Was it time for Chapter Three already? My how time flies.

Time flies like an eagle
Fruit flies like a banana

Butter flies like margarine.

Time keeps on slipping . . .
slipping . . .
slipping . . .
into the fuuuuu-ture . . .

Time Flies like an arrow.

Time's fun when you're having flies.

Take me away;
I don't mind...
But you better promise me
I'll be back in time.

Happy birthday to me!

I'll second that Margie! Happy birthday to you, ma'am. Hope it's a good one!

Is there a specific practice of celebrating a birthday in different religions that each feel must be done?

It isn't a religious thing. It was basically a Victorian idea to give someone presents on his birthday.

Happy Birthday, Margie.

Peter.

Peter, I was simply asking if there were specific rituals around celebrating the birth of someone in religions. I know the birthday idea isn't a religious one really.

Just to be the "swizzle stick" for the day ...
Dec. 25 ISN'T Jesus' birthday!!

(I say this 'cause I was in the grocery store today and a Mom and her young daughter was buying a birthday cake for Jesus ... and even though the sentiment is laudable, the timing ISN'T!)

I know I have NO biblical data to back up my statement, I can only point to nature. EVERY lamb born in nature is usually born in the spring, and therefore I ASSERT that is when Christ (the Lamb of God) was born.

I'm sure I'll get GOBS of retorts to this post, and I welcome them.
(TOLD you I was gonna be the swizzle stick today!)

It is certainly true that December 25th wasn't his birthday. He also was born in 6 BC instead of 1 AD as we normally think. The monk who worked out the Christian calendar micalculated six years. That was why no astronomers could find the Star of Bethlehem in the skies in 1 AD. When they looked for the same thing except six years earlier it was right there.

Peter.

Happy Birthday, Margie!

And it's about time someone started posting here again. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would.

Derf, the December 25 date was when the pagan Roman Empire celebrated Saturnalia, which celebrated the god Mithra, or Saturn. It was a festive holiday the Romans didn't want to give up, so when the Empire was converted to Christianity, they arbitrarily placed the celebration for Jesus' birth on December 25, so that the Romans who were used to Saturnalia could keep their holiday.

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that astrology didn't exist until the Middle Ages. The scrolls proved otherwise, as they contained two holoscopes, as well as other indicators that astrology was used then.

Modern scholars discovered that when the monk Dennis the Little calculated the calendar, he added the reigns of kings together, and was off by half a dozen years. Astronomer Dr. Michael Molnar discoverd that on April 17, 6 BC, Jupiter was in Ares, a sign that a big royal event was looming. But he also discovered that on that day, Saturn and the Sun came into Ares, and that at dawn on that day (a time of day symbolizing birht), the moon eclipsed, revealing Jupiter, which appeared as a star. This collective set of alignments would've been seen to first century Palestine as an omen heralding the birth of a "super king" as Molnar called it, a sign of the birth of the Messiah, especially to anyone travelliing east (i.e. the three Wise Men.)

And the stars were right, of course. Don't forget that Jesus soon was born after that.

Peter.

Thanks, everybody!

To any of you British out there-what exactly is Boxing Day?

December 26th. When you put all the received presents in "boxes" or put the "boxes" the presents came in into the bin or something.

Peter.

Hello, it's me. I'm posting on Christmas Eve as I waste some time before dinner. It's interesting that everytime I come back, there's a different moderator. Thank goodness Billy Martin isn't still alive...

Here's what snopes has to say about it

http://www.snopes2.com/holidays/christmas/boxing.htm

In my family, a traditional Boxing Day means a football match (Sheffield Wednesday losing to a last minute own goal), ham with sweet and sour sauce for dinner and most of the day spent lounging in a comfortable chair watching TV.

Cheers

Andrew Drake

That link was interesting. Sounds like you get a 2 day Christmas holiday out of it. Cool!

I have an ethical question.

The other day I saw a TV program (American, I think) about surgical implants that can give deaf people the ability to hear. The success rate varies, but in general, the younger the patient the better the chance that they will be able to hear normally. The surgery is relatively safe.

The program followed two families through the process of deciding whether to give their children (ages 2 and 4) the implants.

The mother of the 4-year-old girl was deaf, as were her parents. She was considering the surgery for herself and her daughter. The mother of the 2-year-old boy was a hearing person, but her parents were deaf.

I figured that any parent would jump at the chance to give their child the implants, assuming they could afford the surgery. However, I was surprised to learn that all of the deaf people in the story (parents, grandparents, friends, and relatives) were vehemently opposed to the surgery.

Some of the reasons were:

--Plenty of deaf people get along fine in the hearing world. Many of the deaf family members worked with and even supervised hearing people, with no problem.

--"Deaf culture" is beautiful and should be preserved. Eliminating deafness from the world would be a kind of cultural genocide.

--Giving the children the surgery before the age of consent takes away their right to choose whether to be a part of deaf culture.

--If we as a society go around "fixing" deafness, soon we will all be like robots, superficially perfect but soul-less and uninteresting.

--The implants would alienate the children from their deaf family members.

--After the surgery, the children are not permitted to use sign language, because it interferes with their speech development. (Supposedly. I can't believe that children would not be allowed to "sign" to their deaf parents.)

In the end, the deaf parents decided against the surgery, and the hearing parents decided for it.

The deaf mother treated the hearing mother like a child abuser for having given her son the surgery (which was successful, by the way). She cried when she saw the boy afterward, saying, "I feel so sorry for that poor child!" The boy's grandparents also cried, with the grandmother saying, "I feel so lonely. I'm afraid he'll make fun of me when he gets older."

There was a lot more going on in the story, but I'll leave it for now.

My question is, are these people being incredibly selfish, or what? They spoke a lot of pretty words about preserving deaf culture and protecting individuality, but I got the distinct impression that they didn't want the children to get the implants because it would reduce the numbers of deaf people and make them an even smaller minority than they already are. They themselves would be lonely when their children and grandchildren left their ranks. Those are valid feelings, sure, but the first priority should be the welfare of the child. I was so angry watching this show that I could barely contain myself. It's diversity training run amok.

Argh. I'll stop for now. But does anybody else have an opinion about this?

To me, that runs a close second to saying that any child who needs to wear glasses should NOT be wearing glasses until they're old enough to consent, because the sight impaired and blind might be alienated from them.

Baloney.

Long as there are hearing people in the world who want to learn sign and the deaf culture (and what is THAT, btw?), there won't be a complete annihilation.

I'm not sure what deaf culture is, either, but I assume it includes sign langugage, which I would agree is something worth preserving--as long as it isn't done by forcing kids to remain deaf when they have the option of hearing.

As for the eyeglasses issue, I thought the same thing as you. I also thought it was really ironic that the mother who turned down the surgery for her daughter was wearing glasses. As were a lot of the deaf people opposing the surgery. What about "blind culture"?

I really have to wonder if the views of the people who appeared in this program represent those of the majority of the deaf community.

As a disabled person myself, although a different one than being deaf, I would say that creation of yet another subculture is unnecessary. Disabled people become very offended when they are told they are not ok the way they are sometimes. In my experience those who are disabled and have been since the time it was still discriminated against get bitter when you tell them they might want to change, and probably should, if they have the chance. In my opinion this is very silly to not want to be like everyone else and to be so adamantly against it. It's kinda like a forced separation of people into needless groups based upon an unimportant distinction. I'm not saying it is bad to be different, but I think it is a bit silly to get so upset when the intention is to improve a person's life. The people who are against this need to grow up and realize that it's not some big deal or conspiracy.

Just raising a question: If the cochlear implant surgery is unsuccessful, would that then destroy any residual hearing that the person may have had left? I've heard both things, and I don't really know.

To me, it's a no-brainer. If it has a reasonable chance of working, get the implant. Of course, I live for music, so I feel a bit more strongly about my hearing than most people.

Why yes, I do wear glasses too. ^_^

Just raising a question: If the cochlear implant surgery is unsuccessful, would that then destroy any residual hearing that the person may have had left? I've heard both things, and I don't really know.
I tuned in late and was wondering that myself. It seemed like everybody was proceeding on the assumption that the surgery was relatively safe. Also, the people involved were totally deaf anyway, so in that sense they didn't really have anything to lose.

Disabled people become very offended when they are told they are not ok the way they are sometimes. In my experience those who are disabled and have been since the time it was still discriminated against get bitter when you tell them they might want to change, and probably should, if they have the chance. In my opinion this is very silly to not want to be like everyone else and to be so adamantly against it.
I can see how someone would get sick of hearing, "Why don't you have such-and-such an operation?" all the time, especially if they didn't particularly want it. But I think you're right about it being foolish to cling to a subculture of disability.

Of course it's a good thing that our society tries to encourage disabled people to have pride in themselves, but it makes no sense to believe that being disabled is somehow as good as or better than being "able." Great strides have been made, but the fact is, having a disability is always going to limit what you can do to some extent. If an adult decides he or she can live with that, it's fine, but to impose the same limitations on a child when you have the option of choosing otherwise is selfish and irresponsible.

The mother who refused the surgery for her daughter said she wanted her child to be able to "choose" whether or not to be deaf when she got older, but even if the girl decided at the age of 15 that she wanted the implants, the probability of the surgery being successful would be reduced. If the mother really had been interested in giving her daughter a choice, she would have given her the implants at age 4 and allowed her to choose to have them removed when she got older. And what do you suppose the odds would be of the girl doing that?

