Why Do Christians Grieve?

[Cecilie1200]

You vastly underestimate the human capacity for denial and tunnel vision. Also, blaming God because YOU are recalcitrant and He doesn't just overwhelm you and take all choice and freedom away from you is a little unreasonable.

No I'd rather believe in Christianity than believe I don't exist after death. I just don't see any evidence for the former.

That's where the whole "faith" thing comes into play. You're not "believing in" something if you have it proven to you. I don't "believe" that the sky is blue. It just is. I can see it. If I were unable to see any colors at all, though, I would have to believe that it was, based on having faith in the word of whoever told me that it was blue. You see the difference? Strict materialism is an extremely limiting life philosophy.

But this isn't only about me or anybody blaming that which they cannot reasonably presume to exist. I don't think free choice is even a fair assessment of the situation. It's quite a different choice for the preacher's son versus the imam's son. The imam's son may be conceptually aware of Christianity, but it is presented as the lies of his enemies. Being conceptually aware of something isn't useful. There are many religions besides Christianity and no compelling reason that Christianity is the correct choice, let alone that any religion has it right.

Um, you DO realize that many people who were raised in one belief system do convert to another, based upon their personal perception of the second as being more true than the first? Being conceptually aware of something is VERY useful, because you cannot give it consideration until you're aware of it. And whether or not there is a compelling reason that Christianity is the correct choice depends on the person in question. Given that it has billions of followers worldwide, most of whom were NOT raised in it from birth, it clearly has the ability to produce compelling reasons for faith.

Lots of people knowingly make that choice. I know any number of people who were raised as I was, had the same training from birth that I did, and knowingly chose to turn away from it.

They turned away from it as a conscious choice of choosing Satan and Hell. That still seems far-fetched.

There are some people who DO make a conscious choice of Satan (they're called Satanists. Perhaps you've heard of them), but the conscious choice of most people is to turn away from God and not believe in the teachings of Christianity, knowing that they're risking Satan and Hell if they're wrong.

Satan is redundant. This temptation you refer to requires no supernatural source.

This would be a relevant argument if I were making up a story and you were critiquing it. However, we're talking about a belief about what is and isn't real. If Christianity is true, as I believe, then Satan's redundancy in existing or lack thereof is irrelevant. You exist without having to justify the necessity of yourself to anyone, so why shouldn't he?

People are tempted to have sex? Why? Because sex feels good? Why? Because having sex is required to make the next generation and helps to forge social ties for an interdependent species. There are many examples.

Sex is not a sin per se, just so you know. Extramarital sex is a sin, because God doesn't want us to do it, so doing it anyway is disobedient.

If you're wanting to ask about the nature of temptation to sin, you're going to have to ask more clearly than simply picking one thing you think is a sin (particularly when you're mistaken), and then wandering off down a tangent.

Very few? Would even one ever be acceptable? Are there special rules for those who cannot understand the concept of Jesus, like a baby or a mentally disabled person?

Yes, there are special rules for those who cannot make competent decisions based on free will, such as young children or those with the mental capacity of young children. Christians believe in something called "the age of accountability", which is the point in your life where you are intelligent, mature, and self-aware enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation, and to make a decision regarding them. This point differs with every person.

Yes I have heard that, I just haven't been able to reconcile that with reason. After all, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo. Yet if we use that sense, reason, and intellect, we find problems with Christian doctrine and the Bible itself.

This would depend, as always, on your definitions of "sense", "reason", and "problems".

Trying to stick to what you said, though, why would a perfect god find it necessary to assert himself in such a way over his inferior creations? Such perfection would simply go without saying. It sounds very medieval to me. The jealousy and wrath of the God of the OT seems barbaric and juvenile.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "assert Himself". I will say, however, that attempting to judge God by human standards sounds pretty funny.

Sure, these are the opinions of a mere mortal, but a mere mortal who has exactly no evidence for this superior being, that I'm aware of anyway.

Like I said, running around with a strictly materialistic view of life and refusing to take any stand or opinion on anything that you have not, personally, conclusively seen or experienced is going to leave you with a lot of big, empty spaces in your perspective.

Or to put it another way, you already take a lot of things on faith without demanding personalized, concrete evidence of them. Why balk so hard at this one?

There's just no common ground to be had. Every point you make requires a presupposition I don't find reasonable. Evidence suggests people evolved from lower lifeforms, and I don't believe people can be legitimately owned.

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to convince you to believe anything. I'm simply telling you what Christians believe, so that you're not wandering around, making false statements and assumptions about them based on fallacies and misperceptions.

By the way, evidence does NOT suggest anything of the sort. You're just taking it on faith.

Spare me the empty moralizing and philosophical posturing about "people can't be legitimately owned". Talk about having faith in something without hard evidence.

In order for a choice to be anything but a lottery, you would have to have a rational basis for the choice. Where is Christianity's high ground over other religions? How can anything supernatural at all be verified?

First of all, who are YOU to define "rational basis" for someone else? Who are you to tell someone else what the "high ground" is over other religious options? And who are you to demand that anything be verified? Would that you had such high standards of proof for any of the number of beliefs I've heard you espouse on these boards.

Why would a substitute need to be made?

