davidk

TO: My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year. - Mike, God is not beyond thought. You and I seem to think about Him all the time. Logic depends on the existence of objective truth/reality. We can then argue over the details from each of our subjective positions. But, if together we can't presuppose that truth and reality actually exist independant of our subjectivity, then we have no hope for any meaning to any answer, and there will be the impass between us. Reality and truth objectively exist. That is, truth and reality are absolutes, or nothing exists. Since things do exist, the answer is inescapable. Derek, I believe our choices are not without meaning. I believe God has explained to us why. I believe that God's grace can be mediated to human beings in a way other than that set by your own conceptual framework. Must I say, any conceptual framework where all roads have the same destination cannot be seen, quite frankly, as "reality-as-is". When all "roads" have the same result, any personal or individual choices are meaningless. If you and I both end up in the same place eventually, how would either belief have any meaning or purpose? What difference would they make? How could any argument/discussion over any point of view be relevant? Man would have no purpose and questions would be fruitless. No answer could ultimately be differentiated from any other answer. Subjectivity would be meaningless. Man would be meaningless. All would just be- silence. Since Man has observed his choices do vary in their results, it gives a man's individual choice it's meaning. It also gives meaning to the word "freedom". God is not silent on this issue. AngloCatholic, "The ability to reason does not give the logical conclusion that we can determine all truth, any more than understanding mathematics means that we can determine the conclusive value of pie. We can learn more every day, but we will never learn all that there is to know." (Is that apple or cherry?) I quite agree. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary. Joseph, I'm sorry Joseph but by saying Buddhism and other faiths were not as Davidk asserts, is about as specific as one could be in saying I'm wrong about them. Does your equivocation as well as the unsupported accusation merit censure? God's gracve to you all (y'all), Davidk

Derek, I wonder why we keep doing this to each other? I have no doubt we're both trying to pound out the truth. It has been my position that truth actually exists so it can be understood by man, because, he has been made to reason by a personal and infinite God who created all else. Even that statement, as simple as it is, has been difficult for some to grasp. The concept of the way we come to knowledge and truth is critical. Logical solutions are arrived at by the same techniques, regardless of race. The difference in the solutions is in man's presuppositions. In the most incindiary of the current discussion involving Buddhism, we have seen that in Buddhism they have set a high standard of logical considerations. At the risk of boring you again, this is why they have such reticence talking of origins. Without going onto the differences in presuppositions, we see Eastern man reasons the same as any man. Logic has no ethnic boundaries. The Buddhist philosophy has been rationally developed if beginning the logical argument not having to answer for a beginning. The Buddhist philosophers are well aware a rational discussion of a beginning that can explain what is there puts the rest of their philosophy at risk. As far as conceptual framework is concerned, I'm sharing what I know actually provides answers. If you, or anyone has a conceptual framework that answers for what is there, and not just saying you disagree or that I'm just egotistical, it would be refreshing. Without having a beginning, how can any talk of the afterlife be relevant? If you want to answer or just keep it to yourself, I understand either choice. God bless you, David

Neon, "PC's believe all morals are equal." Had I said it, you would be right. However, I didn’t. That‘s your invention. I had written that by not beginning with a personal beginning you can come to no conclusion other than everything finally being equal. --- Derek, "...what use is knowing the Bible in detail, and the works of all the Philosophers, if we lack love and the grace of God."- Derek I can't speak for the others, but you're right. -- Yes, we are persons. We know that diversity. All of creation can be observed having its diversity as well as its unity. I'll risk this one more time. Without a personal beginning, all that exists would be impersonal. This impersonality may be mass, energy, or motion, but all equally impersonal. It makes no difference which you start with. As soon as you accept this impersonal beginning everything is reduced to these impersonal factors. If all is impersonal, how do the particulars have any meaning? Nobody has given us an answer to that. Buddhism answers by just ignoring any discussion of a beginning at all. This makes it by default- impersonal. Only by having a personal beginning can there be a reason for empathy and respect. I’ll leave it at that. -- Joseph, I appreciate all of your study and experience. With your assertion that my statements were less than true, perhaps you could enlighten us of where I was wrong. The quote you provided may leave you with a little disadvantage. God's Grace to you, David