:: Of course it's a good thing that our society tries to encourage disabled people to have pride in themselves, but it makes no sense to believe that being disabled is somehow as good as or better than being "able.":: Juli

Exactly. Some people get very twisted ideas like that as what seems to be a defense mechanism. There's a great difference between having pride and confidence in yourself and having it because of something about you that is unique. The latter is not always good depending on what that quality is in the first place.

My feeling is, having a functional cochlea, even if it's a cochlear implant, is a good thing, and if someone wants it, fine. If they don't, fine.

That's what I think, too. What bothers me about the woman in this program is that to her it isn't fine for someone else to want the implant, and she supports her argument with all sorts of misguided ideas about diversity. To hear her talk, you would think that eliminating deafness (not deaf people, mind you) from the face of the earth would be akin to wiping out the Navajo through genocide. That is just plain crazy. But it is the unfortunate direction in which a lot of extremists are taking PC.

Okay, I'll try to shut up about this now!

Deafness isn't just a difference, it is an unfortunate occurence. It's quite clear that someone who can hear is better off than someone who can't. A deaf person isn't inferior, nor just `different', but unlucky.

Here's another ethical question for ya. This one is a lot harder--to me, at least. I'm sure to a lot of you it'll be a no-brainer, specifically to very religious people and "guys of the male gender," as Dave Barry says .

The question is about a news story I read online several weeks ago. It's hard to tell whether this is a true story, because for obvious reasons everyone wants to remain anonymous, but it's something that could happen. I'm afraid I don't have a link on this. I'd look it up, but I only have two more hours of on-line time to get me through the rest of the month, so here is the story as I remember it:

A boy, around age 15, had terminal cancer. His final wish was to NOT die a virgin. His parents were strongly religious, and he didn't feel he could talk to them about it. A hospital counselor discussed the issue with the boy, but he was adamant about wanting to have sex, so several employees at the hospital pitched in and hired a "professional" to help him fulfill his wish. Everything happened off the hospital grounds, and the parents never found out. The boy said he was glad he did it and had no regrets. He died a few weeks later.

Unquestionably, what the hospital workers did was illegal. Putting that aside, do you support their decision to help fulfill the boy's dying wish, or not?

I read about this at snopes.com. It disturbs me more than a little, but I can't really see any real moral objection to it.

Padawan, the moral objection is sex outside of marriage being wrong and also, not to mention that this is a child doing it.

No, I mean a moral objection, not an arbitrary legal objection. I, for one, find children having sex incredibly disturbing, but I find it hard to think what's wrong with it.

Why is it wrong for children to have sex? Aside from legal and Biblical reasons, there is an easy answer and a hard answer.

The easy answer is, sex often leads to babies, and children do not yet have the maturity and financial stability to support offspring in our society.

The hard answer is less tangible. Sex is a deep and mysterious part of the human psyche, and the wrong kind of sex at too early an age can damage a person emotionally for the rest of his or her life.

I think the question here is, if a child's life is to be tragically shortened, does this negate the importance of protecting him from future emotional damage? No responsible adult would hire a prostitute for a healthy minor, out of concern for the child's mental health. When the hospital staff set up a sexual encounter for the boy, is it possible that he heard the unspoken message, "Well, we wouldn't normally do this, kid, but since you're a goner I guess your emotional development doesn't count for much, does it?"

It's easy to say, "Nah, he was a teenage boy. All he was thinking about was sex. Trust me." But none of us have ever been a child on a terminal cancer ward, so I don't think we can know for sure what was really going on inside the boy's mind. Is it possible that the hospital staff rushed to give the boy a "quick fix" to make themselves feel better, but missed some more complicated emotional issues below the surface?

To be honest, I really don't know the answer. Maybe one would have to actually be there and talk to the boy to make any kind of judgement.

The other thing that bothers me about the incident is that the hospital employees did everything behind the backs of the boy's parents. They may have disagreed with the parents' morals, but it's not like the boy was being abused. Those people really had no right to step in and take over the role of the parents, who were only raising their child in the best way they knew how.

::No, I mean a moral objection, not an arbitrary legal objection. I, for one, find children having sex incredibly disturbing, but I find it hard to think what's wrong with it.:: Padawan

How can both of those be true? By the way, a (moral) religious objection is not arbitrary really. Arbitrary would imply that there is no reason to follow it. The reason for a religious person is that God wants it that way and we want to please Him.

::"Well, we wouldn't normally do this, kid, but since you're a goner I guess your emotional development doesn't count for much, does it?":: Juli

If a child has THIS much insight that young, they probably would not ask for the prostitute in the first place. They would understand what is good for them and what is not regardless of base desires.

How can both of those be true? By the way, a (moral) religious objection is not arbitrary really. Arbitrary would imply that there is no reason to follow it. The reason for a religious person is that God wants it that way and we want to please Him. - Jwb52z

And God's decisions are arbitrary, right?

Padawan, a being who is always correct and is also perfect would not do anything in an arbitrary manner.

Well, not unless he really wanted to, J, were it his will. After all, we'll never know everything about him now, will we? And for that matter, would we even want to, or be able to handle it all that much if we did?

If a child has THIS much insight that young, they probably would not ask for the prostitute in the first place. Jwb

Perhaps not, but he would at least know that there are normally some pretty big taboos against that sort of thing in our society, and he might be uneasy--even on an instinctual level--about the weird behavior of the adults around him.

Anyway, I'm not saying that this is necessarily how he would feel. I was just trying to examine some of the possible emotional dynamics of the situation that the hospital staff might have missed.

Evolution vs. Creation is down, so I'm posting this link here.

Evidence discovered for macro-evolution.

So I'm reading the front page, where Mark2 is ranting about spelling and spellcheckers.

Does anyone else think he has a weird hangup about spelling? ;)

Just wanted to say that I am still alive, and will graduate this month from high school. Thanks to everyone for giving me a lot of great memories from NitCentral, and it's nice to see this board is still in good hands. (although the flame wars, could have done without the flame war memories...)

Getting a little sentimental in your old age, Mike? Just kidding.

Congratulations on your graduation. What are planning to do for the next few years after that?

Congratulations, Mike. One warning, though: It's all downhill from here. Welcome to the real world!

Regarding Christianity, people ask why God lets bad things happen. How do Wiccans, Jews and Moslems answer that question? Thanks

Thanks. I'm heading off to Grand Valley State University, Michigan, and who knows from there? My major is history.

I saw the following article addressing the topic of why bad things happen to good people. It can be found at:

http://www.aish.com/holocaust/issues/he84n20.htm

WHY DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE?
by Rabbi Ahron Hoch
Aish HaTorah Toronto

By the way, suffering is the only issue that the Talmud talks about which leads to someone losing their belief in God. This indicates that it is the single most difficult issue in our relationship to God.

Two Agendas
People approach the topic of suffering from two separate perspectives. One is the "intellectual agenda:" A person is bothered by this issue and wants to intellectually understand it. The other is the "emotional agenda:" A person may right now be suffering (or know someone who is suffering), and it is bothersome emotionally. It's important to understand that these two agendas don't always coincide. Someone with an intellectual agenda wants answers, whereas someone with an emotional agenda is looking for relief. An approach for one won't work for the another.

As a rabbi, I have witnessed the most horrendous situations imaginable. I have experienced someone 20 years old who lost both of her parents in a car crash. Can you imagine a girl so close to her parents and in one day they're gone. I've lived through a husband coming home to find that his wife has collapsed, and in two days she's dead. There was nothing wrong with her before. And on and on and on.

Now when someone is in the midst of suffering, that's not the time to offer answers. It's a time to listen and empathize and say things that can provide comfort. I did not try to give any of these people the answers we will be discussing because when a situation is so emotionally wrenching it's not the time for answers. Rather it's a time to show compassion and empathy and be with the person as best you can. So let me just state in advance that we will only deal with the "intellectual agenda." If there's anyone going through a painful time and is looking for a sense of relief, I am skeptical whether these intellectual answers will offer any kind of relief.

Is God Good?
We have to clarify what question we're actually asking. When we say "Why do bad things happen to good people," this can mean one of two things. If you listen to the question carefully, it's assuming God's existence. People say: I know there's a God, but I want to understand: Is this God good? And if he is good, then why do bad things happen to good people?

Alternatively, the question "Why do bad things happened to good people," may really be asking "I'm not sure that God exists." That's a completely different question. The question of God's existence has nothing to do with the issue of suffering. It has to do with creation, revelation at Sinai, world history, etc. So we should be clear that the question we are dealing with here is not "Does God exist?" It's "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

The General And The Specific
In order for us to be able to "judge God," we have to be able to look at what are God's "ground rules" for existence. Using this premise, it becomes very difficult to judge God. Why? Because we are stuck in a finite perspective of time and space, and we can therefore never be sure which rules God is employing at any given moment.

In discussing this issue, we're not going to give an answer as to why particular things happen in a particular situation. Only a prophet can do that and it's been a long time since God spoke to me! What we can do is look at general approaches that Judaism offers, to at least get a general sense of what the possibilities are for why things happen.

Here's an analogy: A physicist can tell you why a leaf will fall in a particular place – it has to do with the aerodynamics of the leaf, the force of gravity, and the direction and velocity of the wind. But if you ask that physicist where a certain leaf is going to fall, he is not going to be able to tell you, because he can't precisely quantify the different forces that make a leaf fall in a particular place. He can give you the general principles, but he can't give you a precise analysis of a specific situation.

It's the same idea here. We won't be able to say why specific things are happening in a specific situation, but we will be able to speak about general principles that can lead us to understand the workings of a good God.