Because unlike God, Satan isn't willing to give his possessions the freedom to choose not to belong to him.

That makes no more sense than a king executing an innocent man who volunteers to be executed in order to forgive the guilty people willing to thank the innocent man. How is that comparison invalid?

Actually, there are historical precedents for people taking punishment that rightfully belongs to someone else, but as it happens, God didn't "execute" anyone. Christ chose to give Himself in place of us. If we then insist on going ahead and going to Hell anyway, He won't stop us, but it's pretty redundant and silly. Think of it like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies, and then one of his buddies saying, "No, damn it. That explosion was meant for me!" and then shoving another grenade down his pants.

How do you arrive at those precepts, logically?

When did anyone ever say that any of this came from "logic" as you define it? When did anyone even say it NEEDED to be "logical" by your definitions? This isn't some story I'm inventing off the top of my head for a fiction novel. These are the beliefs of Christianity, being explained to you out of the goodness and generosity of my heart so that you will know what we truly believe instead of making incorrect assumptions, and neither I nor anyone else is obliged to justify them to you. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I am trying to convince you that what I believe is how the universe truly is, or that you should believe it as well. I am simply explaining Christianity's real beliefs, as opposed to the fallacies you were previously attributing to us and basing your assumptions upon.

My standard is difficult to achieve? It sounded more like a do-the-crime-pay-the-time approach, which would be fair.

Only because you pigheadedly insist on believing that this is a penal system we're discussing, despite being told three times already that it isn't. Like I said, the main reason you don't understand Christian belief is because you are bound and determined to only see your own beliefs and to try to force everyone else's to fit inside that framework. If you're not going to even attempt to listen to what I'm saying, I'm not going to bother trying to be courteous and explain it to you.

No one is interested, by the way, in what you consider "fair", not just because that isn't the point (something else I keep saying and you keep ignoring), but also because no one elected YOU arbiter of universal mechanisms.

As far as the "achieveable by anybody who desires to" you have to realize that's not how it is. Not everybody can believe something only because they want to.

Who suggested that they should? I referred to the action required, not the motivation (You do seem to have enormous trouble differentiating between the two, and a huge obsession with motivations). Doesn't really matter why you decide to believe. Everyone comes to belief differently, for different reasons. The point is that once you do, you have only to ask for salvation to get to Heaven, an action that anyone can perform. You, on the other hand, would have people become saints on Earth to earn their way there, an action that most if not all of us would find impossible.

Does open to understanding mean surrendering reason and a sense of fairness? If a god were all powerful and benevolent he would be compelled to create a fair system.

No, it means being reasonable enough to look at someone else's viewpoint, instead of pigheadedly insisting that yours is the only possible one, and trying to impose it onto the beliefs of others. No one is asking you to agree with Christians. I'm asking you to get over yourself long enough to understand them. I am capable of looking at and understanding the viewpoint upon which Buddhists, for example, base their beliefs, even though I don't agree with them. Are you telling me that I'm more open-minded and tolerant than you are?

If God is all-powerful, who's going to compel Him to do anything?

You've been trying to force your own perspective of how the universe is onto it, and then declaring that "it doesn't make sense" because it doesn't match up to what you think it should be.

The universe does not appear to operate how I think it should.

I didn't say anything about how you think it SHOULD be. I said "how you think it is". You've decided that the universe is a certain way, and then flatly refused to even look at, let alone try to understand, anyone else's point of view. And then you wonder why you don't comprehend Christians and their beliefs. It's because you won't shut up long enough to hear anyone else.

Is there any basis to think people are awarded or punished according to how much they harm others after they die? No. There is no apparent fairness in the universe. And that might be because there is no God.

Or it might be because, as you've been told any number of times now, this isn't about rewards or punishment or "fairness". And God certainly is not obliged to conform to YOUR perceptions and standards of how things should be. It should go without saying that, "There's no God, because if there was, I think He should do things this way instead of the way they are" doesn't constitute proof of anything, except perhaps a bit of narcissism on your part.

The universe operates within natural laws that I have no say over but can be detected by quantitative analysis. The supernatural, let alone God, cannot be assumed to exist from scientific inquiry or reason as far as I can tell so far.

You should possibly look up the words "faith" and "belief", because I'm thinking you're a bit shaky on the concepts.

When you allow for the possibility that you've been mistaken about the order of things and open your mind to the change in perspective required to see Christianity on its own terms, you will begin to comprehend it. You might still disagree, but it won't be because you're demanding that we conform to you and we refuse.

Don't forget that while Christianity makes no sense to me, I absolutely would rather believe it than what I believe. Again, it's obviously true that the universe does not conform to what I want. And again, not everybody can believe something that doesn't make sense by sheer willpower. It comes down to the fact that everything I can perceive about the universe so far does not mesh with the Christian concept of God. There's no evidence for the supernatural.

I would be mightily obliged if you would stop saying, "Belief by sheer willpower", as though anyone except you has ever suggested it. You are, once again, making assumptions about how things are and then stating them as fact. I would also be mightily obliged if you would disabuse yourself of the notion that I am either trying to convince you to believe in Christianity or justify it to you. I am merely explaining what we believe in answer to your questions about it. We are not debating its rightness or wrongness, nor are we going to, so if you want to ask questions about what we believe, I'll be happy to try to answer. If you're going to continue with arguments about why it's wrong to believe it, our conversation is finished.