Dear Mike, I see what you are saying and I appreciate your defending your faith. Whether yours, or anyone elses, I don't think I'm attacking anyones faith in the sense you seem to allude. I believe the individual is free to believe in whatever one wishes, but if answers for what exists finally resort to the inexplicable, I would think we could agree that a soul-search of the faith would be in order. Philosophy and religion both look to answer the same questions. Man needs some basic answers for the observed unity and diversity of what we know exists. The eastern religions have seen that answers must be considered rationally and understood with such laws as cause and effect. So by not beginning with a personal beginning they have come to the only conclusion available, everything finally being equal. They have observed the whole and see the relationships of everything to everything else, the unity of all of creation, and have been very profound in their observations. But without a personal creator God they have no final answer for the observed diversity in all of creation. Which is why they come to the reasonable conclusion that we must all eventually lose any sense of individuality. In Buddhism, the whole thrust is in right thinking and the ultimate annhilation of the individual self into a single cosmic consciousness. The personal and infinite God as creator is anethema to a Buddhist. For this very reason, beginning with the impersonal, the Buddhist has left himself unable to finally find a meaning for man. Sunyata. As I understand it, it is that nothing has its own identity. Buddha-nature. Again, this is for the individual to arrive at a state of perfect enlightenment, where one is not to be mistaken for self. dependent origination. It seems to recognize the existence of the individual, but it cannot answer for why any individual has any reason to exist when arguing critically against the existence of a permanent self, explaining that it is the not-self that opens the door to enlightenment. Another eastern religion, Hinduism, does appear to be theistically oriented, but again it only agues for a universal self identical with All, by identifying the transcendent human self with the immanent divine self, not in any way- real. There is no meaning or significance to diversity. As the question of morality is concerned, I have not intended anything I've said to be as accusing these religions of lacking morality. My complaint is that by beginning with the impersonal, they can point to no standard in the universe which gives meaning to such words as right and wrong. Here there is no ultimate difference between good and evil, where the final wrong or tension is the failure to accept your impersonality. If everything is finally equal, morals simply have no meaning as morals. Christianity has no problem of epistemology. It is not that Christianity happens to have an answer, but rather that there is no problem in the Christian structure.

Neon, They'd all lose their meaning and need to exist. In the context of my post; "They" means our individuality, seperate paths, and individual decisions would all lose their meaning and need to exist if everyone ultimately is saved. You are right, by virtue of your experience it has become clear to you that if all roads lead to Rome, you would have no choice in your destination and could not consider any particular path as more meaningful than any other. And, if there were only one path leading to Rome then it would make your choice of road truly meaningful. Just how in the world do think Christianity is the opposite of these real life experiences, when it is Christianity that explains and defends man's freedom? We cannot save ourselves. Faith is a gift. It is Jesus who said believe in Him and you will be saved. If you don't, you won't. If you have an argument, it is not my interpretation you should worry about. Works follow faith. I think Paul was rather adamant about a faith in Jesus Christ our Lord being the complete package. It is this that only Christianity believes. What, in your opinion, are the correct things to believe? Do you think you could make list of them? The language of the Bible, whether Jewish or Greek, does have a grammatical structure that deals rather specifically with the subject matter in order to have it considered historical or not. You know, things like- past tense. Faith is assurance. Assurance is certainty. Certainty is the state of being on the basis of evidence. Evidence is proof of the truth. davidk