Choice And Consequences
One crucial idea to get us started:

The Torah tells us: "God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him" (Genesis 1:27). What does it mean that man was created in God's image? Human beings are finite and corporal. So how are we created in God's image?

Obviously the "image of God" is dealing with the non-physical part of us - the soul. Where do we get our drive for morality and meaning, our drive to make a difference? That drive is from the soul which is in the "image of God."

But there's more to it than that. Just as God has independent choice, so too does each human being have independent moral choice. The image of God means that we have the ability to choose.

Why is choice the essential issue of what makes us special? Because if you think about it, life only becomes meaningful because of our ability to choose. For example, the difference in being "programmed to love" and the choice to love, is precisely what makes love significant. Similarly, if I don't have the choice to do good, but am programmed to do good, then there's nothing meaningful about it. Whereas if I have the ability to do good or evil, then good becomes significant.

But it goes deeper still. For choice to be authentic, there have to be consequences. If every time I get in trouble, dad comes to bail me out, that's not really choice. Choice means consequences. Think about it. All of history – whether in our personal lives or from a global perspective - is based on the decisions that human beings have made - and the consequences that flow from that.

So now we can understand that "image of God" means that God created beings who have the ability to make decisions, and those decisions will create consequences that will make this being a co-partner in the development of the world. This has many ramifications as far as "why bad things happen to good people" and certainly you can start seeing it already.

Now I think we're ready to examine eight ground rules which Judaism spells out for how God interacts with the world.

Ground Rule #1 – The Possibility Of Evil
For free choice to operate, it's obvious that evil has to have the possibility of existing. If every time someone chooses to do evil, God is going to interfere, then there's no moral choice. If every time the gun is pointed, the turret points backwards, after a few times you get the message. If you eat pork and get struck by lightning, then you're not "morally choosing," you just see it doesn't work. It simply becomes pragmatic not to do evil.

If the lives of the righteous were obviously perfect, that too would destroy the possibility of choice. Pragmatically, we'd figure it pays more to be righteous because look at the millions of bucks that come my way! That's not choice. That's not becoming God-like.

A world where a human being can create himself into a Moses, also carries the possibility of a person creating himself into a Hitler.

Sometimes God does make a miracle, but it is always in a way that is not obvious, that enables us to retain free choice.

After the Exodus from Egypt when the Red Sea split, it was obvious to everyone that God had performed a miracle. Yet the Torah tells us "that a strong east wind blew all night" (Exodus 14:21). Why was there a strong wind blowing? Because God had to leave open at least the possibility for someone to say, "No, there was no miracle. It was a fluke of nature and the wind split the sea."

In the recent Gulf War, 39 Scud Missiles rained down on Israel and only one person was killed. What would it take for that to happen? Guaranteed you would have told me it would take a miracle, but it happened and we still have doubt.

Ground Rule #2 - Intervention
In Genesis 15:13, God tells Abraham, "Know that your descendents are going to be enslaved in a land they don't know," which of course ends up being Egypt. So the Jewish philosophers ask: "If God wanted the Jewish people to be enslaved in Egypt, why did he punish the Egyptians?" Tough question!

Nachmanides explains: "All God said is that they would be enslaved. He said nothing about torture and murder. God only said that he wanted a certain something to happen, but the Egyptians took it beyond that."

Now the question is, "Do the Jewish people deserve intervention or not?" Different story.

In Deuteronomy, Moses says that the fate of people depends on our relationship to God. The more we move closer to Him, the more He moves closer to us. The more we move away from him, the more He does the same. The language used is "God hides His face." And when that happens, this leaves us open to the free will decisions of human beings. At times God does not intervene.

We have to appreciate that in the Holocaust, it was not God who built the crematoriums, it was the Nazis. It is not God who is massacring Moslems in Bosnia, it is the Serbs. Which of course raises the question: Why isn't God interfering? But do you see the difference between "God doing this" and "why is God not interfering?"

King David said, "God, I'd rather have direct punishment from you than to fall into the hands of a human being." Because that's dangerous stuff. Will you merit to have God intervene?

Ground Rule #3 - Eternity
The question of "why do bad things happen to good people" has a lot to do with how we look at existence. The way we usually perceive things is like this: A "good life" means that I make a comfortable living, I enjoy good health, and then I die peacefully at age 80. That's a good life. Anything else is "bad."

In a limited sense, that's true. But if we have a soul and there is such a thing as eternity, then that changes the picture entirely. Eighty years in the face of eternity is not such a big deal.

From Judaism's perspective, our eternal soul is as real as our thumb. This is the world of doing, and the "world to come" is where we experience the eternal reality of whatever we've become. Do you think after being responsible for the torture and deaths of millions of people, that Hitler could really "end it all" by just swallowing some poison? No. Ultimate justice is found in another dimension.

But the concept goes much deeper. From an eternal view, if the ultimate pleasure we're going after is transcendence - the eternal relationship with the Almighty Himself, then who would be luckier: Someone who lives an easy life with little connection to God, or someone who is born handicapped, and despite the challenges, develops a connection with God. Who would be "luckier" in terms of eternal existence? All I'm trying to point out is that the rules of life start to look different from the point of view of eternity, as opposed to just the 70 or 80 years we have on earth.

Ground Rule #4 – The Big Picture
I heard a cute story I'd like to share. There once was a farmer who owned a horse. And one day the horse ran away. All the people in the town came to console him because of the loss. "Oh, I don't know," said the farmer, "maybe it's a bad thing and maybe it's not."

A few days later, the horse returned to the farm accompanied by 20 other horses. (Apparently he had found some wild horses and made friends!) All the townspeople came to congratulate him: "Now you have a stable full of horses!" "Oh, I don't know," said the farmer, "maybe it's a good thing and maybe it's not."

A few days later, the farmer's son was out riding one of the new horses. The horse got wild and threw him off, breaking the son's leg. So all the people in town came to console the farmer because of the accident. "Oh, I don't know," said the farmer, "maybe it's a bad thing and maybe it's not."

A few days later, the government declared war and instituted a draft of all able-bodied young men. They came to the town and carted off hundreds of young men, except for the farmer's son who had a broken leg. "Now I know," said the farmer, "that it was a good thing my horse ran away."

The point of this story is obvious. Life is a series of events, and until we've reached the end of the series, it's hard to know exactly why things are happening. That's one reason the Torah commands us to give respect to every elderly person – because through the course of life experience, they have seen the jigsaw puzzle pieces fall into place.

The Torah itself makes this point very clearly. Jacob is raising the next generation of the Jewish people, bringing to the world the message of Ethical Monotheism. And the key character in that picture is his son Joseph, who is kidnapped by his own brothers and sent down to Egypt. Imagine you would come to Jacob at that point in time and ask him about a good God. What's he going to answer?

In Egypt, Joseph became Prime Minister, and when a grave famine hits the entire world, Joseph is a unique position to rescue his family.

When we look at the whole story in retrospect, everything that happened to Joseph was for the good. It set into motion a chain of events where he ended up saving and building the Jewish people.

It is interesting that one of the weekly Torah portions, "Miketz," ends on a bad note, and is then resolved at the beginning of the following week. Why didn't the Torah simply extend "Miketz" a few verses and have it end good? Because the Torah wants to communicate the lesson that we don't always see the whole picture. Sometimes you have to wait to see how "things turn out good in end."

Ground Rule #5 – Opportunity For Growth
Sometimes what we perceive as punishment is really an opportunity for growth. In the story of the "Binding of Isaac," the Torah says that "God tested Abraham." The question is: Doesn't God know what Abraham is capable of? So who's the test for? It can't be for God. It must be for Abraham.

What does it mean to be tested? You have potential. Now the question is can you actualize your potential? We grow when we have to extend ourselves. The Hebrew word for test - "Nisa," is the same as one of the Hebrew words for flag - "Nes." What's the connection? You hoist a flag; so too through being tested, we become hoisted to higher and higher levels. Was this test a "punishment" for Abraham? Of course not. It was an opportunity for growth. The Abraham before the test is not the same Abraham after the test.

Imagine a track coach training an athlete in the 110-meter high hurdles. The coach would start with the hurdles low, and then raise them steadily as the athlete progressed. Raising the hurdles is not a punishment; rather it shows the coach's increasing confidence in the athlete's ability.

As a rabbi, I hear this over and over again: "When this event happened in my life, it seemed so negative; now I understand why it was there and how I grew from it.

Three years ago, a very dynamic woman I know almost died. Her heart stopped on the table. She tells me it was the best thing that ever happened to her. "I was in overdrive, running and doing. That event got me to think: What's it all about?" And what this woman has accomplished in the last few years in personal growth is unbelievable. She's convinced that her suffering was integral to the growth process.

In Judaism, we look at life as "I'm here for growth, so how does this situation help me to change and grow?" When God is telling you to sacrifice your only son, can there be any greater punishment? Yet it changed the whole future of the Jewish people. "Tests" can change your future, too.

Ground Rule #6 – Born To Suffer
The Talmud (Yoma 35) tells the famous story of the sage Hillel. At the time, the head of the yeshiva wanted to make sure that the people who came to study Torah wanted it for the right reasons, and not for self-aggrandizement. So in order to test people's motivation, he charged money to enter the yeshiva.

Hillel was as poor and impoverished as they come. In the winter, he wanted so much to study that he climbed up to the roof by the skylight, and then became so enraptured with his studies that he didn't realize he'd become frozen in. The next morning it was dark in the study hall. So they looked up and saw a person's body. They brought him down and thawed him out.