 

[N4mddissent]

I used to get bogged down in these detailed arguments many years ago. But then I realized that the first rational hurdle I would have to clear is the existence of a conscious being in the absence of a physical form. A disembodied mind. Until someone can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical form, then all the other theological debate is just moot. I think there are far more arguments that discredit the traditional god concept and the strength of arguments against god are directly proportionate to the specificity claimed by the belief or religion. But those arguments are really just academic until hurdle 1 is overcome.

 

[N4mddissent]

I like how you imply that one believes something based on how "nice" or "awful" it is, rather than whether or not one honestly thinks it's true. Hey, I think it's awful that you believe a human being standing on the surface of the sun would be vaporized.

"That's one of the hypocrisies of Christianity"? WHAT is?

That seems to be referring to the previous sentence, "It seems impossible that a God that is supposed to be the embodiment of unconditional love and mercy would send anyone to a place as terrible as Hell."

Of course the love is conditional, it has to be requited in a small way. Christians seem to believe that in order for Jesus to save you, you have to first believe he saved you by dying a terrible death. I am not sure how the idea of God being merciful and hell can be reconciled.


My main problem with it is how arbitrary it is. The fate of eternal bliss or torture is determined by basically telling God/Jesus, whose existence you can't even verify, that he's awesome. This is mostly independent of how terrible the person was on a human scale. So a serial baby rapist killer who accepts Jesus is going to heaven, while Gandhi is going to hell. There is no logic in that system of justice at all.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you AND him that a lack of misunderstanding on your parts doesn't constitute hypocrisy on our part. And your entire post reveals that the problem here is that YOU simply don't understand the teachings of Christianity, and are therefore stating them according to what you think they are, and then judging Christianity as though your guesses were doctrine.

The teachings of christianity vary widely. I don't think it's appropriate for any christian to say someone doesn't understand the teachings of christianity, since there are enormous contentions about that "understanding" among those who call themselves christians. Your particular interpretation is very different than many others and just declaring that your interpretations or "understanding" is accurate while someone else's is inaccurate is just being verbally obstinate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That seems to be referring to the previous sentence, "It seems impossible that a God that is supposed to be the embodiment of unconditional love and mercy would send anyone to a place as terrible as Hell."

Of course the love is conditional, it has to be requited in a small way. Christians seem to believe that in order for Jesus to save you, you have to first believe he saved you by dying a terrible death. I am not sure how the idea of God being merciful and hell can be reconciled.


My main problem with it is how arbitrary it is. The fate of eternal bliss or torture is determined by basically telling God/Jesus, whose existence you can't even verify, that he's awesome. This is mostly independent of how terrible the person was on a human scale. So a serial baby rapist killer who accepts Jesus is going to heaven, while Gandhi is going to hell. There is no logic in that system of justice at all.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you AND him that a lack of misunderstanding on your parts doesn't constitute hypocrisy on our part. And your entire post reveals that the problem here is that YOU simply don't understand the teachings of Christianity, and are therefore stating them according to what you think they are, and then judging Christianity as though your guesses were doctrine.

The teachings of christianity vary widely. I don't think it's appropriate for any christian to say someone doesn't understand the teachings of christianity, since there are enormous contentions about that "understanding" among those who call themselves christians. Your particular interpretation is very different than many others and just declaring that your interpretations or "understanding" is accurate while someone else's is inaccurate is just being verbally obstinate.

While there are variations in Christian teachings from church to church, there are basic, fundamental teachings that are universal. CS Lewis refers to it as "mere Christianity". What I have been talking about here are doctrines that apply to any church that can truly be described as "Christian".

If you would like to state specifically something I have said that is not in the Bible and taught by some church which would fall under the heading of "Christian", please feel free. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you're just blowing smoke.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think its awful that Christians believe those who don't accept Jesus as their personal savior burn for all eternity in Hell. That just seems like the worst thing to believe.

What about people of other faiths? What about those who have never been exposed to the teachings of the Bible? What about those who are utterly incapable of believing in the Bible and its seemingly unrealistic stories? Do all of them burn for all of eternity through no fault of their own?

It seems impossible that a God that is supposed to be the embodiment of unconditional love and mercy would send anyone to a place as terrible as Hell.

That's one of the hypocrisies of Christianity which turns me off to the faith and the further ramifications of which that makes me regard its adherents with suspicion and fear.

I like how you imply that one believes something based on how "nice" or "awful" it is, rather than whether or not one honestly thinks it's true. Hey, I think it's awful that you believe a human being standing on the surface of the sun would be vaporized.

"That's one of the hypocrisies of Christianity"? WHAT is?

That seems to be referring to the previous sentence, "It seems impossible that a God that is supposed to be the embodiment of unconditional love and mercy would send anyone to a place as terrible as Hell."

Of course the love is conditional, it has to be requited in a small way. Christians seem to believe that in order for Jesus to save you, you have to first believe he saved you by dying a terrible death. I am not sure how the idea of God being merciful and hell can be reconciled.

