They made a bunch of stops on the way to do the same thing). Now they killed the pagan/heathen people that would not convert, and at times those that did. The pagan/heathen people killed them back. Much blood was shed, lives lost, there was a lot of cruelty, theft and rape on both sides of the coin. Nothing was truly accomplished. The old religions were never destroyed, just dreven underground, and Christianity was practiced in name only - not truly as it was meant to be.

So here we are many many years later. We are supposed to be more beyond those days. We are supposed to have grown as a species. But I still see a lot of that same old hatred, a lot of that same old mistrust, and a lot of that same lack of tolerance. We should learn from all that blood that was shed. Either people come to a belief on their own or they are not going to fully embrace it. The whole "You must convert to save your soul" thing still goes on. It brings in converts for sure. But out of fear, not love. I worship the Gods I worship out of respect and love. I hope to honour them by my life and my actions. If along the way someone asks and I can share my beliefs thats great. But its not my purpose, not my goal. Maybe thats what I don't get about the Christian faith as a whole (yes I am generalizing here a bit ) but it seems there is more emphasis on converting others than looking squarely in the mirror and asking one self "Am I honouring my God. Is his/her character mirrored in me and does the way I carry on my business of living fill his/her heart with joy?"

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Maybe thats what I don't get about the Christian faith as a whole (yes I am generalizing here a bit ) but it seems there is more emphasis on converting others than looking squarely in the mirror and asking one self "Am I honouring my God.

I understand your frustration, but I fear you have hanging around the wrong 'christians'!

Your words in bold, my doing, are exactly what the life of Christ was all about. It was something He repeated over and over. You are correct that Worshiping God is not about what you see/read about the majority of the time on this and other religion sites. But these sites are more about about personal opinions and flaming rather than living the life. It is a diversion where the worse in humans comes out. But having said all of that, look at the numbers, you are only seeing a fraction of a percent of the total number of members and even then we can not say the membership is in any way an indicator of SDA thought.

You are a thorn in the side of 'preachers but not doers'.!

[Woody]

Quote:

You are a thorn in the side

Well - if EC is a thorn - he is certainly a good thorn.