Israelis Dealing With Their History

[David]

Wayseer,

 

Thank you for your constructive response!!

 

Since we are progressives I am sure we are not that far apart. Thank you for quoting the “doctrine” of Christ Community Church in Michigan as opposed to the more traditional church “doctrine”. Although the content is much different I do not think that the “form” or the essential nature of what a “doctrine” is differs. Adding “We believe” to “We live together in awe of Life, connected by a sense of mystery that many call God” does not make it more or less of a “doctrine”.

 

You raise the issue of “freedom”. Is that your main objection to “doctrine”? Freedom itself is a “doctrine” that is very important to “boundary making”. Those that do not allow “freedom of belief” are divided by a huge boundary from those that do. I would argue that we do not want to be “boundary less” when it comes to freedom. I want the protection of that boundary.

 

But as important as freedom is to all progressives just being “free” to believe is not enough to sustain any community. More “boundaries” are needed. Each of the statements from the Church in Michigan is another attempt to speak to “boundary creation” and the attempt to create community.

 

This “boundary creation” is not only a passive process (let the DavidK’s choose not to come). It is an active process that invites certain people to come through the door. There is a active “restriction” here. DavidK would be “restricted” if not physically removed if he tried to change the mission of the Church in Michigan. DavidK, with such a different mission, is a threat to the “established order” of the Church in Michigan. DavidK would not have the same “freedom” in the Michigan church as he would have in the other church. But because the church in Michigan does seem to have a strong sense of mission I’m sure they are not concerned about any threat from DavidK. That security is related to their boundaries.

 

Yes there will be a much wider “difference in belief” in each of the Christ Churches that you have noted. But that I would argue is a product of “boundary making”. Each Christ Church consciously thought about the kind of religious thinking they wanted in their building. Each Church created a “doctrine” that reflected what they wanted. This is the same process that I tried to lift up to you with The Center for Progressive Christianity. This is why I reacted to your “boundary less” wish for TCPC. I did it within this thread to tie the discussion to DavidK.

 

I also raised the objection in the Middle East discussion which raises the importance of boundaries. The same religious thinking should go on as “boundary creation” happens in the Middle East. The Middle East is never going to be a place where just being “free” to believe what you want is going to solve the major problems. Boundaries have to and will be made based upon more than "freedom of belief". The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

 

So “where I am going with this” has to do with where Progressive Christianity is going. I think we need to raise to our consciousness the importance of boundary making, the limits of “freedom” as a sole doctrine and the possibility that we really can have a Progressive Christian Church that will have major consequences for our world and just not a message board.

[David]

I don't know what part of the world in which you live but in my part I live in a spiritual desert. Yes, there are small oasis here and there but they are far apart and the cost of travel, at least for me, is all but prohibitive. So, for the moment at least, there is only me. It is from sites such as this I get sustainance and a sense of a community, far flung as it may be.

 

In this sense we are "in the same place" in a spiritual desert. I am also an "exile" in the desert with only an oasis here and there. Nothing like the Church in Michigan. I also get much from the internet. Perhaps finding the Church in Michigan on the internet only fuels my hope for the Church everywhere. I hope it comes soon for all of us.

[October's Autumn]

If I may add to David's comments about boundaries...

 

Boundaries are extremely important in human relationships. When two people in a relationship (adults, parent-child, etc.) we call them "enmeshed." I think I've seen what Wayseer is concerned about and what David is talking about. When I went to the local UU the boundaries were similar to what Wayseer was concerned about. I was very uncomfortable there and it took me a while to figure out why. When I started at the local UCC I experienced the kind of boundaries David is talking about. I eventually figured out the difference. At the UCC I was free to journey and follow as I was lead. I wasn't required to hold a certain set of beliefs in order to be "in." Every time a new member joined the church the lead clergy would say that our church will forever change because you are here! People range in beliefs and there is even a Jewish person who is a member of our congregation. He was drawn because of two things (that I know of) 1) extravagant welcome -- he could still identify and be Jewish, and 2) our commitment to social action. Even if he were drawn to the social action he would not have joined had he not been able to still be Jewish (ie if he had to convert). My understanding is that they changed the liturgy under which he joined.