My main problem with it is how arbitrary it is. The fate of eternal bliss or torture is determined by basically telling God/Jesus, whose existence you can't even verify, that he's awesome. This is mostly independent of how terrible the person was on a human scale. So a serial baby rapist killer who accepts Jesus is going to heaven, while Gandhi is going to hell. There is no logic in that system of justice at all.

That's because you see it with a man's eyes, and you can't come close to the perception of God.

God is perfect, God is just, and God is righteous. So how can one be just and righteous, if one doesn't punish?

God does love us, God did die for us..the ultimate, painful sacrifice, knowing he would die a gruesome and painful death. But he did it because he knew we are not able to be perfect ourselves. So he made the sacrifice (and even descended into hell) to make it easier for us. All you have to do is have faith. If you have faith, your sins will be forgiven and you will attain heaven.

Now to profess faith and go ahead and live without repenting of your sins or making an honest attempt to live apart from sin, of course, begs the question...are you really saved? And of course only a person and God knows that.

Also keep in mind that just because God forgives you doesn't mean man will. We all answer for our sins, on this world and in the next. Just because God is willing to forgive a murderer and accept him into heaven does not mean that man should not have to answer for his crimes on earth.

The other thing to keep in mind is that God is so holy that all of our sins are filthy to him. When we THINK sinfully, to God that is the same as actually commiting the sin. So to God, the man who commits the murder, and the man who dreams about a murder are equally guilty. The man who lusts after a woman is as guilty of adultery or fornication as the man who actually follows through. We are all sinners, every one of us. There are a couple of sins that stand out according to the bible, and other than that, they are all equally vile to God (though man uses a different measure, and should).

One that is particularly vile to God is the murder of innocents. Murder a child or someone who is innocent and you may not be forgiven. Which makes sense, since Christ was innocent and was murdered.

Another is rejection of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit calls to you, and you ridicule and reject him, the bible says that's a sin that may not be forgiven, because essentially it makes you guilty of the murder of CHrist.

What scoffers cannot get through their heads is that God is not human. THey are arrogant enough to presume to know what God "should" do and are resentful that he doesn't follow human dictates and answer to human feelings and pettiness.

The bible tells us the devil enjoys planting doubts in the minds of men who think they are able to think their way around God. What is heartbreaking is to see people fall for it every day. YOu think you know better than God, and because you don't like what he has to say about sin, you ridicule and harass those who believe it. You're doing the devil's work. Have fun. In the end, it's going to cost you.

 

[N4mddissent]

knowing that they're risking Satan and Hell if they're wrong...

Third, God didn't create Hell for humans at all. He created it for Satan and his fallen angels. It's not His fault that some humans choose to give their souls to Satan and join him in his eternal prison.

Not universal
Only 51% of presbyterian members (and 46% of presbyterian pastors) believe in the existence of hell.
Gnostic christianity- Satan praised as a bringer of knowledge. Christadelphians, Church of Blessed Hope, and some ELCA Lutherans view satan as a metaphor.

So he made the sacrifice (and even descended into hell) to make it easier for us. All you have to do is have faith. If you have faith, your sins will be forgiven and you will attain heaven.

Not Universal
There are debates even within denominations about whether christ actually descended into hell. Several denominations do not agree that faith alone will allow the forgiveness of sin and attainment of heaven. Some independent churches (non-denominational church of christ) believe that that faith, baptism, and good works are all required. Catholic doctrine believes in necessity of baptism as well.

Yes, there are special rules for those who cannot make competent decisions based on free will, such as young children or those with the mental capacity of young children. Christians believe in something called "the age of accountability", which is the point in your life where you are intelligent, mature, and self-aware enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation, and to make a decision regarding them. This point differs with every person.

Not universally accepted. Even Augustine denied this idea, believing that all unevangelized people, and unbaptized infants would burn in hell.

Salvation is not arbitrary. It's available to everyone. They must merely choose to accept it. It's also not based on "telling God He's awesome". You have to believe in God, in His desire to save you, and you must express the willingness to let Him. That's it.

"Merely choosing" implies free will rather than determinism, but predestination is still accepted in some christian denominations. Also, the last sentence here once again is not a universal statement. Some more liberal protestant denominations believe that everyone shall be saved regardless of belief. More conservative churches often hold that belief and willingness is not enough, but requires baptism and other works.

Are you not listening to me? You're still talking about "punishment", and acting as though this is about meting out human justice for crimes. God doesn't send you to Hell, and certainly not to punish you for your sins.

Or it might be because, as you've been told any number of times now, this isn't about rewards or punishment or "fairness".

Westminster Confession (traditional protestant definition of hell.)
"but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (Chapter XXXIII, Of the Last Judgment) emphasis added.

From religioustolerance.org
Conservative Christians generally:

Consider the Bible to be inerrant -- free of error.
Interpret Bible passages literally, unless a symbolic meaning is clearly indicated.

This leads most of them to believe that God has created a system for actual punishment of most humans in a real Hell after their death. emphasis added

Should I keep going?
It is almost impossible to find a christian belief that is truly "universal". Basically the only point that is probably agreed among all christians is that jesus was divine and crucified. Beyond that, the theology is often debated.

And God certainly is not obliged to conform to YOUR perceptions and standards of how things should be.

