Founding Fathers Quote of the Day

<<Give me a break. When you talk about Islamic terrorist, do you always make a point to explain that not all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. It's understood. Just because you talk about Islamic terrorists doesn't mean that you are making any kind of generalization about Islam, does it?>>

If I said, "Muslims support terrorism", that would be a generalization even though I didn't say "all Muslims support terrorism."

<Yes, and you also agree that a person can commit as many evil acts as they want -- even do it in the name of Christ -- and as long as they ask for forgiveness one second before their death, they will go to Heaven. And the Dali Lama will go to Hell.

Do you disagree?>>

Yes, and no. If the person in your example is genuine when he asks forgiveness, if he has TRUE remorse, TRUE regret, TRUE acceptance of Christ, then yes, he would be forgiven. If the person merely professes a faith and verbalizes regret, no, the person is not forgiven.


<<Yep. Evil people go to Heaven, good people go to Hell. The only thing that matters is which football team you root for -- Ooops. I mean which church you go to.>>

No, your church doesn't matter, your faith does.



<<I guess I did misunderstand. What does one have to do, in addition to believing in Christ, in order to go to Heaven?>>

It's not a belief in Christ...it is recognition of yourself being a sinner and having a need for a saviour, and then accepting Christ as that saviour. True faith and true acceptance is evidenced by works, a natural extension.


<<I did NOT say that all/most/may Christians supported these pedophile priests. I said that one of the groups who supported them was made up of Christians. That's a fact.>>

No, that's not what you said. You said there were two groups that you knew of that supported the priests: Christians and pedophiles. That is a generalization. "Democrats crossed party lines and voted for Bush" is a generalization, a sweeping and inaccurate generalization in fact, even though I didn't say that "All" democrats did this. The same holds true for your generalizations of "Christians" and "Church."

Pug

 

I posted the above comment after you said --As far as I know, there were only two groups who believed that these men deserved "another chance" (to rape more children) -- Christians and pedophiles

I thought it was a hateful comment to assume that Christians, as a group, wanted to give them a second chance to rape more childern. This is a sweeping generalization and condemnation of ALL Christians. It does not say many or some or a few or the Catholic leadership or brothers in crime, it says "Christians"

You and I and everyone on this board knows that the majority of all humans, including Christians, would have done anything possible to protect those children.

If calling this comment hateful is "spewing hate"??????

I am sorry, but this is just a blatantly false statement. You did NOT say one of the groups was MADE UP OF Christains, you said one of the groups was Christians. Just read your quoted comment above.

And as a last note, let's say your revised statement is correct, what is your evidence that large numbers of Christians supported the raping of children?

 

I didn't say that ALL Christians supported this. I said that one of the groups supporting this were Christians. If I said that one of the groups that support the attacks of 9/11 were Muslim, I doubt that you would have any problem with this.

Most Muslims did not support it. But the primary group who did were Muslims.

True or false?

Isn't it self-evident? The Catholic church made sure that many of these priests would be reassigned so that they could rape more children.

I'm not saying that you agree with this, just that it is clear that many Catholics support this.

Just as I'm sure it's clear to you that many Muslims support the jihad against America.

 

I hope you are sitting down Pug, because I agree with you. (Hell just froze over... LOL)

I gather that Christianity's relationship with the other religions is a topic of current theological discussion.

One theory that's popular with many theologians accepts and harmonizes both of your Bible quotes above. It's a compromise between the really liberal minority of theologians that believe that there are multiple paths to God (everyone has a conscience, after all), and the conservative theologians that seem to many others to be way too eager to condemn everybody and sundry to hell (believe or burn).

They use sort of a Logos theology. Christ is identified with the Logos and in this heavenly form is sort of the archetype of Good. So anyone who follows the good here on Earth is following Christ in some limited way, even if they don't know it.

I believe that some of the early second century apologists used the same argument, arguing that Socrates (for example) worshipped Christ without knowing it, because he sought the good so passionately. In fact, I believe that Philo of Alexandria used basically the same argument in a Jewish manner.

OK, the idea is that non-Christians who follow their consciences in good faith, do good as they intuit it, and believe as best they are able, will get to the door of heaven so to speak because they are imperfectly following Christ. (It needn't be that the good works that they do satisfy God, as much as the intention to try to do good constitutes a kind of implicit faith.)