The Talmud states: "Hillel obligates the poor." That means that Hillel takes away the excuse that we didn't accomplish what we were supposed to in life due to lack of money. Hillel serves as a beacon that even in poverty, one can still become the greatest of the great (which Hillel was).

Was Hillel punished or was this his reason for being here? The Talmud tells us this was his reason for being here. You don't know why a particular situation might be happening. We each have our own package. Each one of us is put here for a particular purpose. Sometimes "suffering" may actually be the reason we were put here. Maybe this is, so to speak, our glory, our unique contribution.

Ground Rule #7 – Individual & Community
We are living in a very complex world and in a complex world, God doesn't only deal with individuals, he also deals with nations.

When God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorra, Abraham complained. He asked God, "If I can find 50 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorra, will you spare the cities?" God said, "No problem, I won't destroy it." Abraham bargained with God until he got down to 10 righteous people and God said, "Okay, if you can find 10 righteous people I won't destroy it."

Why did Abraham stop at 10? Why didn't he go down to one?

Because Abraham knew if there's a group of people who are righteous, then society might turn around – you can't destroy them. Ten is still a group, under 10 is just individuals. A few righteous individuals is not enough to save Sodom and Gomorra.

Another question: Now that God decided to destroy it, do these righteous individuals merit to be spared themselves? The answer is that while these individuals were not the catalyst for the disaster, but now that the disaster is going to happen, you need a tremendous amount of merit to be saved from it in a miraculous way. God deals both on a national realm and on an individual realm. And that complicates our understanding of the equation.

Ground Rule #8 – The Benefits Of Punishment
Unfortunately, the way a lot of Jews relate to punishment has been very heavily influenced by Christianity, which is that God is always ready to get me with "fire and brimstone." No offense, but the Jewish idea is much different. God is our merciful Father. He's an infinite being that has no needs. Punishment cannot mean that He's "getting something." And this is the key to understanding the concept of chastisement.

When you think about it, all relationships are based on reward and punishment. When I bring my wife flowers, she smiles. If it's her birthday and I don't bring her flowers, I get punished, either by a burnt dinner, cold shoulder, etc. Relationships that are based on love always play themselves out in terms of reward and punishment. When I do what's right, I receive positive reinforcement, when I do what's wrong I receive "punishment."

What happens if my wife would always react the same regardless of whether or not I bring her flowers? That's the worst possible thing in a relationship - indifference.

Judaism says that punishment exists because God is reacting to the fact that I've done something wrong and He wants me to change. Hopefully I'll hear the message and learn from that. God is not out for revenge. He's doing this for my own good. If He wouldn't react to my negative behavior that would be the worst punishment of all - because that would mean indifference. This is why King David says in Psalms (23:4): "Your rod and your staff comfort me." Even though I may get "hit" once in a while, I know it is ultimately for my own good.

Putting It All Together
Remember our original premise? That it is very difficult for us to "judge" God because we are stuck in time and space. And because our view is so limited, we are therefore limited in terms of knowing which ground rules God is employing. When "bad" things happen, there are so many possibilities of why it's happening. "Is this a challenge in life that was given to me so I could become an example to inspire others? Or is this to get me to fix a wrong I've done? Or is this due to historical/national forces that are affecting me as an individual? Or is what's happening to me now through a choice that I've made? Or that I'm on my own because I've distanced myself?"

The fact that there are so many possibilities makes it easier to come to terms with the question, to be more comfortable realizing that if I had God's infinite view I would understand.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses asks God, "Make Your ways known to me." The commentators explain that there are "50 Gates of Wisdom," and Moses had reached the 49th Gate. This means that only one aspect of existence was still unknown to him. And which was that? The issue of "why bad things happen to good people." So what was God's answer? "I'm sorry, but this is the one thing that no human can ever comprehend." (see Exodus 33:20)

Attitude
I've seen so much suffering, and it seems to me that the key is "attitude." How people deal with it depends on what attitude they have. I have seen people whose attitude was of anger or hurt to such an extent that they never got beyond a particular event – which then became the defining moment of their lives. In a certain sense, life stopped at that particular moment.

On the other hand, I have seen people who have gone through the most horrendous things, but their attitude was a positive one of believing that there is an ultimate good, of asking how I can learn and grow from this. It was incredible to see their sense of dignity, and the inspiration they gave to others. How they moved on with their lives. The contrast is so unbelievable between these two attitudes. Living with the concept of a good God is so much more uplifting and gives a person the ability to remain joyful and hopeful and have the strength to go on and fight.

I want to share a story that I heard from a friend who experienced the following incident. If you've ever ridden a bus in Israel, you know how people enter the bus from the front door and pay the driver, and people exiting the bus do so from the back door. Sometimes the crowd is so great that people will also enter from the back door, and then pass their money up front to pay the driver. Well, this one time the driver decided he wasn't going to allow that. So he announced that whoever had entered from the back door, must now get off the bus and walk around to the front. Everybody complied grumpily, except for one very old man who could barely walk in the first place. Well, the driver stuck to his guns and announced that the bus would not move until this old man came on through the front door. So slowly slowly, one small step at a time, the old man got off the bus and walked around. And all the while, the people on the bus were shouting at the driver for not only his insensitivity to the old man, but for wasting everyone else's time!

Finally, the old man managed to make it up through the front door and pay the driver. And then he turned toward the bus full of angry people and told them: "Please, don't be upset. We should be grateful that my legs still work and I still have the strength to walk. Thank God!!"

Juli, I have to argue against this. A child of...oh...six, let's say, who has been molested by a family member is incapable of knowing s/he has been "abused" too. After all, the family member is just "being loving" or "just playing" with the child in question. Should we accept pedophilia too?

No, Machiko, we shouldn't. The difference is, the child of six will grow up into an adult who will be able to look back upon the abuse and be horrified once they finally understood what went on. An animal would not feel shame or betrayal the way that a human being would if molested.

You know, these boards are really a mess. In any given thread there are a half a dozen conversations going all at once, and the discussions are splattered all over the site with no rhyme or reason. Half the time I forget what we are supposed to be talking about. My posts have only made the situation worse. I think I'm going to bow out for a bit. This is all giving me a headache.

A child is under the guardianship of his parents, moral and otherwise. The hospital staff had no business in aiding a minor in this matter. Of course, that depends on what the laws of the state are.

Now that was very funny, Berry. A real keeper. You've also given me a new idea for a board, Humor and Religion, where I moved your post to, so thank you for both.

No problem MarkN. I probably don't have to warn you that a humor board will attarct evil clowns. ("Why are you so upset I disparaged everything you believe in? It was only a joke.")

Yes, I know, which is why I asked that people keep their humorous posts clean. And if anyone feels the need to clarify something about their post then please do so, to avoid or at least minimize any misunderstanding. Not only that but please don't anyone just fly off the handle at a post without rereading it a few times first.

A satire of religion in general (though it has a political purpose):

Church of Harvey

About the "Why would a god let bad things happen?" discussion - I'm an atheist, but not because bad things happen. Humans need adversity. It builds them up in many important ways. Human character is defined by the hardships we endure. A god would know this, and so would not deny us the challenges that strengthen us as people.

Metrion,

I know of three answers:

1) God is not omnipotent
2) God does not care
3) You'll nevere understand HIS ways mortal!

Seriously, the best answer (IMO) was Augustine's. There is no evil like there is no darkness. As darkness is an absence of light evil is an abscence of good.

There's a fourth, Blue.

1) God is not omnipotent.
2) God is not omnibenevolent (i.e. doesn't care)
3) God is not omniscient (he doesn't know about it)
4) Youll never understand HIS ways, mortal!

I stand corrected, ScottN. And thanks for the word omnibenevolent.

I thought ScottN always spelled it "G-d"?

Oops! I usually do. I cut and pasted. However, as it was discussed elsewhere, electrons are considered ephemeral. If you print this out, though, please treat the printout with the appropriate respect for the name of Hakadosh Baruch-Hu.

If electrons are ephemeral, why not things created from them and other subatomic particles? By that logic, the ink used to print that page should be ephemeral too because it has electrons. Also by that logic, EVERYTHING is ephemeral because it has electrons. Why is it such that "only electrons" are ephemeral?

Jwb, it was discussed over on the Jewish Faith board.

But to save you the trouble, here's a link that discusses His name.

Juli,

coming waaaay back to your post about the cochlear implants (jan. 16., 2002) and the following discussion:

here is the other side.

The problem starts with the fact that the operation isn't as safe and easy as the industry tells. If the hearing nerv isn't fully functional, the result isn't very good, either.

Of the children operated on, only a small part hears well. None of them hears like a hearing person, so they are not returned to the status of "normal" people.

Deaf culture exists, because sign language is a very seperate language. Because there are not many deaf people, the community is a close-knit, personal one.

Deafness can't be compared at all to needing glasses. And needing glasses is sth. very different from being blind.

The children who are operated are under an enormous pressure to learn "normal" language. They are indeed forbidden to sign so they'll concentrate instead on speaking and listening. This puts an enormous stress on these children. Since they'll never hear like a normal person, they end up between both worlds: they don't belong quite to the hearing world, but haven't learned sign language to belong to the deaf world. Together with the stress to learn to speak and hear like a normal person, this causes severe psychological problems.

Often, doctors pressure the parents to not using sign language before the operation, and operate on small children. These children never learn sign language.

Add to this the problems with infections and repeated necessary hospital stays to check on the implant.