It may be folly or nacisistic to believe god should conform to our percpetions and how things could be, but religious scholars have long put forth that god is rational. This avoids such paradoxical challenges like, "can god make a round square, or a circle with four corners" and "can god make a stone too heavy for him to lift?" which in the absence of a rational god/universe would be actual challenges to omnipotency. So if god must be rational, it is fair to challenge what appears to irrational beliefs.

Furthermore, if there are exceptions for those who cannot freely make a choice (like young children), then it logically follows that there is an exception for some non-believers. After all, belief is not a choice. One can say one believes, but it does not make it true in one's own mind. We are rational beings and if in our reason, without opposition toward and with open minds we study those religious beliefs, then at the end find that our minds are not convinced of their validity, then what fault could god hold us? It seems much easier for a child to accept a belief (santa claus), so why an exception for them but not for those with rational minds?

 

[Cecilie1200]

knowing that they're risking Satan and Hell if they're wrong...

Third, God didn't create Hell for humans at all. He created it for Satan and his fallen angels. It's not His fault that some humans choose to give their souls to Satan and join him in his eternal prison.

Not universal
Only 51% of presbyterian members (and 46% of presbyterian pastors) believe in the existence of hell.
Gnostic christianity- Satan praised as a bringer of knowledge. Christadelphians, Church of Blessed Hope, and some ELCA Lutherans view satan as a metaphor.

Do you not understand the difference between official church doctrine and individual, personal beliefs, or are you just determined to be needlessly and pointlessly argumentative in order to derail discussion? I have never, at any point, said that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL Christian on Earth believes the same thing, because Christians are as capable of disagreeing with the official policy of their leaders as anyone else. I am speaking solely to the official doctrines espoused by every Christian church. And you will find, if you check the Westminster Confession and the Larger Catechism, that the Presbyterian Church does, officially, believe in Hell.

And please don't waste my time bringing up pseudo-Christian sects and trying to present them and their teachings as representative of Christianity. It's every bit as unproductive as suggesting that because Islam claims to worship the same God we do, we should include THEM in our discussion as well. It's just an attempt to pick a fight for the purpose of picking a fight.

So he made the sacrifice (and even descended into hell) to make it easier for us. All you have to do is have faith. If you have faith, your sins will be forgiven and you will attain heaven.

Not Universal
There are debates even within denominations about whether christ actually descended into hell. Several denominations do not agree that faith alone will allow the forgiveness of sin and attainment of heaven. Some independent churches (non-denominational church of christ) believe that that faith, baptism, and good works are all required. Catholic doctrine believes in necessity of baptism as well.

Wrong again. There is not a single Christian denomination that teaches that you can earn your way into Heaven. Every denomination believes that, as a Christian, there are certain acts you should perform and behaviors you should have that express the sincerity of your commmitment, but they are not the mechanism by which you get into Heaven. Catholic doctrine, by the way, is that you are baptised into the church, not into Heaven.

Not universally accepted. Even Augustine denied this idea, believing that all unevangelized people, and unbaptized infants would burn in hell.

Once again, we are not talking about what individual people believe. We are talking about official church doctrine, and whatever Augustine himself may have thought, the Catholic Church certainly does not teach that infants are going to Hell.

"Merely choosing" implies free will rather than determinism, but predestination is still accepted in some christian denominations. Also, the last sentence here once again is not a universal statement. Some more liberal protestant denominations believe that everyone shall be saved regardless of belief. More conservative churches often hold that belief and willingness is not enough, but requires baptism and other works.

Wrong again. You keep trying to blur the line between the official doctrines of mainstream Christian churches and pseudo-Christian sects, individual people, and something you heard somewhere once.

Are you not listening to me? You're still talking about "punishment", and acting as though this is about meting out human justice for crimes. God doesn't send you to Hell, and certainly not to punish you for your sins.

Or it might be because, as you've been told any number of times now, this isn't about rewards or punishment or "fairness".

Westminster Confession (traditional protestant definition of hell.)
"but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (Chapter XXXIII, Of the Last Judgment) emphasis added.

Interesting how NOW you want to refer to the Westminster Confession, but couldn't be bothered to read it when it directly contradicted your previous statement.

And wow, that doesn't actually say that GOD is sending anyone to Hell, now does it? No, it just says they're going. nor does a rhetorical, poetic use of the word "punished" (which is understandable, given that we're talking about eternal torment experienced as a direct result of one's choice concerning salvation) in any way mean that the Presbyterians or any other church believe that salvation and damnation work in the same fashion as the human judicial and penal systems. So spare me the hairsplitting and word parsing.

From religioustolerance.org
Conservative Christians generally:

Consider the Bible to be inerrant -- free of error.
Interpret Bible passages literally, unless a symbolic meaning is clearly indicated.

This leads most of them to believe that God has created a system for actual punishment of most humans in a real Hell after their death. emphasis added

Religious tolerance.org? THIS is your big source for the definitive view of what Christianity teaches? Hey, while you're at it, why don't you cite us the Democrat Party's definition of what Republicans believe?

Should I keep going?