At the gate of heaven the good non (or semi) Christians will come face to face with Christ. If they recognize Christ as the true personification of their own principles, and if they acknowledge that everything they did was inevitably tainted by sin when the light of the true source of Good is shined on them, then they will be saved.

So all the people who died before Christ's incarnation have a shot at salvation, and even all the Hindus and Buddhists who sincerely follow their own religions in good faith have a shot... but nevertheless, only Christ saves and there is no way into heaven but through Christ.

I'm not sure how many Evangelicals will buy that. (I think that some might.) But it's probably a popular belief in Episcopal and Methodist churches and places like that.

 

From what I understand, you could not be more wrong. I go to church most Sundays. I try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But it does not matter one whit. I might as well be Ted Bundy.

It's very simple. Either you accept the divinity of Christ, in which case any and all sins are absolved, or you do not, and all of the good works you do are meaningless.

Or am I missing something?

 

You are missing a little (perhaps or maybe this is implied when you say accept the divinity of Christ).

For your sins to be absolved, you must confess you are sinner, accept the atoning death of Jesus as complete, repent of your sins, and trust Jesus Christ as Lord AND Savior. The acceptance of the divinity of Jesus is necessary in order to accept his atoning death and bodily resurrection, for if He was not God, it would not have been possible.

Some Christians believe one cannot fall from grace (I happen to subscribe to that philosophy), others believe you can, meaning your actions can actually cause you to lose your salvation. For those who believe in eternal grace, we have a very strong belief that your actions (your faith played our in community and deeds) are the manifestation of your grace.

In either case, what you do, how you do it, how you treat others, what you do with your money, time, and talents are extremely important. I minister to a lot of people and I must admit I do not know but a few "Christians" who are as cavalier about their faith as you propose.

The folks I interact with are constantly struggling with the sin in their life, earnestly seeking to please God, and take their public testimony very seriously.

If all of that is what you mean by accepting the divinity of Christ, then I agree with your statement.

For the second half, if you choose to reject the salvation of Christ (and again I do not believe it is possible to believe in the atoning miracle of Christ if he was not God) then all the great deeds and works are useless FOR SALVATION.

You will receive earthly rewards for earthly deeds and heavenly rewards for heavenly deeds. Rejecting Christ does not automatically make you immoral or evil, it simply makes you void of salvation.

Perhaps that makes things just a little clearer. Salvation and eternal life are not quite as easy as you are portraying them.

 

That is not at all what I mean by "accepting the divinty of Christ." I thought I was pretty clear, but what I mean is accepting that Christ is God. That he is part of the Trinity. I don't believe that.

But I, too, undergo the struggles that you describe. I, too, try to live by Jesus' example. I, too, am a member of a church. I, too, attend church regularly, and I participate in various church-related activities. I, too, try to help people who are less fortunate.

I do the best I can. But I can not accept that Jesus was God.

In your opinion, apparently, I might as well be Hitler. Striving to be good means nothing.

Fine. Then explain it to me. My understanding is that all you need for salvation and an eternal life in Heaven is to accept the divinity of Christ at some point before your death. Am I wrong?

 

Brrrrrrr...freezing! Very interesting stuff!

This is actually quite similar to what I once believed...kind of a philosophical approach to the Christian's view of salvation. The Bible, in my opinion, actually supports this view to a point, but only with regard to those that never received God's revelation (Christ, in the form of the gospels).

I don't think I can be considered a really rigid conservative when it comes to the Bible. I DO believe in its infallibility, but I also believe that man's ability to correctly interpret is extremely fallible. It can be frustrating debating Christians and non-Christians on Biblical issues because all sides tend to start from the position that their interpretation on a given issue is 100% correct. Some issues, in my opinion, are quite clear in the Bible, and leave no room for alternative interpretations. Other issues, creation for example, leaves TONS of room. I am of the opinion that at least on these types of issues, everyone needs to admit that no one has a perfect or complete understanding of scripture. Chances are we are all wrong, at least to some extent. If we put aside our own arrogance and open ourselves to a dialogue of opposing interpretations, maybe we can reach a fuller and more complete understanding of scripture.

Pug

 

<<That is not at all what I mean by "accepting the divinty of Christ." I thought I was pretty clear, but what I mean is accepting that Christ is God. That he is part of the Trinity. I don't believe that.