 

My experience at the UU is that there was a sort of litmus test. It wasn't planned but it was there. I didn't last long in that congregation because I didn't feel like I could grow.

[davidk]

David,

The 'Church of DavidK'? Flattering, but hardly apropriate.

You're right, no need to fear me. Fear God. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of God. The definition of 'fear' as used here is: 'a profound reverence and awe". Is God safe? NO, but He's good."

"...the Kingdom that Jesus saw had justice related consequences."

I spoke along those lines in my last post. Be careful, for by truthfully saying there could be 'consequences', it has been considered by some to be “offensive, divisive and arrogant”.

"the Great White Buffalo has yet to see 'the light'...”

You may certainly disagree with TGWB, but you'd better provide your evidence, or you will be considered arbitrarily disrespectful.

The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

I heard Stalin, or was it Lenin; no, it was Mao tse Tung; well, it might have been Hitler or Kim Jong Il or Castro, speak in not so different terms about people they suppressed and excluded from their 'perfect' world. Although somewhat facetious, I am wanting to drive home a point of this language being a 'slippery slope' you do not want to go down.

 

Lastly, I have stated very simply, and factually that the Arab-muslims wish not a coexistence with, but an annihilation of Israel. There are individual exceptions. I have emphatically stated the innocents of both sides need to be saved. The harm of the innocent, comes from willfully ignoring these facts, and then responding irresponsibly.

 

Wayseer,

"It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge..."

It's sad you didn't recognize my statement was a paraphrase of Jesus own words, recorded by His disciple John (an eyewitness and companion to Jesus Himself) in John 3:16-21. No one with any intellectual integrity considers that John was a man with a poverty of knowledge of Jesus.

 

A church where:

There is no 'we believe'... those like Davidk would run a mile from this church - such an expression of freedom threatens their own philosophy to such an extent that they could only respond in hate.

Neither your premise nor your answer is rational. How does one believe in the printed belief philosophy of a church that has no belief? This also strains to be rationally understood. I can agree that you live in a spritual desert.

 

Progressive thought is not inherently correct because it is "NEW AND IMPROVED". I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "If you do not know your past, you will be doomed to repeat it." Man is basically unchanged. The only difference between ancient man and man now is; now we have TV's and Air-conditioners.

All our conditions are common to all men, ever since the beginning. Our questions and answers really are pretty constant. I suppose the only real difference might be; 'modern' man uses less than classical logic.

 

Autumn,

When one 'reads',... one can 'hear' the author. Like, can you hear me? Does this mean we both need treatment?

Surely, by now, my epistemological religious base in the Bible should be well known by now. And that I, aside from anyone else on this site, believe it is God's propositional and truthful communication to man. Regardless, it can be read. You and I can 'hear' what the author is saying.

 

If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns? There are no other considerations.

 

Cynthia,

Good to hear from you, it's been a awhile. This is a most profound statement,

"just when you think you've got it all nailed down, you know beyond a doubt that you are wrong!"

That is precisely why we cannot depend on ourselves as a source of knowledge. Jean Paul Sarte said no finite point (such as man) has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point (such as God). To which, academic philosophers still adhere.

*Parentheses added

 

 

I don't pretend to know where or how or why any of you know about Jesus or God. Perhaps it is from ancient Roman historical texts, perhaps it is from the Bible. I don't know. If you are open to explaining where and how you have obtained your knowledge of Jesus, it would open the way to more profound and reliable discussions. Rationally, anyone counting on God's love must be able to point to that information as coming from God. Otherwise, there is no reasonable reference for God or His love.

 

As Cynthia's remark implies, we need a reference point beyond ourselves to find the answers.

[David]

If I may add to David's comments about boundaries...

 

Boundaries are extremely important in human relationships. When two people in a relationship (adults, parent-child, etc.) we call them "enmeshed." I think I've seen what Wayseer is concerned about and what David is talking about. When I went to the local UU the boundaries were similar to what Wayseer was concerned about. I was very uncomfortable there and it took me a while to figure out why. When I started at the local UCC I experienced the kind of boundaries David is talking about. I eventually figured out the difference. At the UCC I was free to journey and follow as I was lead. I wasn't required to hold a certain set of beliefs in order to be "in." Every time a new member joined the church the lead clergy would say that our church will forever change because you are here! People range in beliefs and there is even a Jewish person who is a member of our congregation. He was drawn because of two things (that I know of) 1) extravagant welcome -- he could still identify and be Jewish, and 2) our commitment to social action. Even if he were drawn to the social action he would not have joined had he not been able to still be Jewish (ie if he had to convert). My understanding is that they changed the liturgy under which he joined.