Mike, I understand and there's really no need to apologize for speaking your mind. If I can’t understand another’s passion, how do I expect to be understood with mine? - It could be a fairly lengthy answer for a message board. Bear with me; I’ll try to be brief. The foundation of any faith/philosophy is its answer for the understanding that the universe is actually there, that it has form, an order, and that man conforms to that order so he can live in it. The Eastern philosophy/religion answers assume the rational and logically considered one which can be communicated to: 1. oneself, internally, and 2. to others, externally. They have thrown the “everything from nothing” theory out, simply because any ‘evidence’ has proven unsustainable. The Eastern answer has settled on the terms of an impersonal universe/beginning/existence. In our case, Buddhism has no need for a personal creator or God of any sort, stating all that is, just is, in an endless cycle of impersonal forces (mass, energy, motion, plus time, plus chance, etc., all equally impersonal). Any discussion of origins or God is discouraged if not roundly dismissed. Really, the great problem of their starting with the impersonal is in finding any meaning for the particulars, any individual factor, any individual thing- the separate parts of the whole. How could anything have any significance, for instance- man? With the impersonal plus time plus chance, it has not ever been demonstrated how an impersonal can produce the needed complexity of the universe, not to mention the personality of man. So they are left to face some sort of reductionism. Note: Beginning with the impersonal is often called- pantheism. But, “Theism” is really only a connotation word; there’s no god involved. It’s merely a semantic solution that’s being offered. Like other pantheistic philosophies, Buddhism can provide an answer for our need for unity (form), but gives none for the needed meaning or significance of diversity. By beginning with the impersonal, Buddhism really has no meaning or significance for the individual, since, in the end, all is impersonal, and everything is finally equal. Even though it has an answer for form, these eastern philosophies can give no answer for freedom. This is usually where cycles are introduced, like waves tossing up out of the oceans. Morals, under any form of “pantheism’, have no meaning as morals. Because, again, everything is finally equal. The term ‘morals’ is used, but it is only a word used for a semantic solution. Lastly, by beginning with the impersonal, the Easterns have no real true answers in regard to “being”, (that is: the universe with its complexity), much less the personality of man. 'Modern' man does not know why he has any meaning, he is lost. Avoiding the subject altogether can not relieve Buddhism from not being able to answer why man and his aspirations are not significant. This is the point where only the Christian has the answer; we have the reality of the fact that personality does have meaning, that which is personal began everything else. Man and his aspirations are not meaningless because they are in line with was originally there and what has always intrinsically been. -- Because objective truth exists, we can have genuine hope our subjective experience can uncover some of it. If it didn’t, we couldn’t. All philosophy, faith, religion, or belief has a list. The question you should ask is: does ‘my’ list conform to what is there? It seems on this we agree: that if we make a list of what we believe and it doesn’t conform to what is there, we need to update our list. davidk

Derek, Your demeanor is admirable, even in the most caustic of moments. May it not be said I have left you behind; but perhaps a philosophy. One that is not without merit when answering for our need of unity, but still bereft of answers for our need for diversity, where the personal self is but a delusion, hope is in a final oblivion, and there is no God. 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. May the infinite and personal God of creation guide you. David

Derek, I appreciate your being candid with me. I am not offended. But I do believe you have misunderstood me because the Eastern faith is familiar and their standards are being claimed by you as the standards of Jesus Christ are being claimed by me. It is not that either of us should be considered perfect in our faith, but the familiar half truths of the eastern religions, I have left behind. - Barth is important, but perhaps not in the way that can be so easily misunderstood. In Karl Barth's theology, on the basis of a nonrational, nonreasonable leap, there's a nonreasonable faith which gives optimism. This is 'modern' man's total dichotomy. He held higher critical theories that the Bible contains mistakes, but we are to believe it anyway! Somehow, through all the mistakes, a "religious word" comes through anyway. "Religious truth" is seperated from the historial truth of the Scriptures. Thus he leaves no place for reason and no point for verification. This is what constitutes the "Blind leap of Faith" in religious terms. This has led to the necessity of finally placing all hope in a nonrational "upstairs". He left man with the need to leap because, as the whole man, he cannot do anything in the area of the rational to search for God. Man cannot do anything to save himself, but he can, with his reason, search the Scriptures which touch not only "religious truth," but also history and the cosmos. He not only is able to search the Scriptures as the whole man, including his reason, but he has the responsibility to do so. 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. Faith, in any terms, becomes a leap with no verification, because it is totally seperated from the logical and the reasonable. On this basis we can see how the new theologians can say that though the Bible, in nature and history, is full of mistakes, it doesn't matter. Barth opposed setting similar verification standards of Philosophy to Theology. - All religions have a system of belief. Eastern or progressive religions are of no exception. That's distasteful to some, but it doesn't change the facts. All the best to you, Derek, david