But I, too, undergo the struggles that you describe. I, too, try to live by Jesus' example. I, too, am a member of a church. I, too, attend church regularly, and I participate in various church-related activities. I, too, try to help people who are less fortunate.

I do the best I can. But I can not accept that Jesus was God.

In your opinion, apparently, I might as well be Hitler. Striving to be good means nothing.>>

First of all, why the fixation on Hitler? Second of all, striving to be good makes you a morally good person from a human perspective. But God demands perfection, and we all fall short of that. Hence, our need for Christ.


<<Fine. Then explain it to me. My understanding is that all you need for salvation and an eternal life in Heaven is to accept the divinity of Christ at some point before your death. Am I wrong?>>

Yes, you are wrong. This has been explained at least twice on this thread. Again, you need to accept the fact that you are a sinner, one in need of a savior, and repent your sins. Then you need to accept Christ as your savior...yes, this is where His divinity comes in. These things must be done in truth, from your heart. To simply verbalize this does nothing. To simply recognize Christ's divinity does nothing.

Pug

 

And if you put aside your arrogance, perhaps you can see that those who have a different faith than you are not evil.

Oh, what am I saying? That's just silly.

 

Haven't we already gone through this once? My faith in no way stipulates that those not believing as I do are evil. My faith stipulates that all people, regardless of faith, need a savior because we fall short of perfection.

Pug

 

KansasBaptist or Michael if I may...

That concept has always bothered me & I never heard anyone convey my same feelings in such a way as Robert A. Heinlein put it:

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain—then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"

If God is the forgiving God that He is said to be, which I truly believe He is, then why would He send a good honest man to hell for one outburst? There are a myriad of reasons why the man may have never accepted Christ. I'm not sure that I would have accepted Christ had it not been instilled in me early on.

I personally feel that this teaching has been beaten into our heads, but I don't agree with. God has to make exceptions & I believe He does.

 

One outburst doesn't damn someone for eternity. Failure to acknowledge yourself as a sinner, failure to repent, and failure to accept Christ...this damns you for eternity. Our lives are full of outbursts, backslides, mistakes, deliberate wrong-doings, greed, self centeredness, arrogance, manipulation, etc. We try to do our best, but we all fall short of the mark. That's why we need Christ. The timing of your outburst, a day, a month, or a second before your death, means nothing.

Pug

 

The theory I outlined doesn't really disagree with that.

First, a good non-Christian implicitly if not explicitly accepts Christ because Christ is understood to be the source of good. That's enough to get that individual a non-mediated encounter with Christ after death.

But before the good non-Christian can decisively be saved, he or she has to recognize the divine essence of good (Christ), recognize that whatever (non-Christian at any rate) religious path and good works that were done in life are tainted by sin and inevitably fall far short of the divine archetype, and accept salvation by divine grace.

It's the particularist theory, except that it allows the saving decision to be made after death.

That has the advantage of providing a path to salvation for all those who died before Christ's incarnation. They would simply be damned unless some provision existed for posthumous recognition of Christ.

And it makes allowance for all those who are born and raised in a non-Christian environment. It's no more reasonable to expect Vishnaivites in Tamil Nadu to drop their Hindu faith because a Christian presumed to evangelize them with Bible verses, than it is to expect Christians to convert because a Muslim read them Koranic surahs. It's not gonna happen and God must know it. So if God really desires the salvation of all, he must have a backup plan.

And I would extend that to people born into a nominally Christian but actually secular country like the United States. Many people find it difficult to believe in a mythical system like Christianity in our age of rationalism, reductionism and empiricism. So they are essentially in the same position as the Hindu, inhabitants of a culture in which Christian ideas are too foreign to accept.

The theory I outlined (it didn't originate with me) preserves the idea that salvation only comes through Christ. But it provides routes to Christ for those whose situation in this life make Christian faith impossible or at least extremely unlikely. That doesn't detract from the church as the body of Christ in this world, from the role of the spirit in that church and in individual Christians, from preaching the good news, preparing for Christ's return, imitating Christ and so on.

Actually, the Buddhists aren't much different. They generally believe that the only route to true liberation is the one revealed by the Buddha (and by countless other Buddhas both previously and to come). So they are particularists too. But they figure that if somebody doesn't make it to liberation in this life (few do), they will get a shot in countless lives to come, so everyone will be liberated eventually. Being born a Christian may not be as auspicious as being born a Buddhist, but it's probably good enough to get you a reborn in heaven with the gods, which is what the Christians seem to want anyway.