 

My experience at the UU is that there was a sort of litmus test. It wasn't planned but it was there. I didn't last long in that congregation because I didn't feel like I could grow.

 

Very well put. Thank you. I have had similar experiences going back/forth between UU and other congregations such as UCC.

I love the idea of having a "mission" of "extravagant welcome" and lifting up that people in relationship within boundaries is not a "static" thing--it can be "dynamic". If your "mission" is to be inclusive the "dynamic" is something to be grateful for and learn from. But people are "secure" in doing that because the "mission" and "boundaries" are understood and reinforced.

[Wayseer]

David thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

I think we have some difference if definitions. I see 'doctrine/dogma' as set statement from which little or no deviation is sanctioned. Whereas 'philosophy' is a search for knowledge and, by definition, therefore fluid - one is static the other creative. I therefore see doctrine as static as if anything is static it is not moving and certainly it is not creative.

 

So let's talk about 'freedom'. Does freedom mean the absence of boundaries? I find I cannot subscribe to that notion in every situation - freedom very much depends on the situation. Should I allow a child to excerise its freedom and run onto a road in front of fast moving traffic - I think not. Should I allow a teenager top exercise their freedom not to attend school - again, I think not. Should I allow that teenager to voice their concerns about some problem at the school - indeed. As such, I do exercise my right to establish boundaries. Jesus did the same.

 

Dogma/doctrine does not allow me that 'freedom' - my thinking is done for me by someone else. You write - I would argue that we do not want to be “boundary less” when it comes to freedom. I want the protection of that boundary. But that does not mean that I want someone to ride shotgun for me on those boundaries - I will maintain them myself. I want control over them because such boundaries will inevitably shift either over time or across situations - I don't want to be overuled by some boundary rider.

 

But as important as freedom is to all progressives just being “free” to believe is not enough to sustain any community. More “boundaries” are needed.

 

... which seems to me to be contradictory - you want freedom yet more boundaries. I don't follow. Maybe you have something specific in mind.

 

Each Christ Church consciously thought about the kind of religious thinking they wanted in their building. Each Church created a “doctrine” that reflected what they wanted.

 

Which is what I am questioning. - how can one be progressive when one erects fences all over the place? (to be continued)

[David]

Thank you for your clarification.

I agree that in part it may be a matter of definition.

I do not see "doctrine" as static/unchanging or having to come from an authority source external to the participants.

I would use "doctrine" as the "agreed philosophy" of the group.

That can change over time and to me can be most dynamic.

If the word doctrine is only used in the way you have defined it then I agree we do not want doctrines.

I'm not sure that this takes us to agreement but we may be a bit closer.

Maybe I have caused us to stray too far from the Middle East here.

Want to start a new thread?

[Wayseer]

(Continued) - (Just realised David you made a post as I was compiling this - so there may be some cross-over)

 

From what I can glean from your post it seems that you are advocating some form of 'progressive' institution which has the power to effect change. Indeed, institutions are effective such instruments but history informs us that institutions inevitably become dominating to the point where individual freedom is submerged for the sake of the institution.

 

You also ignore, apparently, the work of Archbishop Spong who, individually, has challenged the institution of the established Church - alone and all but unaided. It has been his example of individual courage to challenge the power of the collective that marks him as someone rather special. Individuals are important - Jesus being the prime example.

 

The freedom to believe in hateful, destructive doctrine needs to be replaced by belief in a more pluralistic doctrine. Those that can not do this need to be isolated by boundaries so that they can not do any more damage.

 

That is always a danger - you're never sure of the outcome - such is the human condition. But such condition has enabled the continuing work of creation - even the 'bad' bits aid us in making choices - we know what 'not to choose.

 

I think we need to raise to our consciousness the importance of boundary making, the limits of “freedom” as a sole doctrine and the possibility that we really can have a Progressive Christian Church that will have major consequences for our world and just not a message board.