One deaf person said: "A CI (cochlear implant) surgery makes a patient for ever out of a healthy person". Yes, being deaf is a disability, but otherwise they feel healthy, and when they learn sign language, they can have a happy life. They can even, to a degree, enjoy music and dance (vibrations). And how many hearing persons don't listen to bird' songs and music?

As for the deaf people being upset, its no wonder, since for the last 100 years, sign language was forbidden, and schools only taught lip-reading. This has severe, bad effects on the deaf people. Sign language is easy and naturally to learn. Learning a language well as a child is the starting step for learning everything else, developing the brain, logic thinking etc. On the contrary, forcing children to learn lip-reading and to speak, is a troublesome, never sucessful, business and wastes a lot of school time, thus diminishing the rest of the education. Because deaf children have a hard time learning a hearing language, they will never master it entirely. This causes problems with logic thinking and the like. Add to that the psychological problems caused when teachers beat children for using sign language secretly, and maybe you'll understand better why deaf people want to keep their culture.

Today, if deaf children learn sign language already in their family and go to the right school which uses sign language to teach, they can study everything and master sign language quite naturally. For talking to hearing people, there are translators. And today, technical possiblities of translation can also be imagined.

Many parents of CI-children as well as older children and adults themselves with CI surgery later express bitter regrets about being pressured into the surgery, being scarcly informed, no information about aftereffects and so on. Thats why they try to prevent other parents from having a CI-surgery on very young children, to spare the children the pain and aftereffects and prevent the repetition of the mistake.

Okay, but, unlike other cultures, if deafness were eliminated from the Earth, that would be a GOOD thing.

But thats not possible in the near future. Thats the same as saying it would be nice if there were no handicapped people anymore: there will always be accidents and diseases. This kind of thinking is more like "Gattaca", and it makes many disabled and deaf people mad, because they feel this attitude implies that they are defective, and that everybody in this "new world" must be streamlined and normal, everything deviating must be stamped out.

Every person is in some way "handicapped", that is, not able perform every task a 100%. "normal" people often don't spend that much energy trying to reach their limits as handicapped people do. They also often have a harder time accepting the idea that nobody is perfect and that people will always need each others helping hands.

Many deaf people don't miss hearing. They are hampered by the many barriers in society, but these barriers can often be overcome with technology and if the "normal" people had a different attitude towards deaf and handicapped people.

And how many hearing people don't care about music at all? How many never notice a birds song, childrens laughter etc.?

And that it would be a good thing if a certain culture were eliminated ... be careful with this argument. There are enough people out there who will gladly apply this line to the american/ islamic/ ... culture, too. (and have many valid points along the way about the deficiencies in these cultures.)


As the site above mentions, the Deaf aren't against CI generally. CI works best when hearing people suddenly turn deaf (disease, accidents, age). They already have a long hearing history, they have less trouble learning to interpret sounds, they still want to belong to the hearing community, and because they are adults, they can decide for themselves.

They also aren't against young people and adults who were deaf and get CI. They can make informed decisions. They already belong to the Deaf culture, and can stay if the CI doesn't turn out sufficient enough.

The Deaf warn against parents making badly informed decisions for their children through pressure and influence from the media and the industry. There is no need to rush - there is no magic age for CI so it will work like a miracle. And what they rightly resent is the attitude of some parents: "my child is deaf - lets fix it", instead of giving the child support and attention. For small children, learning language is the key to everything else, and sign language comes naturally and easily. (you can see this because all over the world deaf children with no instruction in sign language will invent their own in their desire and need to communicate. They will not start lip-reading on their own.) Then, when the children are older and can inform themselves, they can still get the CI, if they want to.

For small children born deaf, its a very distressing experience to learn how to make sense of the electronically transmitted noises. All the hours spent on learning how to use the CI, and learning how to speak orally properly, would be spent much better on the general education. Sign language is easy and quick to learn, and using it as language of instruction, the children can learn everything else which is important.

but this is the begining of the cybernetic implants we will all have. resistence is few tiles short of a load.

Okay...but again, if deafness were eliminated, that would be a GOOD thing!

Aninnyninnyhey,

Screw the implants, gene therapy, dude. (Not Borg, but Kahn. Unfortunately Kahn does not have a good catch phrase not counting "Corinthian leather".)

Here is as good a place as any.

When I die I have two questions for any and all deities or that I meet.

One: What was the purpose of all that stuff?
Two: OK, joke’s over. Where are my fitted sheets?

I had several. I’m doing laundry and making the bed. Instead of waiting for it to get done so I can use the same sheets, I decide to get out a new set. I found lots of sheets. No fitted ones.

Matter (and energy) cannot be created or destroyed. My fitted sheets were converted to pure energy, but miraculously millions don’t die from the gamma radiation. (Although some people turn into the Hulk.)

So, God, if that’s your real name, what you do with my fitted sheets? More importantly, can you put them back?

Yes, my bedclothes have a deep religious purpose. Now if someone or thing can just tell me what it is...

Also as good a place as any...
I'll be the first to admit that I know little about the major world religions and other worldviews. However, during my (few) studies I've found some similaries (that others have also written about). Sometimes they are easy, like Judaism and Christianity. Sometimes not, like Tao and Christianity. Like I just typed, others smarter than me have written on these similaries, but I'd like to put out my two cents and ask YOU for your thoughts (sorry, I can't give you a penny).
Tao is about the Way. It has two opposing/complimentary forces. However, there is only one Way/Tao.
Christianity is about Jesus who said 'I am the Way...'. On the surface, it appears that there are two opposing forces of good vs evil. However, some believers define evil as the absence of good. If that is the case, then there is only One.
Chaos Theory is a worldview about predictability in complex systems. As I understand it, there is actually no chaos but only complex order that is difficult to understand. There is no randomness, but patterns (or one big pattern).
It's like I'm playing the game Connect-the-Dots to find the big picture.
A favorite quote:
"All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil universal good;
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear whatever is, is right."
from Essay on Man by Alexander Pope

From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Ed.)

1. kook (noun) - one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane

2. cult (noun) - (1) formal religious veneration: worship (2) a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents (3) a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents ...

3. religion (noun) - (1)(a) the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of ~) (1)(b)(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (1)(b)(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices ...

It seems to me that on the topic of religion, as a practical matter, the major difference between these three things is one thing -- headcount.

Ryan: Yeah, for the most part. But then again, we wouldn't have a two party system if only we had a third one.

*THIS POST IN RESPONSE TO A DISCUSSION IN DOCTOR WHO: THE UNQUIET DEAD, ASKED TO BE RELOCATED BY THE MODERATOR.*


"The difference is simple: Hellfire, yes.

Oh.

Thanks.

Boy, have YOU blown it. There I was, getting a glimpse of eternal bliss for the first time in my life - 'heaven' having previously freaked me out second only to 'hell' - and you just have to ruin it." -Emily

I don't know quite what you mean, actually- I was simply afirming the fact that, yes, I do believe Hell exists. Sorry if that's a bothersome fact. But I was trying to be honest.

"it. If only you'd kept your gob shut I might - might - just have convinced myself that because I WANT something it is actually TRUE, and - given a few years of indoctrination...brainwashing...electro-convulsive shock treatment...and hopefully an early onset of Alzheimer's - I may just have hurled myself into the arms of Baby Jesus, started munching away on wafers in the happy belief they're human flesh, and swearing that the Earth was created in six days flat and dinosaurs aren't real (something that comes easier after watching Invasion of the Dinosaurs, I can tell " -Emily

Somehow, based on your statements there, I doubt it. :-) For the record: Symbolic, not human flesh, yes the Earth was created in six days flat, and yes, the dinosaurs were absolutely real. Please save the 'people of faith are ignorant unscientific savages' rhetoric for another day, will you? It doesn't apply here.

"But nope, you just had to go and threaten me with the old fire n'brimstone, didn't you? I hope you'll feel GUILTY, listening to my shrieks of anguish while you're floating round with your harp." -Emily

I beg your pardon? I never threatened you with anything! That's like saying that because I believe the death penalty exists in this state, I automatically think it ought to be applied to you! I never said- or intended- any such thing! Do you think I would be having this discussion with you if it was my innate desire to 'see you burning in Hellfire?' I hope you think a little better of me than THAT! Nothing would make me sadder! The very point of my posts was that yes, I do believe such a thing exists- but no, I don't want you, or anyone else, to have any part of it- nor is there in need to!