Mike, When I make an affirmation, I do so with a 'supporting cast'. I'm afraid you may have extrapolated more to what I said than I had intended. I did not throw the overall Greek philosophies nor all advancements made by their civilization into the waste bin. I should have added a single word to the statement, "... the Greek religious system fell well short...". I apologize. It seems to have sent you running after a false scent. Although it was a good post, I am surprised in the apparent offense taken when I say Christianity has the complete package. I am critical of the Greek religion that involved the many gods they developed specifically to find the sufficient infinite and personal answers needed for man's legitimate questions regarding existance, morality, and epistemology. On that we seem to agree. We both seem to agree on some of the problems Roman Caholicism seems to hang on to. Where we seem to disagree is whether Christian religion had overcome the obstacles that the Greek religion couldn't. The discussion of the Greek gods insufficiency and their accompanying theology could be an interesting topic for another thread. About the eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, et al, they find answers for our need to answer for unity, but as I said in my previous post, they have no answer for our need to answer for diversity, since everything winds up always being 'one'. Buddhists seek total annhilation of the self in their concept of an 'afterlife', which really isn't an afterlife at all. I have repeatedly attributed personal experience as how man perceives and understands the world around him. To have you and others continue to repeat that I have no respect for individual experiences is patently false. I hope you will cease to continue making this false accusation. If any element of objectivity exists and we can recognize it, it confirms that Objective truth exists, independent of human thought or feelings. Thank you for the confirmation. I have found that Christianity does have the sufficent answers for the fundamental questions of any religion and philosophy (they both seek to answer the same questions) that both both have sought to answer since man began to think about them. Details would be better suited to another thread. - Well, I would say 'head-belief' is an essential part of a personal experience. I think Spong must have been reading some of my posts. --- Derek, I guess I should have read Talbot's book before I commented, sorry. I just use the age old definition of universalist: "one who believes in the theological doctrine that all men will eventually be saved or restored to holiness and happiness", as a base for my comments. I suppose you still may somehow have a legitimate issue with that. But anything in its regard should be addressed to who first defined the term wrote, not me. This may have sounded a bit sarcastic, but I mean none. I may have misread, but are you saying in your second post that it is me who is judging others by a standard of my own making? If so, I ask you reconsider and look elsewhere. I argue only for the standards Jesus taught, including those where He touches Heaven and Hell. Which by the way are only found in the Bible. If the Bible isn't true throughout, even Jesus' words must be suspect. davidk

Mike, You've seen, even with all of their God's, the Greeks system fell well short of a sufficient answer for unity. They were in constant conflict and therefore unable to answer the burning questions. The Buddhists method, as with other eastern religions, fails to find meaning for the diversity in all that exists. When we look at Christianity, we can see it is the only belief system that has the complete package. davidk

I suspect we may have more in common. You did put a lot on the table for discussion, like 'Fear'. Which could be discussed more fully. Suffice it to say, God gave us enough information, not so that He can be fully known by any man, but so enough about Him can be suffiently known to understand Him, His character, and His attributes.

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. There's nothing for you to consider about my way as the "one true" way. I'm only here to report why you are here, why you have such universal needs as all men, and why you can rest knowing the infinite-personal-creator God meets your individual needs. If you understand, then you will have the desire to do what God has prepared for you. We cannot save ourselves. --- The sacrifices of Jepthah and Abraham are profoundly different. Most importantly Jepthah was offering a sacrifice of his own choosing and in so doing ended up offering one unsatisfatory to both him and to God. Try and review the Abrahamic story from that perpsective, and if it seems the meaning remains unclear to you, let me know and we can review it together. Speaking on Numbers could be lengthy and is not particulalry suited to this thread. At this point I can only advise you to read all of Numbers, cover to cover, finding additional references if you can, to find the answer. To 'cherry pick' verses only muddles the conversation. -- If you believe God to be a sadist, I don't, perhaps it would be a better question for you to answer.

I'll admit to reporting that the concept of Heaven seemed to me implied by the universalist's belief that all men will ultimately be saved. If that subtly is in error, I regret the confusion. Albert Camus wrote in similar vein to his predecessor Frenchman, Charles Baudelaire (poet and art historian, quoted saying; "If there is a God, he is the devil."). In the context of his writings, Camus argues that if there is a God, then we can't fight social evil, for if we do, we are fighting a God who made the world as it is. He recognized man's depravity, but he saw a noblity in man. That's why Camus was an aetheist. For if man were created by an all powerful-infinite-personal God, how could he escape the conclusion that the God who made cruelty in man is not himself also bad and cruel? I think their arguments are irrefutable. That's if the premise is that: man is as he has always been- that is there has been a continuity of intrinsic cruelty. Just a note on a previous post. It should not be interpreted as any act. Just the ones made on purpose. Our experiences are individually unique. I don't see my ever having refuted that. But, I'll also have to say I believe any argument that uses any unexplicable or undefinable personal experiences from their own "self-contained" system as a basis for their argument are at far greater risk of being seen as irrelevant. Davidk