 

That universal approach will only succeed if individuals are given the freedom to make choices - not by some imposed doctrine proclaiming 'freedom'. I have accepted that such a stance is scary and fraught with danger. The point I make is that any other way has been worked and found wanting. Christianty has not really been tried.

 

I just came from church - I walked out. They were singing 'When I survey the Wonderous Cross' forgetting that the cross is empty. I felt a deep sadness - these people just love being the victim. Actually I felt like kicking over a few fences right there and then but they would not have understood. They would rather cling to their poverty deomonstrating that misery by giving the paltry sum of $3 per week to the work of the church.

 

The awful thing about it all is that in all probability I would have been singing along with them had I not met Spong.

 

David - the internet maybe as good as it gets for the moment - well, at least you and I have met - I happen to think that is a good thing.

[Wayseer]

Davidk writes - How does one believe in the printed belief philosophy of a church that has no belief?

 

... and that's what terrifies you - freedom.

[October's Autumn]

You also ignore, apparently, the work of Archbishop Spong who, individually, has challenged the institution of the established Church - alone and all but unaided. It has been his example of individual courage to challenge the power of the collective that marks him as someone rather special. Individuals are important - Jesus being the prime example.

 

My 4th graders have been studying Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. They were surprised when I explained to them that the event of her getting arrested was planned. I had to explain to them that history does not get made by an individual but rather a group of people working together purposefully. Had she simply been arrested for not moving it would have not likely done anything except get her an arrest record. It was because people knew what would likely happen when she did that they were forearmed in their peaceful and effective battle. Although some make to make it look like one person can change the world, it actually takes a group of people working together purposefully and deliberately.

 

If you read Spong's book " Liberating the Gospels" in his preface he says this very thing. He has not taken on the church "alone and all but unaided." He has had mentors and others working with him. Spong understands the importance of community and he understands that because of his position he is in the best place to be a voice for thousands if not millions of people. Spong speaks of one in particular who calls himself a non-aggressive atheist who's writings and then relationship completely changed Spong's thinking. Likewise, Jesus did not make changes by himself. In fact, had it not been for Paul he wouldn't have likely been remembered except with the other Jewish Sects from that time, times before, and times since which came and went. In fact the idea of individuality, as we now in western society, would have been entirely alien to Jesus, and probably offensive.

 

One person only changes the world for the worse, those seeking their 15 minutes of fame through infamy.

[Wayseer]

If I may add to David's comments about boundaries...

 

Boundaries are extremely important in human relationships. When two people in a relationship (adults, parent-child, etc.) we call them "enmeshed." I think I've seen what Wayseer is concerned about and what David is talking about. When I went to the local UU the boundaries were similar to what Wayseer was concerned about. I was very uncomfortable there and it took me a while to figure out why. When I started at the local UCC I experienced the kind of boundaries David is talking about. I eventually figured out the difference. At the UCC I was free to journey and follow as I was lead. I wasn't required to hold a certain set of beliefs in order to be "in." Every time a new member joined the church the lead clergy would say that our church will forever change because you are here! People range in beliefs and there is even a Jewish person who is a member of our congregation. He was drawn because of two things (that I know of) 1) extravagant welcome -- he could still identify and be Jewish, and 2) our commitment to social action. Even if he were drawn to the social action he would not have joined had he not been able to still be Jewish (ie if he had to convert). My understanding is that they changed the liturgy under which he joined.

 

My experience at the UU is that there was a sort of litmus test. It wasn't planned but it was there. I didn't last long in that congregation because I didn't feel like I could grow.

 

Thank you OA - I think you have said what I have been struggling to articulate. And by 'growing' you are taking part in 'creating'.

[Wayseer]

If you read Spong's book " Liberating the Gospels" in his preface he says this very thing. He has not taken on the church "alone and all but unaided." He has had mentors and others working with him.

 

Gandhi and King were followed by thousands yet they could only have gained that committment by demonstrating that they would go alone if necessary.

 

I take your point - no one is really 'alone' - Jesus had his disciples, Spong had his supporters. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those times when it is 'the' individual that must stand up - alone and unaided. Jesus faced the cross - alone. Spong took on the Lambeth Conference - alone. When Spong speaks it is him that is speaking - not a committee. When Jesus acts it is he that acting, it is not some sort of collective 'love in'. We stand before GOD, alone - and, we die - alone.