"OK, lemme get it straight. God wrote the rulebook that says I'm gonna burn, baby, burn (as Cassandra put it) if I don't accept his 'forgiveness' (for what, precisely?). So how can he possibly not be to blame for this particular rule?" -Emily

Not quite. It's a little complex, but if you really want to know the answer: It is, most basically, good and evil. You see, they are (contrary to popular belief) absolutes in a perfect universe. That is the 'rule book,' not an arbitrary creation of punishment, but a standard based on an absolute moral system. That's the answer to "God wrote the rulebook?" As for the answer to "forgiveness, for what precisely?" It's also simple- sort of. Basically, anything wrong we do, anything that is 'evil' in that perfect moral system- from stealing and killing to lying and disrespecting and everything inbetween- is 'sin.' And, as the Bible says, the wages of Sin are death. Basically, any time we sin, we have litterally done evil. That is what we need to be forgiven for. Simply enough, for the wrong things we do. Now, how does that tie into Hell and salvation and the like? That's a little more complex.
Here's a cliff notes version: God is perfect. God is also omnipresent- everywhere and everything- everything created exists within Him, as He is infinite.
We, on the other hand, are imperfect, because based on that absolute moral system of right and wrong, there isn't a single one of us who has never done anything wrong.
Now, a criterion of perfection is, well... perfection. If anything is even the slightest atom imperfect, it can no longer be considered perfect, right? So perfection and imperfection don't mix. There's kind of an unbridgeable chasm between us and God. Which is a problem. Based on a perfect absolute moral system, that which is imperfect must be destroyed. Think of it, in a way, like the old 'unstopable force and the immoveable object' argument. God is by nature perfect, and cannot stop being so based on His nature- He's the 'immoveable object.' He can't change. And since He is everywhere and everything, we can't exactly exist with Him, well... anywhere. Which means that we're the ones who have to go away. We are like Captain Jack- the 'fact' that is wrong. The thing that shouldn't be. Imperfect dwelling in the midst of perfect. The only viable option is our destruction. (That, or a paradox of existance, which, as we've seen already in Dr. Who, is a bad thing!)
That's where Jesus Christ comes in. Being a part of God, He is perfect. Whereas if any one of us were to be destroyed, we would just be paying the price, recieving the consequences of our actions, He is the only one who came to Earth having never done anything wrong. A blank slate, if you will. And because of this, He is the only one able to take all of those consequences on Himself- having no debt of His own to settle, He was able to take on ours. Which is why He died, was destroyed, paying the price for our misdeeds. (And then, being God, was also restored to life.) Because of this, each one of us, if we will yield that debt, accept that the price has been paid, will be counted as blank slates as well. All of our imperfection was taken by Christ and paid for already. This is the 'forgiveness' of which I spoke. And that's how it works. A little sketchy, perhaps, as this is the cliffs notes version, but hopefully it's a clear enough picture.
So, it is an absolute moral system and our own action that 'condemn' us, and God is offering us an absolutely free gift of being UN-condemned, if only we'll just accept it- so God can no more be considered 'to blame' for this situation any more than a ship captain throwing a life-ring to someone who's fallen in the water can be considered responsible for their drowning!

"Couldn't he punish me a bit less drastically for (I freely admit) spitting in his genocidal face? I mean, what's wrong with a few thousand years in purgatory, or (as Hartnell so memorably put it) a jolly good smacked bottom?" -Emily

Well, see above. That's kind of the nature of absolutes. They're not so popular with us, these days. But they're the way things are.

"And why do I have to be judged entirely on that tiny portion of time I spend on Earth? I mean, it's one thing to be 'No second chances, I'm that sort of a man' but Tennant didn't MEAN it *points indignantly towards Cassandra, Dalek Caan, the Master, etc etc* so why can't Mr All-Loving Saviour Guy give me one last chance to recant AFTER I've popped my clogs?" -Emily

This is a little more complicated. Suffice it to say, again, in the cliff notes version, that the same rules don't apply in both places. There is a state change that occurrs. Sort of like the reason that you have to pay for your dinner before you leave the resteraunt, even though it might be more convenient to head to the resteraunt, eat, leave, go to the bank to withdraw the cash for the meal, and pay for it then... different rules apply in the resteraunt than the bank, and you have to deal with what you ordered in the resteraunt while you're still in the resteraunt. :-)

"Hmm. He's the creator of the universe, he's the creator of sexuality, he's therefore the creator of homosexuality, so you don't think it's the tiniest bit MEAN for him to insist that all gays spend eternity in agony?" -Emily

That's not what I said. God created sexuality. Man perverted it. It seems there are few things He made that we haven't managed to twist in one way or another, really. And, as I ALSO was attempting to explain, nowhere does God insist that all gays spend eternity in agony! He loves someone who practices homosexuality as much as he loves someone who lies, or who cheats, or who steal... which is completely. He just hates what they do. Like I said before, we are all sinners. But every sin we can commit, He can forgive.


"Right. They get stoned to death and then tortured in a non-prejudiced kind of way." -Emily

Yes, actually. Or do you see the penalty of stoning being applied solely and uniquely to this one sin?

"A cause and effect based on the consequences of sin and a perfect moral system.

Yeah, well, call me a fanatical nitpicker, but I feel that an absolutely perfect moral system would include a little less about the abominations of shellfish and shaving and a little more (well, a little SOMETHING) about the abominations of rape and slavery." -Emily

It does. Nowhere in the Bible is rape condoned! And while there are instructions for slave owners and slaves- as those were a part of the cultures of the time, and their situation had to be dealt with- nowhere is slavery condoned, either!

"just because we are made in His image doesn't mean we are made to ACT like Him- only with the moral capacity to do so. (At least, in a perfect world.)

Hmm. I wasn't expecting Tom-Baker-in-the-Tachyon-Generator kind of identical copies, but if you're made in someone's image that should mean slightly more than with-the-moral-capacity-to-act-like-them-in-a-perfect-world." -Emily

I'm sorry, but... based on what? We are made in God's physical image, and we are made witha soul, a spirit, capable of being like His- but the knowlede that we have in it, the actions that we take with it, are our own- again, the nature of free will.

"and pray for you in the mean time. :-)

No, please don't bother. Not only has prayer been PROVEN to be useless, but by your own ideology it'd be grossly unfair for God to pardon ME cos you put in a good word, whilst torturing everyone else who believes as I do." -Emily

I beg your pardon? When has prayer been proven to be useless? I believe this would rock the scientific and theological communities... seeing as that's not even, to the best of my knowledge, POSSIBLE to prove or dissprove.
And no, I can't pray you a pardon- it's a descision you have to come to on your own. But I can certainly pray for you nonetheless.
And no, Emily, despite what you may maintain, God isn't in the business of torture.

"Theologians debate that topic to this day, obviously

Sorry, if you've got the authority to state I'll be burning for eternity, I don't expect wishy-washy DEBATES on the hell issue." -Emily

Sorry, but, despite my wishes to the contrary- I don't know everything. :-) So I'm afraid I can't explain everything. But it is a logical falacy to suggest that because I don't know how pre-Christ salvation works, I don't know how post-Christ salvation works, either.

"I want to know EXACTLY what happens to everyone else - Muslims, pre-Jesuses, Gandhi, baptised babies, non-baptised toddlers, etc etc." -Emily
I can answer most of those. Muslims... face the exact same choice as Christians, Jews, Buhdists, Atheists, Agnostics, Gahndi, etc.- accept Christ's forgiveness and be saved... or don't, and don't. Pre-Jesus, I'm sorry, I do not know. I have what I suspect- but I do not know for certain. As for babies, baptism is not even remotely the issue in whether a person is saved or not. But the Bible does speak of an age of innocence which means, in essence, that a until a child is old enough/mentally developed enough to know the difference between right and wrong- I.E. be capable of understanding the issue of sin and accepting or rejecting Christ's forgiveness, they are in essence sinless. Like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, they do not posess the knowledge of good and evil and thus cannot choose to sin. (Which, by the by, is also applicable when considering those infant mortality rates.)

"Oh, and above all, I want to know what will happen to my Doctor. Will the fact he's saved God's entire Creation on several occasions counteract the fact he's obviously an atheist (except when suddenly becoming a pathetic agnostic in The Satan Pit)? Was the Master right when he played him that song claiming 'Oh, you'll probably go to heaven'...?" -Emily

Emily, I truly hate to tell you this, but... I'm afraid he's ficticious. So he won't be doing either. :-)

"- but the Bible clearly states in several places that the pre-Christ faithful are not simply condemned to limbo- Moses making an appearance in Heaven, for example.

Well, it's good to know Jesus was lying through his teeth on this issue. And if Moses the child-rapist gets to go to heaven, there's hope for us all. " -Emily

I beg your pardon? How do you figure... in both cases???

"Which means that the history of wrongs you see in human history is the legacy of man, not of God... which does not indicate a cruel God.

Well, it does if he's omniscient. Which he should be, being God and all. He knew when he created the universe every single thing that was going to happen to every one of us. Billions of years (or are you a it's-only-been-six-thousand-years type godbotherer?) before I was conceived he knew I'd be incapable - by virtue of feminism, intelligence, nitpicking inclinations, and Doctor-worship - of EVER grovelling to him. And that I'd burn for it. Forever. In what way is THAT not cruel? " -Emily

Emily, God does not want groveling. He loves you and wants the best for you. And He knows that you are not INCAPABLE of anything. If you choose not believe in Him, that's a choice you make. But it's not as if He hasn't given you the chance. And doesn't continue to. He has offered you a way of salvation that's 100% free. He's given you the resources to understand it, to have it explained to you. He continues to offer it despite the fact you seem to think it's ridiculous. He has given you, and continues to give you, every chance. How can that be cruel?

Zarm, a few questions came to mind while I was reading your post:

[We are]The thing that shouldn't be. Imperfect dwelling in the midst of perfect. The only viable option is our destruction.

Then how can we exist in the universe in our current imperfect state? Why couldn't the current state simply continue? Is there a cutoff point where things have to be shipshape?

Also, does this mean that people in heaven will no longer have free will (since that's what created the imperfection)?

And no, Emily, despite what you may maintain, God isn't in the business of torture.

Christians interpret this differently, so I'm wondering: do you say this because the lake of fire is not torture (simply annihilation, which it doesn't sound like you believe) or because God has nothing to do with it? It looks to me like God has everything to do with it. It's not like God is a victim of the situation and has no free will in the matter; he set up all the rules and created the lake of fire to begin with. If he doesn't want people to burn, they won't burn, simple as that. It's one thing if God believes that punishment is justified (although I'm just an imperfect human and can't see the value of eternal torture), but it's another thing for God to simply wash his hands of the matter.