I didn't ask you to start, so I'm certainly not going to ask you to continue your argumentative attempt at thread disruption. If I wanted to hear someone hostile to Christianity (or possibly just someone who can't bear to see a civil discussion take place without trying to turn it into a snarky confrontational attack) stomping around and posturing as an "expert", I would have said so.

It is almost impossible to find a christian belief that is truly "universal". Basically the only point that is probably agreed among all christians is that jesus was divine and crucified. Beyond that, the theology is often debated.

Yes, I know. "How dare you suggest that any word has any actual definitive meaning, instead of being empty noises that I can interpret to be anything I want it to whenever I want it to?" Been there, heard that, moved on. It's a source of never-ending annoyance to people like you that the world insists on attaching those pesky definitions and concepts to the words that symbolize them.

Basically, only a dunce who wants to declare religion invalid on a general basis thinks that merely because believers debate doctrine amongst themselves, that must mean there is no official doctrine.

Unfortunately for your aims and desires, everything I have stated is supported by the official teachings of the mainstream Christian churches. You will not find any one of them that will tell you that you can make yourself good enough to deserve Heaven through works, or that children who are too young to have any say in the matter are going to Hell, or any of the other nonsense you've tried to inject into this discussion in an attempt to disrupt it.

And God certainly is not obliged to conform to YOUR perceptions and standards of how things should be.

It may be folly or nacisistic to believe god should conform to our percpetions and how things could be, but religious scholars have long put forth that god is rational. This avoids such paradoxical challenges like, "can god make a round square, or a circle with four corners" and "can god make a stone too heavy for him to lift?" which in the absence of a rational god/universe would be actual challenges to omnipotency. So if god must be rational, it is fair to challenge what appears to irrational beliefs.

Sorry, Sparky, but saying, "It might be conceited to expect God to conform to our perceptions, but it's fair to expect Him to conform to our perceptions" is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've said so far, and that's saying something. God IS rational. However, He also knows a hell of a lot more than you do, so if He is not meeting up to your personal expectations of what is rational, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's because YOU are an idiot and operating from a flawed perception.

No one said you couldn't challenge and question, but questioning on the basis of your understanding and morality being superior to God's just makes you sound like a dumbass.

Furthermore, if there are exceptions for those who cannot freely make a choice (like young children), then it logically follows that there is an exception for some non-believers.

Furthermore, I never said there weren't any other exceptions, so furthermore, I will thank you not to talk as though you are arguing against a point I made when I never made it. The Bible never speaks to the topic except to say that Christians are obliged to go out and preach to everyone and make sure they have the chance to make the choice. It would be remiss of us to assume that we don't have to bother because God will make other arrangements for the people we miss.

After all, belief is not a choice.

It never ceases to amaze me how many things people want to declare beyond their own control. If you do not choose your own thoughts, what else in life can you say that you DO choose?

One can say one believes, but it does not make it true in one's own mind.

In that case, one is a liar. I personally do not run around saying that I believe things when I don't actually believe them, but maybe that's just me.

Perhaps you should learn to differentiate between saying something and actually doing it.

We are rational beings and if in our reason, without opposition toward and with open minds we study those religious beliefs, then at the end find that our minds are not convinced of their validity, then what fault could god hold us?

In other words, why should God expect us to take His word for it when we referred to our own superior knowledge and it didn't agree with Him? Do I really need to answer that?

You also need to learn the difference between knowledge and faith. While God expects us to use our rational brains to contemplate the universe around us and the permutations of doctrine and how they apply to regular life, at no time does He expect us to attempt to arrive at Christianity as though it were a science experiment, demanding empirical evidence and batteries of clinical trials. If He had wanted that, then He simply would have revealed Himself and His existence to us and rendered the entire issue moot. The Bible is clear that we are expected to operate on faith in this area.

It seems much easier for a child to accept a belief (santa claus), so why an exception for them but not for those with rational minds?

Are you familiar with the Biblical passage concerning "becoming as a little child"? Feel free to go look it up and ponder what it means to your questions.

 

[Immanuel]

I think CMM asked a good question and as a Christian myself, I didn't take it as an attack although I must admit to not having been around much and not knowing his style at all.

I've asked the question before myself. If we truly believe the scriptures then why do we grieve at the loss of a loved one. We should be celebrating their entrance into the Kingdom of God rather than mourning our loss. But that is hard, and I have to admit part of me wonders if it is not in fact some form of doubt.

I can only pray that all doubts will be relieved when the time come, but for any Christian to claim they have absolutely no doubts whatsoever seems to me to be almost sacreligous (okay, I know that is not spelled right but screw it, I'm not going to dictionary.com!) Doubt is just one form of temptation that we need to overcome in the trials of life and if you do believe, you will believe that God will provide a way through it, see 1 Cor 10:13.

Immie

Okay, if you didn't see his post as offensive, then you didn't read his entire post. And it's sacrilegious not to be vulnerable to a certain type of temptation? It's a sin for everyone not to have the same experiences, thoughts, and feelings you do? Is that it?

No, I don't have any doubts. If you think it's sacrilegious for me to be different from you, or perhaps farther along in certain aspects of my life and learning as a Christian . . . well, you should get over yourself.

Cecilie,

Sorry, I missed your comment the last time I skimmed this thread.

There was no offense intended in my statement.

