Neon Genesis

Derek,

 

 

 

If you have yet to understand there is not only a philosophic but a personal and universal need which only an infinite and personal God can answer. A God who can verbally communicate His propositional truths to man, which man can communicate to other men, then your journey for the answers to our very existence is yet to have begun.

 

 

And yet the nation of Sweden seems to be doing just fine without the god of fundamentalist Christianity: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=1

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

I'm open to hearing what you may consider to be the universalist position on being "saved". If everyone ultimately gets saved, then how do you explain our need for individuality, diversity, seperate paths, or individual decisions? They'd all lose their meaning and need to exist.

How would they lose all their meaning of existence? All paths may lead to Rome but that doesn't mean that all the paths were pointless unless there's only one route you can take to get to Rome. Again, I think the opposite is true that if Christianity is the one true way, individuality becomes meaningless because our existence then becomes dependent on what one person says is the truth. We can no longer think for ourselves and we have to be forced to agree with what the group leader says is truth or else we are no longer considered part of the group and the group leader takes over all our thoughts and this is how cults get started. I'm not saying that all Christians who believe in hell are in a cult or can't think for themselves but I think it's a potentially dangerous belief and it's this absolutism that leads to religious in-fighting, violence and persecution of anyone who thinks individually.

 

We cannot save ourselves.

If you believe we cannot save ourselves, why do you believe you can save yourself if you believe the right set of beliefs and say the correct things about Jesus but if someone says something different about God, then they are not saved? Is not insisting that to be saved we must believe in your interpretation of scripture not preaching that we can save ourselves? If you believe we are saved by grace and not by works, are you not turning faith into a work?

 

 

 

When we look at Christianity, we can see it is the only belief system that has the complete package.

But where in the bible does it say Christianity is the complete package? In 1 Cor 13, St Paul says that none of us have seen the truth yet but one day we might know the truth. Also notice that he says that out of faith, hope, and love, love and not faith are the most important of those three for us to have.

12For now we see in a mirror, dimly,* but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Why would Paul say love is more important than faith if it was important to have a correct set of beliefs to be saved?

 

The seperation of what the Bible teaches in religious and spiritual matters- as being authoritative in these areas, while saying the Bible contains mistakes where it would be verifiable- is a form of irrationalism.

But you're trying to impose a modern day method of reading history onto a religious text written in a time period where such a method did not exist. In the Greek version of the NT, the original word for faith literally means trust. In the ancient world, faith was an action and your commitment to the church as an institution. It was simply presumed by just about everyone that the gods existed and could do miracles. Belief in the literal facts of myths wasn't the point because it was simply assumed the gods did miracles. Even in Jesus' time, there were messiahs all over the place who people believed could do miracles and so it was the message of the story that was considered more important than the facts. But even in ancient Judaism and Christianity, there was never a single universally accepted interpretation of scriptures and the authors were always constantly updating their texts to address their current concerns. Faith only became to mean belief in facts in modern times in reaction to the Enlightenment movement and the doctrine of sola scriptua was invented by Martin Luther. How could the early Christians believe sola scriptua was a requirement when it hadn't been invented yet?

neon,

The universalist arguement is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior. If that is true, it would finally make no difference if you tortured someone or not. Making moot any descrimination between right and wrong, making morality an empty word. There finally would be no difference in any behavior.

Now, by knowing there is a difference, that morality does exist, and by the shear weight of your reason, the concept of universalism proves false.

But I think the opposite is true, that if you believe your way is the one true way and anyone who doesn't agree deserves to be tortured by God for all eternity, then it's a harder temptation to resit putting yourself on God's throne and judging humanity in God's place. If you believe you and people who agree with you alone are God's elect, it's only a step away from believing everyone else is God's unchosen, which is a step away from believing everyone else is God's rejected. And if you believe everyone else that doesn't agree with you is God's rejected, what's to stop one from believing that their enemies are God's enemies and so anything that's done to them no matter how immoral it is is sanctified by God? Again, I don't mean to say all Christians who believe in hell are also immoral, but as I pointed out, all the evidence points to that there's no connection between your morality and a lack of belief in hell.

 

Judges: God had given to Jephthah a certain measure of valor and might to conquer the Ammomnites, but that did not imply God approved of such as human sacrifices.

Then why didn't God intervene and save Jepthah's daughter at the last minute like he did for Abraham's son if this is a literal story? If it was all Jephthah's fault, why didn't God just punish him instead of dragging his innocent daughter into it?

 

My claim is that there is a right and wrong and Christianity is finally consistent with it. I have not in any way implied a claim that anyone who does not believe the same as I would be immoral.

What was right about God's commandment in Numbers 31:16-18?

These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

I believe taking sadistic pleasure in inflicting intense pain on others is considered evil. I believe in not inflicting any more pain on someone than I would expect to endure to save the life of someone else.

So if you accept inflicting intense pain on others is evil, why is it moral for God to torture people in hell for eternity?

 

 

Tariki and Rivanna, your inputs on universalism are interesting. However, respectfully, in any form of universalism morals disappear, and we are just left with metaphysics, where there is nothing that has meaning in right or wrong. Freedom vanishes and the concept of morality cannot be sustained.

If morals disappear because of universalism, please explain why according to this survey, bible-believing evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture as being moral and just than any other group. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

 

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

 

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

Do you think Jesus, who taught to love your enemies, would support tortue? Please explain why the non-believers surveyed were behaving more "Christlike" than the evangelicals if a lack of belief in hell leads to immorality. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

A vital part of which, is knowing God is good and He sets the rules. And they will thusly be good.