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. 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. 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. Remember, only God is good. It is only by His power that we can do anything good. Good is obedience to God and His laws. Anything in disobedience to God is evil. In the Samaritan story, he was doing good, albeit, unwittingly. 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. - Tariki, Sartre also said finite man can find no significance for his own existance without an infinite reference point(God). Even though he refuted the existance of God, he had no other answer to offer on the infinite source. It is difficult to be free prior to becoming existant or having essence. There is no one there to make any choices. Consequences are simply the results of our choices. Some are temporal, some eternal. We must also not neglect the concepts of repentence and forgiveness. We must also consider the author of the texts. I offer for you to consider that the texts have but one interpretation, but may have many applications. - AITNOP, I believe in the Christian concept of the relationship with God, not as threatening, but loving. In that relationship, I know who the dominant personality is. My love for God causes me to be obedient, not the threat of punishment. By His love for all man He has provided us a way to be with Him. The key is that I cannot discard the path He has lovingly made in order to make my own and still be able say I love Him. That demonstrates a distrust, not love. Because I love Him I follow His guidance. I agree love is what Jesus was teaching, but shall we not neglect what else Jesus said, it's only by abiding in Him can we do good, and only through Him can we be with the Father.

Joseph, thank you for your perspective. Billmc, thank you for yours, as well. 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. Mike, we seem to have a foundational difference in how to determine right from wrong. I believe God is infinite and personal, for otherwise, nothing would exist in the way it exists today. In that, I believe, as on these pages, we, and all of mankind, need an answer for man's dilemma of being just as capable of being evil as good. I believe we have hope of a solution. A vital part of which, is knowing God is good and He sets the rules. And they will thusly be good. 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. In a similar mis-assumption, good and evil do not exist because of a belief in Heaven and Hell. It is in the knowing there is good and evil that we know Heaven and Hell must likewise exist. In reviewing Ecc 3:18ff, I believe another mistake has been made. Solomon is speaking of the "sons of men". In context, this is the vain and fallen man who does not have a faith in God. In these verses Solomon shows that power (there is nothing men are more ambitious of) and life itself (there is nothing men are more fond or jealous of) are nothing more than beasts without the fear of God. V.21 ( V.22 is one I think billmc would appreciate) explains the difference, the breath in this case being the life and spirit of. 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.

Mike, Please, pardon my using the space for quote boxes, but it just seemed more efficient to address point by point. Done. Likewise, forgive me If I had seemed untoward. To answer: No and no. The concept of the afterlife in not the basis for good and evil, but neither can it be ignored. Not in or of itself, but by and how God defines it. We all seem to have agreed that good and evil do, in fact, exist. But, from where do we get our concepts and our definitions of good and evil? It is of and by God. The One who has communicated to man what is good and what is evil. It is He that defines good as good and evil as evil. We have, because He has told us of, our freedom to choose between the goods and the evils. But freedom doesn't exist if we do not know the consequences for those choices. We only have freedom because God has made the consequences of our choices known to us. If there are no seperate consequences, we have no freedom; because the results would all be the same regardless of the choices made. If all the consequences are ultimately the same, then we cannot rightly speak of right or wrong. If grace gathers all of man together in the end, regardless of our choices, God has robbed man of his freedom by blurring any differences between good and evil. I believe these are precisely the right and well reasoned questions to ask. Again, this is the right direction. You've just exposed why God provides us with a choice to carry the burden of "every single thing we do in this life" into a dismal eternity; aka- Hell; or choose in favor of accepting His offer and method by which to have everything that was not good forgiven and be with Him, where there are no weighty regrets to carry; aka-Heaven. Our freedom to choose between His way and our own is His gift to us; and He will not choose for us. And, He has enunciated the consequences. davidk

Dear Mike, Thanks for the comment. May I say: I think you've responded, not to what I actually said, but to what you think you read. The killing and the feeding were obvious as examples of knowing good v evil. Congratulations you knew the difference. But the question is not that you did, but on what basis did you? If finally there is no heaven, then there is no distinction of consequence between cruelty and non-cruelty. So to be right would finally be just as meaningless as to be wrong. You can word it any way you like, but it would only be relative; morals as morals disappear. It wouldn't matter finally what you do; it would simply become the little guy against the big.