 

Ian Lawton met Spong after that Lambeth Conference and notes - He [spong] was battle weary. He was scarred. You could see on his face that he bore the wounds of the nastiness of church people who had been spitting on him ands cursing him, and being two-faced around him.

 

The words he gave to me that day, I will never forget ...

 

Stay focused at your inner core. People can hurt you, physically harm you, they can tear your self-confidence, but they can never touch that inner core.

 

That is the 'aloneness' I am talking about.

[David]

I saw that "aloneness" and "weariness" in Spong just recently. There is no doubt that he has individual courage in the face of much hostility and ugliness. There is no doubt that his courage has costs.

However, Spong still declares his love for the Church.

Spong supports that church in Michigan as you can see from the short video on their website.

Spong said that the Jesus Seminar made his job much easier. He spoke fondly of Bob Funk who was another "exile" from the current form of the Church but who still held out hope for the Church.

Spong was surrounded by people at the Jesus Seminar as he has always been surrounded by people whenever I have seen him.

Spong does not lack for strong support even in the face of strong hostility.

Spong notes every time I see him that his spouse is not only with him but he would not be who he is if she were not who she is. Spong would not identify himself with individualism nor with freedom as the most important doctrines.

I would encourage using Spong as our guide to the importance of "boundry making" and being a part of a community supported by a common sense of mission.

At the same time, believe me, I can understand being in "exile" and the lonliness that this involves.

I also think there are many "embattled clergy" out there that are very lonely.

But there is a vision of hope that sustains.

And based upon real success stories I do not think that this hope is without basis.

I understand that the Church of the past does not guarantee the Church of the future.

I recognize with Spong that Christianity must change or die but I think Spong would agree with me that we hope for the change.

And I think that Spong really believes that change will come. So do I.

So like Spong I still declare my love for the Church.

And Wayseer, I am also glad that we have met.

[Wayseer]

David - thank you - I needed to hear those words. I take your point that love for the church despite its waywardness. There is hope and change will come. Thank you again for your words of wisdom.

[davidk]

Davidk writes - How does one believe in the printed belief philosophy of a church that has no belief?

 

... and that's what terrifies you - freedom.

 

And, you believe in 'no' belief. That is really terrifyingly profound. And typical, since Progressive "doctrine" says God's truth is found in the ambiguous. Is this the belief of those fighting for or against Israel's existence?

It is only the full Biblical explanation that provides rationality for an individuals personality and freedom. Does that terrify you?

 

The talk of boundaries is very promising. Without 'boundaries' there is no freedom, because without 'bondaries', there would no meaning for anything. Everything would be the same and available, pantheistic. But the boundaries should be God's and not societies. Otherwise, it would be merely platitude.

[Wayseer]

It is only the full Biblical explanation that provides rationality for an individuals personality and freedom. Does that terrify you?

 

Yes - Just look at all those 'biblical explanations' that are fuelling most of the trouble througout the world - including the degratation and humiliation of women, endemic poverty and failed states. I rather go without your 'rationality' thank you - anarchy sounds far more civilised.

[davidk]

They're spelled: 'throughout', 'degradation' and 'civilized'

 

The things you say are happening all originate from man-made ambiguity of belief and rebellion against God's truth.

 

It takes a moral presence of mind to realize these things you speak of, are wrong. You demonstrate a sensitive moral conviction.

 

The problem arises when we have to explain how we know what is right from wrong, good from evil. This is man's dilemma. On one hand, man is noble and is a wonder. While on the other, as you pointed out, man can be horribly cruel. How do we know, which is which? Who decides? Based on what truth, who's truth? Do we vote? Is there some elite class of humans that will decide? We have a dilemma of morals.

Certain historic figures come to mind, DeSade, Hitler, Stalin; all of these men thought they were right, thought they were good. How do we know what is good and what is evil?

If God does not exist in the way the Bible teaches, morals really do not exist as morals. If all that exists is by chance, morality has no meaning. We could talk about destroying Israel, humiliating and degrading women, famine, anti-social behavior, what I don't like or do like, but we cannot really talk about what is really right or really wrong, if what is now is only by chance.