So do you believe Judges 11:29-40 was divinely inspired by God if God would only command good things and the bible is intended to be read literally?

 

neon, I think you've lept to an astounding assumption in the Samaritan story. Jesus was not being critical of Jewish doctrine, but supportive. His being critical was of "Jewish" hypocrisy in regard to their doctrines.

But you claim that unless people believe in your "orthodox" version of Christianity, this will make them be immoral yet Jesus uses an example of someone who did not believe in the orthodox religion who was moral and that believing in the orthodox religion does not make you automatically good.

 

 

By believing all men go to Heaven, it seems Spong has abandoned any real meaning of good or evil. Relying more on sociological ethics, Spong sees morality with no enforcing agent other than social pressures and some form an elite class.[/size][/font]

Please define what you think the real meaning of good and evil is. Do you believe torture is always immoral?

Like you, I believe in an afterlife.

I believe there is Heaven and Hell for this reason: If there were neither, if heaven were attainable regardless the individual's faith, if everyone has their own path, or if only oblivion of the individual soul is at the end, then likewise, neither good nor evil would exist. It just wouldn't really matter whether we set ourselves off with explosives killing a diner full of people, or fed the hungry.

But since it is observed by man that some behavior is good and some bad, the belief in Heaven and Hell is by reason- inescapable.

 

 

 

But does the bible say that you can only tell good apart from evil if you believe in heaven and hell? I don't recall scripture saying this. In fact, in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus uses a Samaritan, a non-Jew, as an example of someone who was a good neighbor who's example we should follow even though the Good Samaritan was not a follower of the "true" religion of Jesus' time. Jesus did not believe in all the "orthodox" doctrines that were accepted by Jews in his time yet Christians praise him as the messiah. And if there was a connection between morality and a belief in hell, why is it that according to surveys, the nations which are the most violent are the ones which are most religious, the states which are most religious have the highest crime rates, and there are more Christians in prison than non-Christians? I'm not using this as an anti-religious argument and I'm not saying all Christians who believe in heaven and hell are bad people. There are many conservative Christians who are wonderful and kind people but my point is that if there was a connection between belief in hell and morality, wouldn't we see this in the fruit of the Spirit of the Christian? Wouldn't you agree there's more to Christianity and behaving morally than simply beliefs? Doesn't James say faith without works is dead and that even the devil believes? Is it not more what you do with your faith that matters moreso than what your faith is itself?

 

And I always find it difficult to understand why, if "free will" is so important, it should be given for just one short sharp ambiguous life and then taken from us to suffer its apparent misuse forever.

I also don't understand how having a heaven without hell takes away our free will anymore so than us having no choice to die at all takes away our free will. Interestingly, there is a verse in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 which says everyone is saved, both humans and even animals:

For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth?

I also love this one video of Bishop Spong where he talks about how hell is an invention of the church:

Edit: I accidentally clicked quote when I meant to edit. Sorry for this.

Speaking as a gay man, I think the difference between accepting homosexuality and accepting something like pedophilia is that a child is incapable of consenting to sex. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others but rape and pedophilia do because the person who engaged in them didn't consent, but I think it depends on how one defines acceptance. Does it mean accepting their actions or accepting the person that wants to change while not endorsing the actions of their past? If we mean the former, I don't think it's dogmatic in itself to set limits to inclusiveness where it's reasonable but I don't see it so much as setting limits to inclusiveness as much as I see it as making sure people are safe and protected from harm. It's sort of like the question of should we tolerate homophobia or racism or other harmful actions. I think it's an oxymoron to tolerate intolerance and likewise I also think it's an oxymoron to tolerate harmful acts.

 

At the same time, I think if someone had a dark immoral past but served their time and is willing to change, they should be accepted while we also make the precautions of keeping people safe from harm. It's like in the early church, Paul was an ex-murderer and used to persecute the church, but he changed his way and he's since been accepted almost universally by the majority of Christians, but people still have difficulty accepting other people with dark pasts that are willing to change. But even in the early church, Paul was not automatically trusted and people showed caution before accepting him because of his past actions towards the church. I know 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 has been abused in the past to justify gay conversion therapies, but I think it still makes a powerful point on different issues.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

Generally I enjoy music that reflects traditional Christian spirituality, songs that either capture the ancient mysticism or that hold special meaning for me. For me music doesn't have to be particularly 'progressive.'

I do still like a lot of classic Christian hymns, like I still love Amazing Grace although I don't care for those new modern versions of the song that youth groups love to sing for some reason. But some of the lyrics in conservative church hymns are kind of creepy to me with the obsession they place on the torture of Jesus and being Christian martyrs. I think the most creepy song I've heard has been "There's A Fountain Filled With Blood" and then there's that song "Wonderful Cross." And I didn't know Casting Crowns were PC. Their song "What If His People Prayed" sounded more conservative to me but then that was their debut album.

Thanks for all the recommendations! I'll have to check them out! And Ray Boltz has his pro-gay marriage song to listen to free from his official site and if I'm not mistaken, I think Ray Boltz now performs concerts at Metropolitan Community churches: http://rayboltzblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/dont-tell-me-who-to-love-the-new-single/

Is it just me or does it seem like the majority of Christian music is aimed at conservative Christians? The only Christian song I can think of that isn't is a song Ray Boltz made after he came out of the closet that's a pro-gay marriage song from a Christian perspective called Don't Tell Me Who To Love, but is there any other Christian music out there with more of a progressive slant to it?