And He knows that you are not INCAPABLE of anything. If you choose not believe in Him, that's a choice you make. But it's not as if He hasn't given you the chance.

I think what Emily meant was that God knew billions of years ago that she would not accept him and would burn forever as a consequence. Yet she was still created with the knowledge that this would be her eternal fate. As Emily said, "In what way is that not cruel?"

"[We are]The thing that shouldn't be. Imperfect dwelling in the midst of perfect. The only viable option is our destruction.

Then how can we exist in the universe in our current imperfect state? Why couldn't the current state simply continue? Is there a cutoff point where things have to be shipshape?

Also, does this mean that people in heaven will no longer have free will (since that's what created the imperfection)?" -Nove Rockhoomer

That first is actually a very good question- I'm not 100% sure on that myself, being an amateure theologian at best... but I believe that is has to do with the state change between living in this form (physical existence, life on Earth) and life after death (a spirit, moved from this physical plain to a 'heavenly' plain, if you will.) I think- and this is just me going out on a limb here- that the physical and the spirit are 'tied' to different arenas, and can only really exist in one or the other- once the body dies and the spirit is 'on it's own,' it is now on the heavenly plain and falls to the paradoxical problem stated above. But I suspect my brain is oversimplifying the concept even if that is correct.

As for Free Will, I belive it will still be there- Free Will did not cause the problem, it simply allowed us the option to choose the problem. But I believe that the nature of existence in Heaven will be sufficiently different that sinning is no longer an option/issue- though again, I don't quite know how that will work. In any event, Adam and Eve were in fact sinless but fully posessed of a Free Will before they made the descision to eat of the forbidden fruit, so we know that the existence of Free Will does not automatically require the existence of sin.

"And no, Emily, despite what you may maintain, God isn't in the business of torture.

Christians interpret this differently, so I'm wondering: do you say this because the lake of fire is not torture (simply annihilation, which it doesn't sound like you believe) or because God has nothing to do with it? It looks to me like God has everything to do with it." -Nove Rockhoomer

I suppose the difference lies in several areas, Nove:
First, I see a difference between torture (a cruel act designed to inflict suffering for strategic or sadistic purpose) and punishment (recieving the just reward for evil).
Second, the Bible clearly states that the lake of fire was created most specifically for Satan and his followers; it was never intended for man. And since the option of Salvation is available to all men, no human ever needs go there. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that some will, by choice, because they do not accept salvation- but that is their own descision based on their Free Will, not God's condemnation of them. So yes, I do believe that God considers the lake of fire just punishment for Satan, and yes, I also believe the He doesn't want people to burn- but I also believe that He has allowed people Free Will, and as a consequence of that- some will choose to burn anyhow (though obviously... they would not see it as making that choice! :-) I really doubt even the most hard-core anti-Christians are thinking "Boy, I'd love to turn down a free gift of salvation so I can burn in eternal fire just to spite those goody two-shoes!" :-) But nonetheless, they do make the choice not to believe and not to accept that salvation- and because of their Free Will, that choice is the one that determines their future, whether it is what God wants for them or not.) That is what I believe, of course.


"And He knows that you are not INCAPABLE of anything. If you choose not believe in Him, that's a choice you make. But it's not as if He hasn't given you the chance.

I think what Emily meant was that God knew billions of years ago that she would not accept him and would burn forever as a consequence. Yet she was still created with the knowledge that this would be her eternal fate. As Emily said, "In what way is that not cruel?"" -Nove Rockhoomer

Well... first off, I'd say 'It ain't over 'till it's over.' :-) But, assuming that descision remains unchanged... I can't answer that with an absolute certainty. At least, not in a way that would satisfy you, I think. To my mind, (and this applies to every one of us) God has given her existence, God has given her life, God has given her the free gift of Salvation- in essence, He has created her and given her everything she needs for now and for eternity. It is not His fault that she makes whatever choices she makes. To my mind, it is not cruel to create life and give it every single chance.
I do understand the foreknowledge/why question- applied in general to the universe, a friend (and far more knowledgeable theologian than I) said that's the one great question that theologians have never really come up with an answer for.
But to my mind, that at least is the answer to the question of cruelty- God creates a person, God gives a person life, God gives them Free Will, God gives them Salvation freely to accept, and God has a purpose in their lives that makes their existence necessary to others on this Earth as well as for themselves... none of these things are cruel in the slightest. What the person decides to do with that Free Will is not any reflection on God's character, no matter whether He was aware of that choice beforehand or not.
I do understand the opposing viewpoint, of course- I just do not share it. (And would finally add... until Emily's- or any other person's life- is over and done completely, you can't really use their 'NEVER accepting, being condemned, etc.' as a proof of anything- since that 'never' is still not absolutely assured.)

but that is their own descision based on their Free Will, not God's condemnation of them. - Zarm

Who decided that the lake of fire would be the punishment for sin? Wasn't that God? I would argue that eternal torture is way out of proportion (I don't even have a word to express how much out of proportion it is...infinitely?) as a punishment even for someone like Hitler, much less for ordinary human beings. This is eternity we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the person has done, or how much God may say, "Hey, it's your fault, not mine." This is so unbelievably extreme, it should not even be on the table as an option in any situation.

If it really isn't his fault, he could, at the very least, stop it and rescue all those souls in torment. That's what a decent human being would do, if he could. Of course, Christians will say, "They have to ask him to save them" (before they end up there, of course). But even "evil" humans will try to save a drowning victim even if he's fighting them off in panic. Should God do less?

dictionary.com defines torture as:

"the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

So punishment can also be torture. But it certainly sounds less cruel when you call it punishment, doesn't it?

some will choose to burn anyhow (though obviously... they would not see it as making that choice! :-) - Zarm

That's exactly why it is unjust.

"but that is their own descision based on their Free Will, not God's condemnation of them. - Zarm

Who decided that the lake of fire would be the punishment for sin? Wasn't that God? I would argue that eternal torture is way out of proportion (I don't even have a word to express how much out of proportion it is...infinitely?) as a punishment even for someone like Hitler, much less for ordinary human beings. This is eternity we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the person has done, or how much God may say, "Hey, it's your fault, not mine." This is so unbelievably extreme, it should not even be on the table as an option in any situation." -Nove Rockhoomer

Well, yes, I understand that. However... that is based on a human sentiment and a finite viewpoint- the best we can manage here on Earth.

And once again, the Lake of Fire was not created as torment for even the worst humans, not even Hitler- it was created for Satan.

"If it really isn't his fault, he could, at the very least, stop it and rescue all those souls in torment. That's what a decent human being would do, if he could. Of course, Christians will say, "They have to ask him to save them" (before they end up there, of course). But even "evil" humans will try to save a drowning victim even if he's fighting them off in panic. Should God do less?" -Nove Rockhoomer

God came down to Earth, limited Himself (an infinite, all-powerful God) into a human body (a tiny, finite, frail, and distinctly non-powerful form!), and DIED for them... experiencing that same Hell, that same Lake of Fire, Himself. What more exactly more could He do? And no, God does not not even require that people 'ask' Him to save them- He offers the salvation freely- all we have to do is accept. HE is asking US! And God does is absolute best to reach all of those struggling souls fighting Him off in panic. (Though you'll notice that when Christians try to do just that- reach out to even those struggling and trying to 'fight off' salvation, they get nothing but abuse for 'trying to force their relgion on others.') The only thing that God doesn't do is override Free Will and force that salvation on them... because He has created Free Will to be... well, free. And just like Perfection can't be perfect if there is any imperfection within it, Free Will can't be free if it isn't completely free. So, by the nature of giving us Free Will and making us the sentient beings that we are, God also 'can't' interfere with it and force us to do anything... which is why salvation must still be a choice. But that choice hardly implies 'lack of trying' on the part of God!


"dictionary.com defines torture as:

"the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

So punishment can also be torture. But it certainly sounds less cruel when you call it punishment, doesn't it?" -Nove Rockhoomer

Yes, actually, it does. Because CRUELTY is not the point. Even the deffintion above lists 'punishment' and 'for sheer cruelty' as separate motives- likewise, this is just punishment based on Good and Evil's very nature- not arbitrary cruelty for the sake of some perverse pleasure.


"some will choose to burn anyhow (though obviously... they would not see it as making that choice! :-) - Zarm

That's exactly why it is unjust." -Nove Rockhoomer

I can see how emotionally, it may seem that way... but analyzed honestly, how can you possibly call it unjust? They CHOOSE to see it in a different way- but it is not as if the information to see it accurately is denied to them! If I see a Yield sign at the intersection, and my driver's manual tells me what that yield signs means, and I have had teacers, instructors, and numerous people who taught me about driving that have informed me what a Yield sign means, and I choose to nonetheless ignore it and pull out ino the intersection without checking I because I don't think anything bad will happen- whether it's through carelessness, assuming there are no other cars in the area, or even disbelieving the meaning of the Yield-sign, is the accident that I'll get in 'unjust?' The sign was there. I was told what the sign meant. I was the one who chose to ignore it despite everyone who tried to inform me otherwise. Likewise, the same thing applies here- how is that unjust when it is a matter of the individual's choice- not a missinterpretation inflicted on them, but a choice they refuse to believe in?