[McKenna]

If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns? There are no other considerations.

 

I'd say it's the rescuer's fault if He happens to be omniscient and omnipotent. But that's just me.

[October's Autumn]

I'd say it's the rescuer's fault if He happens to be omniscient and omnipotent. But that's just me.

 

 

I have to remember that. I always thought the "refusing to get help" was a stupid analogy, now I know why! I do know that some people when drowning are in such a state of panic life guards may have to subdue them in order to rescue them... I guess the analogy is worse than I thought!

[Wayseer]

The problem arises when we have to explain how we know what is right from wrong, good from evil. This is man's dilemma.

 

No - it is made out as 'man's dilemna - that somehow all this chosing is difficult - that there is no definative ideal. This is little more than propaganda and offers those who like to make problems where little or none exist an excuse to raise some obscure existential point for little or no good reason. It is also a sign of laziness.

 

David K, how do you know right from wrong - good from bad? Now - how would other people come to some similar decision? See - it's not so hard.

[davidk]

I have to remember that. I always thought the "refusing to get help" was a stupid analogy, now I know why! I do know that some people when drowning are in such a state of panic life guards may have to subdue them in order to rescue them... I guess the analogy is worse than I thought!

Autumn:

It is obvious you have never been a lifeguard. The reason a drowning man would have to be subdued is because he grabs for you so desperately both of you might drown! Think outside your box a little.

 

McKenna:

God allows free will. You do believe in free will, don't you?

 

Wayseer:

Maybe we see things more alike than you want to know. You already know decisions have to be made, and they really need not be difficult. You also know there is a definitve model. You know there are problems, and certainly we don't need to invent anymore.

 

I would submit that knowing the difference between good and evil should hardly be considered an obscure existential point. If all that exists is simply by chance, then everything boils down to being equal. Right and wrong are meaningless words. We are merely soulless machines.

 

To answer your question:

 

I had to understand what I saw. What I saw was man as different from non-man. Man is personal ( he can love, communicate, has aspirations, and so forth) but finite. I saw Man as he sits on a planet in a universe that is remarkably complex (diverse) and yet orderly (unified).

I saw man wonderfully loving, yet at the same time, horribly cruel.

 

I grew up in a 'Christian' home. Although it was much later confessed neither of my parents were Christian at the time. We attended a church of a self-described 'Liberal theology' persuasion. It took years, but during my teens I started asking questins at 'Sunday School'. Everything was so subjective and all sprituality was requiring an irrational 'leap of faith' to believe, it was simply "too inexplicable for words", and Genisis was myth anyway.

 

During my college years, most of the surrounding Churches practiced the same doctrines I was raised with. It was all becoming experiential, no one could say what theirs was, "it was too inexplicable for words". Others sought experiences. When they felt their experience too small or nonexistent, they would leave discouraged and hopeless. So I simply quit attending. The others were full of old people praying. Not much for me there.

 

Krishna became the rage, but the doctrine was so specious and undefinable the gurus couldn't even get the handle, and the incessant chanting proved much more annoying than fruitful. You had to be high to "get it, man".

 

Drugs offered some relief but too may people started dying. The risk was quickly becoming too great.

I had Buddhist friends hoping to be awakened from their sleep of ignorance. The "four noble truths" turned out not to be statements but 'inexplicable things', again the leap! They refused the concept of any god.

 

 

I have to go now. I have a friend in the hospital. Back later.

[davidk]

My friend had a successful procedure, out of ER, and in recovery, will be comming home today!

-------------------------

 

In school, I studied evolutionary Anthropology, the scientific method, geologic column, Laws of Thermodynamics, Cause and effect, and some classical logic.

 

After school, got married, had kids, got divorced.

 

I remarried, moved to the Middle East, lived in Saudi Arabia. It was here I realized how fortunate I had been living in the United States. For there is absolutely no freedom of religion in most Arab-Muslim countries. Anything other than Islam was strictly forbidden, with punishments as severe as the death penalty.

If you even vaguely inferred the name of Israel, you could be immediately deported or thrown into jail, never to be heard from again. It was also here I truly learned of man's cruelty to his fellow man and the planet.