Satan tempts us all with doubts. He likes you to think that maybe, just maybe all of this is a lie.

You have no idea about what I believe. I do not believe that you must think exactly like I do. I am a Lutheran and I believe in the Triune God. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. I believe that that faith comes from God alone. I do not believe that you can "make" yourself believe.

I believe that if you say, "I have no doubts whatsoever", that you really ought to look at your faith, because Satan doesn't attack those whom he has his hooks into. He attacks those whom are true believers.

All that being said, I don't know what you believe. I don't question your faith at all, but, personally, I feel much better knowing that Satan is doing his damnedest to make me doubt rather than feeling like I have nothing at all to worry about.

Since I believe that I am saved by faith alone, I sometimes worry, "am I one of God's chosen or just a wanna be?" I know that there are plenty of scripture out there that tell me that as a believer I am saved and I fall back on God's love which is ultimately the one and only hope I have, but there is also the scripture that tell of people who think they are righteous (the Pharisses) who were not God's people.

When I said "sacreligious", I meant this... that I beleive claiming that we have no doubts whatsoever, is as much as saying we do not take God's word seriously. The reason being that God tells us that we will have doubts (yet we should not) and temptations but that he will provide us a way out (see 1 Cor 10:13). Your faith is a blessed thing, but I just pray that you don't become so complacent that you quit trusting in God.

Immie

 

[N4mddissent]

While there are variations in Christian teachings from church to church, there are basic, fundamental teachings that are universal. CS Lewis refers to it as "mere Christianity". What I have been talking about here are doctrines that apply to any church that can truly be described as "Christian".

If you would like to state specifically something I have said that is not in the Bible and taught by some church which would fall under the heading of "Christian", please feel free.

These are your exact words. Note you said "universal" and "any" church. Since early in my life I was a member of a church that officially disagreed with some of your statements, I know for a fact that they are not universal.

And please don't waste my time bringing up pseudo-Christian sects and trying to present them and their teachings as representative of Christianity. It's every bit as unproductive as suggesting that because Islam claims to worship the same God we do, we should include THEM in our discussion as well. It's just an attempt to pick a fight for the purpose of picking a fight.

And this is not in any way similar to claiming Islam. For one thing, Islam doesn't call itself Christian. Your calling them "pseudochristians" exactly proves my point that you are just considering your interpretation correct and anyone who doesn't agree in principle you just say are not "true" christians. I assume you would include Jehovah's Witnesses since they don't believe in hell either. I didn't claim they were "representative of christianity" as you suggested. I had no need to. My only point was that your interpretations of christianity, contrary to what you seem to believe, are not universal.

Wrong again. There is not a single Christian denomination that teaches that you can earn your way into Heaven. Every denomination believes that, as a Christian, there are certain acts you should perform and behaviors you should have that express the sincerity of your commmitment, but they are not the mechanism by which you get into Heaven.

The fact that I have personal knowledge of churches that disagree with this statement aside, the only way you could honestly make this statement is if you had absolute 100% complete knowledge of the teachings and doctrine of every single christian group in the world. Forgive me if I am skeptical that your knowledge is that encompassing.

Once again, we are not talking about what individual people believe. We are talking about official church doctrine, and whatever Augustine himself may have thought, the Catholic Church certainly does not teach that infants are going to Hell.

The context of my original comments were that in the debate you were having, in which you criticized your opponent for misrepresenting "christian" belief, it is inappropriate to claim he is misrepresenting christian beliefs when there are many disagreements within christianity about its own beliefs. If one turns to what is generally considered a great theological scholar and uses his statements, then it is reasonable to expect that they are at least one interpretation of christian belief. To then characterize an argument against that belief as misrepresenting christian belief is to not acknowledge the diversity of interpretations and is an evasive technique designed to avoid certain criticisms.

You expect the critic to research and pick out just the beliefs to which you specifically adhere and accuse him or her of mischaracterization when they criticize a belief that is not within your ideology but my be accepted by some other christian group (which you wouldn't consider christian in an exercise of circular reasoning.

Interesting how NOW you want to refer to the Westminster Confession, but couldn't be bothered to read it when it directly contradicted your previous statement.

And wow, that doesn't actually say that GOD is sending anyone to Hell, now does it? No, it just says they're going. nor does a rhetorical, poetic use of the word "punished" (which is understandable, given that we're talking about eternal torment experienced as a direct result of one's choice concerning salvation) in any way mean that the Presbyterians or any other church believe that salvation and damnation work in the same fashion as the human judicial and penal systems. So spare me the hairsplitting and word parsing.

The Westminster Confession did not contradict my previous statement, since I never stated that hell was not part of official doctrine. I merely pointed out that more than around half of presbyterians do not believe in a literal hell. I would consider that a significant group with an interpretation that differs from what you claim as "universal" christian beliefs, regardless of "official" doctrine. And the hypocrisy in commenting about hair-splitting and word-parsing while you say it's not "official" doctrine despite 50% of the group believing it, and go on to say "it doesn't say god sent them to hell" and speculate about the word punished being "rhetorical or poetic" is laughable.

Religious tolerance.org? THIS is your big source for the definitive view of what Christianity teaches? Hey, while you're at it, why don't you cite us the Democrat Party's definition of what Republicans believe?