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. God's grace, davidk

I recognize and admit the difficulties within the "church" and its resulting ineptness. But if the churches profess their devotion to the Graceful God of creation and all that He has revealed to us, God's grace will shine through, despite our faulty human effort. Unfortunately, in the effort toward ecumenalism, Christianity is the only faith with the doctrine of forgiveness.

Your disdain for the church isn't easing the efforts of the Tower of Ecumenalism.

That's near to the point I'm trying to make. Man is prone to making mistakes and being in rebellion. Churches often fail in their duty, they become autonomous. While Soma and I have different theologies, he did address it fairly well: " ...the purpose should be to provide harmony, guidance, inspiration and the environment for the individual to grow in the understanding of God, and who one really is." While David seems to want inculsion of the secular into the church, you have already understood that problem, it would be man-made again! God's Grace would no longer be the message, it would become just another 'country club' of 'good deed' doers. That is not to say we could not be cobelligerents with secular entities, allied with them on certain issues; but we could not be ecumenical allies. The Ecumenical movement originally defined its goal as being a "...functional Christian community based on the common tasks of 'missions' with a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, a united witness to the world and its problems". "The Church" is purely Christian, with Jesus Christ as the Head. Don't allow yourself to be caught up with people setting Jesus aside to build their "church". For there you find Babel.

To David and soma, So, we'll just make a church based on man's standards instead of God's. Then it will be perfect. It'll be another 'Tower of Babel'! - Cynthia; This is an absolutely 'on the mark' position statement, and most worthy of discussion. For until we arrive at a "litmus test", these discussions will just continue to be a waste of time. You can assign the seating.Early on, I had attempted, (post #34, a hundred posts earlier than yours!) to move the discussion in just the way you intend. By not answering a most basic philosophical question, everyone simply remains mired in the 'variables' (I call 'em 'particulars'). ."We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental, universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless." Do not despair, for we are not all part of some soulless machine. We do have unity, and we are of no less value and worth than anyone else. That is good. But in addition, and of no less importance, God's relationship is personal and individual with us. We can... just be (normal)! -

So many recognize and admit the difficulties within the "church" and its resulting ineptness. Feeding and caring for those that need help, is far more important than waving your arms in protests, transcending time and conciousness, arguing over who is going to make the lists, excluding the excusivists, and all the other nonsenses. Do it in the name of God or don't. Just be honest about it. There is inherent difficulty with Ecumenalism. It is so inclusive, "...the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide." it becomes a monolithic nightmare. The Ecumenical movement originally sought, through a "functional Christian community based on the common tasks of 'missions' with a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, a united witness to the world and its problems". This site, however, loudly demonstrates that such a movement is virtually impossible, despite all best of intentions. There are undoubtedy massive needs the world over and we really want to help relieve people in distress. In this, we can agree and we can cooperate to a certain point. If this is plurality, OK, but understand: it has only a limited and faint glimmer of hope because politics often corrupt such large scale philanthropic effort. It cannot be called an "Ecumenical" movement because there is no common thread of religious belief or unity. This website can't find a unifying basis for belief in the single faith of Christianity. (too many tadpoles not wanting to be tadpoles) Some advocate exclusion and some don't. Some are pluralists, some aren't. Some believe Jesus is the risen Christ, some won't. Ecumenalism is a lofty and seemingly noble goal, but religions would cease to be religions and politics would battle for the spoils. Such is the stuff of the world. I am sure some successes have occurred. Some interdenominational cooperation has taken place and even some activity may have even come from them. grampawombat could certainly fill us in. The only caveat I bring to the table is this: In the stress you put on community, you speak and act as though we become Christians when we enter that horizontal relationship of community ( "What we do is important, not what we believe") and this is a totally wrong starting point. If this were so, we would not be of any more value than some community or club that does not rely on God. It would all mean 'zero'.

How long would your god punish someone? If you'd rather not talk about it here, I understand. No more needs to be said. It's good to see you quoting the Apostle Paul. I see; I'm putting in a lot of effortless effort?

If you would, please, tell me of the god you believe in. If you have already told me, forgive me for asking you to repeat it. Tell me where I could find it and you won't have to go through this again. What has happened so that your journey has brought you here? Of course I agree to, and have said, this. For each of our world views is seeing the world through the answers to our questions about reality. Share some of the questions you have had answered that have shaped your world view. Well, on this I'm not quite certain I understand. If, as you say, I have everything compartmentalized, live in denial (constant denial), and do not have to think or work; doesn't that actually require less effort to maintain?