 

Returning home, joined a church because I still had a need. It was comfortable. It was the familiar theology of the past.

Ironically enough, it was here I began to really dig for some solid answers. And for the first time in my life, I began to read the Bible in earnest.

I can't expect everyone to have the same response I had when I read, probably for the 'um'teenth time, "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth." A dim little light began to flicker. What if this were true? I had no idea whether it was or not at this point, but, what if it was?

 

It is this journey that has exposed the counterfeit. Some one liners are sufficient, but it is really in its total that the Bible speaks. We may disagree on events or facts, but even members on this page agree its truths come forth from its pages; Love, community, finances, marriage, death, life, salvation, all.

 

It is where you are now in your walk, that I began.

[Wayseer]

I would submit that knowing the difference between good and evil should hardly be considered an obscure existential point. If all that exists is simply by chance, then everything boils down to being equal. Right and wrong are meaningless words. We are merely soulless machines.

 

Davidk - neither you nor I know where the line between good and evil is to be drawn. And neither does anyone else. The world is not black and white as you seem to think it should be - it's more a grey soupy smuge. But even here you know the answers even before the need to question arises.

 

'It' all does not exist 'simply by chance' - there are limits as your studies would have informed you. We might have free will but as I have indicated try committing suicide by holding your breath - some things are outside the box - fortunately. And, how can we all be equal? A brief look around the world satisfies me that we are not all equal.

 

Right and wrong are not meaningless nor are we souless - statements which tend to contradict you earlier dilemna about right and wrong - if in fact you had one. So what changed? Right and wrong are now 'meaningless' - so why ask where the difference lies? But, then I never had your education.

 

The world might seem a nilhist romp through a chaotic universe - but that's what we have done as humans - we have given it another name and thereby reason.

[October's Autumn]

Autumn:

It is obvious you have never been a lifeguard. The reason a drowning man would have to be subdued is because he grabs for you so desperately both of you might drown! Think outside your box a little.

 

I realize that a person drowning is panicking which is why they have to be subdued... where did the nastiness come from?

[McKenna]

Glad to hear your friend is ok, DavidK.

 

McKenna:

God allows free will. You do believe in free will, don't you?

 

I'm sorry, but I have trouble with this scenario: an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God creates a universe in which He knows man will fall, which He knows salvation will need to be provided for, and which He knows will result in many of His creations spending eternity in Hell. Somewhere in there it seems that the omniscience, omnipotence, all-lovingness, and need for humans to have free will come in conflict. But if you don't see that conflict...I don't know how I can point it out to you.

 

That being said, I don't even think if that scenario was true that it would be a simple matter of choice by free will. There are so many other factors! There are so many reasons a person would choose not to believe! And they're not all "rebellion"! I mean, you can't honestly tell me that you expect someone living in a mostly-Hindu or mostly-Buddhist or mostly-Muslim or mostly-whatever country/society/community to be as likely as someone living in a mostly-Christian community to accept Christ! In which case it's not fair because not everyone gets an equal shot!!! But I already expressed my views on this (see post #27 of this thread).

 

But I have further issues with the scenario you're proposing. I once heard someone describe it somewhat like this - "God is perfectly merciful, but He is also perfectly just, and so He has created a perfect system of punishment/rewards." But I just don't see how the system is perfect. It seems to me to be the opposite. It contradicts both mercy and justice, because some truly good people are condemned (I'm sorry, but condemning anyone - especially Gandhi and others like him - simply is not merciful), while some truly bad people are saved (which is not just!). I just don't get the logic behind this. If this is God's system, it strikes me as far from perfect. I can see how justice and mercy could be balanced - if some kind of punishment was given to those who were truly bad, but then those people were pardoned eventually. Yet this system gives punishment on the basis of beliefs, rather than moral behavior, and the punishment is eternal, with no merciful pardon!! How the heck is that both merciful and just?? (I realize these are someone else's words, not your own, and I apologize if I am misrepresenting your viewpoint by aiming my response to this viewpoint at you.)

 

I know I'm not going to change your mind about this, and you're probably not going to change mine (as I've heard all the arguments for your point of view before, and spent a lot of time pondering it, and I still can't quite grasp how it makes any sense at all). But I'd be happy to discuss this further if you want, although it seems a little pointless.