I used a variety of sources including personal experience. Since you denigrate even the opinions of what most consider a great christian scholar like Augustine, then I doubt it makes very little difference what source I use if it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.

I didn't ask you to start, so I'm certainly not going to ask you to continue your argumentative attempt at thread disruption.

I am sorry you perceive a simple attempt to make you aware that the diversity of interpretations and beliefs among christians often makes it fallacious to attack a criticism of christian belief on the grounds that it is not really a christian belief, as an attempt at thread disruption. I wasn't expecting you to argue since it is a point that is prima facie correct.

Yes, I know. "How dare you suggest that any word has any actual definitive meaning, instead of being empty noises that I can interpret to be anything I want it to whenever I want it to?" Been there, heard that, moved on. It's a source of never-ending annoyance to people like you that the world insists on attaching those pesky definitions and concepts to the words that symbolize them.

Basically, only a dunce who wants to declare religion invalid on a general basis thinks that merely because believers debate doctrine amongst themselves, that must mean there is no official doctrine.

Yes, I believe words do have definitions.
Universal-

1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide​

2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration:​

Since all members do not share your views, you are incorrect despite your attempts to retroactively confine your claims to just "official" doctrines, dismissing any independent churches which do not issue "official" statements of doctrine, and simultaneously excluding "official" doctrines that contradict your claim by labeling them "pseudo christian".

I never said there was no official doctrine. I said your interpretations were not universal. And notice the example you set. You will find that I as a non-believer have refrained from any insults and name-calling, whereas you immediately resorted to those lows of human behavior.

Sorry, Sparky, but saying, "It might be conceited to expect God to conform to our perceptions, but it's fair to expect Him to conform to our perceptions" is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've said so far, and that's saying something. God IS rational. However, He also knows a hell of a lot more than you do, so if He is not meeting up to your personal expectations of what is rational, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's because YOU are an idiot and operating from a flawed perception.

I would appreciate it if you would not label as "dumb" philosophical concepts which you simply fail to comprehend. And thank you for avoiding misstating me to form a strawman in the future. Quote me exactly or not at all.

No one said you couldn't challenge and question, but questioning on the basis of your understanding and morality being superior to God's just makes you sound like a dumbass.

And since this is unrelated to any point I was making, it actually makes you sound more "like a dumbass" as you so eloquently put it.

It never ceases to amaze me how many things people want to declare beyond their own control. If you do not choose your own thoughts, what else in life can you say that you DO choose?

If you have ever taken a higher education course on philosophy, you should demand your money back, because they have failed you completely.

Could you will yourself to believe you are an alien? Sure, some brain injury or disorder may produce that effect, but that is not willing yourself to believe. Can you will yourself to believe you have super powers? And then honestly say you believe it? Or would something have to happen to convince you that you have super powers? Can you will yourself to believe you have to ability to control where a ball lands on a roulette will? Would you believe it enough to bet your life savings? Of course not. Unless we are especially fantasy-prone, belief is what we come to understand through our experience and communication. You may choose to trust the sources that provide you with theological beliefs. I did too, when I was younger. But over time, my experience and knowledge led the rational part of my mind to a different conclusion. This was not a choice. I can't choose to believe in god any more than I can choose to not believe in gravity.

In that case, one is a liar. I personally do not run around saying that I believe things when I don't actually believe them, but maybe that's just me.

Perhaps you should learn to differentiate between saying something and actually doing it.

Once again, this is unrelated to any point I was making. Perhaps you should learn to comprehend concepts and context.

You also need to learn the difference between knowledge and faith. While God expects us to use our rational brains to contemplate the universe around us and the permutations of doctrine and how they apply to regular life, at no time does He expect us to attempt to arrive at Christianity as though it were a science experiment, demanding empirical evidence and batteries of clinical trials. If He had wanted that, then He simply would have revealed Himself and His existence to us and rendered the entire issue moot. The Bible is clear that we are expected to operate on faith in this area.

Then by creating us with rational minds, god sets us up for failure.

Are you familiar with the Biblical passage concerning "becoming as a little child"? Feel free to go look it up and ponder what it means to your questions.

Yes, but I will not compromise my rational integrity, since doing so would mean that I have no means to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate beliefs. In other words, it is just as reasonable to accept islam or hinduism as it is christianity in the absence of evidence.

 

[rcajun90]

If Christians (or any adherent of a monotheistic religion besides Judaism) go to Heaven, or Paradise, and live forever in complete bliss, then why do they fear death, grieve the loss of loved ones (even the ones who also believe), and react with such outrage when people are killed. Shouldn't they be happy for the dearly departed? Shouldn't they be rejoicing? Shouldn't they welcome death?

"Hey, the terrorists just bombed us! Yay!"
********************************

"Hey, Christy!"

"Hi!"

"Guess what?"

"What?"

"My kid just choked on a lincoln log and died!"

"Oh, you must be so proud!"

"Yeah, isn't it great?"
**********************************

Ever seen a Jazz funeral? It starts out all slow and sad. That is for mourning the dead. Then it gets all up beat and happy. That is because they know the dearly departed no longer has to suffer in this world and is in heaven. I don't fear death. I fear the loss of heaven.