 

<<And I would extend that to people born into a nominally Christian but actually secular country like the United States.>>

Bill, see this is the part I take issue with, but I certainly respect the opinion. As I said, I once held this opinion myself. The reason I can't fully accept this approach is because I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, and this approach causes huge contradictions elsewhere in scripture. I quoted the verse from Romans that, in my opinion, allows an opportunity at salvation to those having never heard the gospel. The system you outlined can be harmonized to some degree with regard to these people. That said, those fortunate enough to have received God's revelation (The Bible), those will be held accountable for the faith and acceptance of Christ they have in this life.

"To those that have been given much, much will be expected. To those that have been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded."

Pug

 

Michael is fine (for anyone on this board)

I want to very clear about this issue of deeds/works.

Point 1: If you have not accepted Christ as savior, NOTHING you "do" will be enough to warrant salvation

Point 2: If you have accepted Christ as savior NOTHING you "do" will warrant losing your salvation.

 

I think I am beginning to see the point you are trying to make and perhaps I have not addressed the central theme properly.

Believing that Jesus was God is central to salavation, but MUST be accompanied by admission of sin, acceptance of the atoning death of Jesus, repentance, and faith in Christ as Lord that results in a changed life (or better yet a changed heart, being that I believe in death bed conversions).

One can accept the divinity of Jesus (believe that Jesus was God) and still go to hell.

In matters of SALVATION, this is an absolute and is 100% correct. Without Christ as Savior, you might as well be Hitler; however, regardless of your position on Christianity "being good" is a noble cause that every human should aspire to.

 

That's cool. I said that most evangelicals probably wouldn't buy it.

My reason for posting was to respond to Grgrwil, who seemed to be trying very hard to turn Christianity into a caricature. I wanted to say that the subject of Chistianity's relationship with non-Christians is an active subject of theological debate, and I wanted to present a crude outline of a kind of theological position held by a number of thinkers. (Most of whom would probably disagree with my outline, and with each other, in details.) But I'm not really in a position to argue for it effectively, being neither a theologian or even a Christian. I'm just pointing out that the subject gets a lot of ink in the theological literature and that many churches don't go around denouncing their neighbors.

There are lots of interesting things happening that Grgrwil (and perhaps some evangelicals) wouldn't recognize. For example, the series of meetings that California Catholics are having with the state's growng Buddhist community. See this:

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-076.htm

It's relevant to Degreeinfo in that the first meeting, reported here, was held at a monastery called 'The City of 10,000 Buddhas', (fomerly the Mendocino State Hospital grounds) and site of Dharma Realm Buddhist University, which in turn is CA-approved. The sponsors were the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, the US Council of Catholic Bishops and the SF Zen Center (itself CA-approved, but no degree programs).

Basically all I intend by pointing it out is to say that real-life Christian/non-Christian relations often don't much resemble Grgrwil's hostile militant-atheist version of them. (Yes, Catholics are really Christians.)

Grgrwil seems to think that Christians simply wave Bibles in people's faces and scream, "You'll burn in hell!" Maybe that's how it is where he/she comes from, but around here inter-religious relationships are very often more appreciative and subtle than that.

 

<<Basically all I intend by pointing it out is to say that real-life Christian/non-Christian relations often don't much resemble Grgrwil's hostile militant-atheist version of them. (Yes, Catholics are really Christians.)

Grgrwil seems to think that Christians simply wave Bibles in people's faces and scream, "You'll burn in hell!" Maybe that's how it is where he/she comes from, but around here inter-religious relationships are very often more appreciative and subtle than that.>>

Agreed.

 

I have already pointed out that I am an active member of a church. I believe in God. I appreciate the teachings of Christ, and try to follow them, as I understand them.

Yet you insist on calling me an athiest.

And you say that I am the one drawing a caricature.

I know this may be impossible for some people to understand, but the fact that a person is not a Christian does not automatically make that person an athiest.

Ironically, this thread was prompted by Janko waving a Bible verse in our faces.

He posted a verse indicating that those who don't give glory to God (apparently as Janko sees fit) will be smote by the Lord and eaten by worms.

And, apparently, he did it just for spite. He just wanted to give us a little bit of indoctrination. Just wanted to point his view about what should happen to people who don't agree with him.