You say your driver's manual, teachers, instructors and "numerous people" told you what the Yield sign means. Of course, this is an overwhelmingly Christian country. That's mainly what you will hear. But a Muslim would say the same thing. His "manual," his teachers, family and so forth all tell him that the signs point to Islam as being the way to heaven. Assuming he follows this belief, what do you believe will happen to him when he dies? Will he be burned eternally ("justly punished")? Or will God take into account that he did what he was taught, just like you did? Is he expected to go against what all those sources have told him? It's not as simple for him as simply seeing one sign with one interpretation, as you portray it. If he stuck with that strategy, he would burn.

If this belief is true, and even one human soul ends up being eternally tormented...Leaving aside who's responsible or the "justifiable" reasons for it...just the mere fact that anyone is going to be tortured throughout eternity, the universe is a very sad place indeed.

"Assuming he follows this belief, what do you believe will happen to him when he dies? Will he be burned eternally ("justly punished")? Or will God take into account that he did what he was taught, just like you did? Is he expected to go against what all those sources have told him? It's not as simple for him as simply seeing one sign with one interpretation, as you portray it. If he stuck with that strategy, he would burn." -Nove Rockhoomer

That is a good question. Actually, it's one of some debate in Christian theologian circles. My inspiration and favorite author, CS Lewis, was of the opinion that the latter is the case- that God will coutn faithful service as service to Him regardless. I am not so certain- Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me."

However, whatever the case may be, the truth of the matter is- yes. The gospel IS there, and IS available to that theoretical Muslim. And yes, it does go against his culture and probably the words fo all of hsi friends and family. But that has no bearing on the innate fairness or truth of his situation. The 'driver's manual, teachers, instructors and "numerous people"' (intended in that somewhat clumsy analogy simply to represent the fact that there are numerous bookstores, websites, churches, missionaries, Christian witnesses, etc. that provide the gospel- even in Muslim countries, though admittedly they are statistically less numerous) are still there and available to him if he so chooses. Sadly, he is far more likely to be misled from that ebcaue of the culture, family, and friends with differing beliefs around him... but that is still no reflection on whether God has given him, just as any of us, all the chances and all the resources we need to come to Him.

And yes, I agree. It is a VERY sad thing that even one soul be lost needlessly. A tragic thing. That's WHY Christians continue to send out missionaries and witness to people and try to spread the message despite the detractors and unpopularity and why they weather the storm of accusatory "You're forcing your relogion on other people"s and "You're not being tolerant of other viewpoints"- in case anyone wondered, it's not because Christians like controversy or enjoy being busybodies or like hearing themselves speak... it's because that tragedy, and doing EVERYTHING possible to prevent it's occurring even ONE more time is worth being unpopular, worth weathering adversity, worth- in the case of many missionary martyrs- even the cost of our own lives. If Christ was willing to give that up so that such a tragedy need no longer occurr, how can we do any less?

"Andrew you seem to be saying exactly what I was pointing out, that only those who practice the Christian faith get into the Afterlife. Well, what about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. Are they allowed in too? If not, it's discrimination, period!" -Tim Mcree

Yes, they are allowed in. Everyone is allowed in. Everyone is welcomed. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a requirement to get there: believing in Jesus Christ. Now please, before you write off the whole rest of this post as religious discrimination, hear me out? This is the reasoning, and it bypasses any human re-writtings or account changes in Biblical history entirely:

It's my belief (and general Christian doctrine) than Heaven- and God- are perfect. It is also plainly obvious that Humans are not perfect. We're flawed, each of us having done at least SOMETHING wrong. Now, by nature, the imperfect cannot exist within the perfect. After all, if there's even the slightest imperfection, it bars soemthing from the category of 'perfect,' yes? So that is an automatic separation between us and God.

Enter Jesus Christ. He came to earth and lived a life without sin or flaw- a perfect life. Because of this, He is the ONLY one who could possibly take our wrongdoings, our flaws, onto Himself and pay the price, because He had no wrongdoings of His own to pay for- to put it another way, He was the only one who could take care of our standing debt because He was the only one who's bank balance was 'in the black.'

Now, that's where the issue of 'discrimination' comes in. See, Christ died for the wrongdoings of every person, ever. Because of our freedom to choose, that salvation is not forced upon us (another topic of discussion entirely), but in essence, it is freely offered to every man, woman, and child on this Earth- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, etc. Good and bad. All genders, creeds, colors- there are no exceptions. Heck, even Hitler and Bin Laden's wrongdoings were paid for before they were even born. The only thing it takes is believing that Jesus Christ really did pay that price, and accepting it- in essence, saying "Yes, I will allow you to pay my debt." No effort on your part, no tasks or works or requirements or ceremones- just saying "Yes, I accept." And then the flaws and wrongdoings are coutned as paid- we become perfect in God's eyes since every wrong thing we've ever done has been taken away from us, and we are able to be with Him, to enter Heaven. And that is free to anyone and everyone. I truly believe that Christ is right now saying "Tim Mcree, this free gift is offered to you- please take it, please come and be with me in paradise forever! I've taken care of everything- just say yes!" just as much as He's saying the same to the 'born-again' or the right-wingers or the church members or the 'sinners' or anyone else!

But the trick is this: Christ is the only one who's done that. Budha didn't take anyone's wrongdoings on himself. Muhamed didn't die to pay the price for anyone's sins. The moon godess and Ra and Zues and the entire pantheon never offered to take the wrongdoing of the world on themselves. Only Christ did. Which is why, as I believe, only believing in Christ and accepting that free gift will take away your flaws in God's eyes and make you 'perfect,' allowing you to be with God. It's not that I'm discriminating against other faiths or claiming their inferiority... but I am saying that ONLY Christ has done what they haven't, which is why ONLY Christ is the way to reach Heaven. It's not discrimination; it's open to everybody, regardless of their beliefs. But just like Central Park does not discriminate in that it's free to everybody, there's still only one way to get there: by going to New York. Likewise, even though Christ doesn't discriminate and offers this gift to everybody, there's only one way to get there: by accepting His gift. Because, honestly... He's the only one offering it!

Does that make any sense? As you asked in your original post "Everyone is allowed in-" but there's still only one way to get there, because there's only one way that the gap between our imperfectness and God's perfectness has been bridged, and that's through Jesus Christ sacrificing Himself by paying the price for all of our wrongdoings. It's open to everyone who will just say "Yes"- I hope that includes you! :-)

Sorry for being dense, but who is Tim Mcree?

Sorry, my bad, forgot to add the little notation at the beginning- moved/continued from the Doctor Who: The Satan Pit board.

Doesn't the very nature of a religious belief (generally) imply that there is a "correct" belief or at the very least a "right" belief and that those who do not follow/subscribe to such beliefs have some form of consequence? Isn't all religion discriminatory by this logic?

"Doesn't the very nature of a religious belief (generally) imply that there is a "correct" belief or at the very least a "right" belief and that those who do not follow/subscribe to such beliefs have some form of consequence? Isn't all religion discriminatory by this logic?" - Mike Cheyne


No. Discrimination is (according to the dictionary) "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." (And yes, I am aware of the irony that the next sentence after that is 'e.g. Religious or racial discrimination' :-) ) There is no such discrimination as a part of Christian beliefs- indeed, the very point of the New Testament is that salvation from Jesus, as described above, is open to everyone.

What is being claimed here as 'discrimination' is the idea that there is only one way to get to Heaven, that there is a right and wrong, etc. The idea that there are not multiple 'options.' This is an issue of moral absolutes, etc., not of discrimination. The belief in right and wrong being absolutes is not discriminatory because BY NATURE such absolutes apply universally and indescriminantly. And the belief that they exist is not discrimination against those who do not believe the same... that is just plain foolishness, by that logic every belief that is not held by every single individual on earth is discriminatory. (Not that I'm saying you suggested that latter possibility- just covering all the bases. :-) )

So yes, Religious belief does include 'absolutism,' if you will, in that it involves absolutes of right and wrong (and frankly, absolutes are a completely separate discussion but to touch upon it in brief... anyone that wants to claim there are no absolutes, tell me there are no absolutes in a sentence without using absolutes, and I'll conceed the point to you. ;-) ), but it is not discrimanatory, as it does not differentiate, it simply universally applies absolute principles. (Of course, this is a statement based on Christian beliefs... I think saying anything about "religious beliefs" in general will be inacurate as there are so many widely-ranging beliefs that few things universally apply to all of them.)

This sounds sort of like splitting hairs or picking nits...wait a minute.

In all seriousness, I think I agree with you but I don't know if I see the significance. Does God discriminate? He said he would discriminate between those who had accepted Jesus and those who did not, not individual merit--by our faith we are saved, not through works.

Not splitting hairs at all... the only reason it seems so is because the phrase 'discrimination' is being broadly distorted. The thing is, we are all condemned by individual merit... because none of us have it. We have each done wrong things in our life, and that makes us ALL sinners. No exceptions.

Discrimination is God saying "I choose to save you, but not you," based on whatever.

This is so very different- God saying "Anyone and everyone is welcome, and here's how-" if someone chooses not to accept salvation, they are hardly being discriminated against by God- they are CHOOSING. By definition it is impossible to discriminate against someone when you offer an equal choice to all and leave the end result in THEIR hands! :-)

Well, Andrew, the real truth is that we plain don't know what the Afterlife is like. The Bible says one thing, but I don't trust it. It was written by humans, after all, and rewritten again and again. Any truth would have been distorted a long time ago.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.

Tim... I don't know where you have your evidence for the Bible being re-written again and again as you've claimed (unless you mean hand-copying throughout the generations), and I understand that obviously you don't believe that it is God-breathed scripture simply transcribed by man... but don't take the touch of humanity as an automatic sign of lack of truth... listen to the words, see what they say about life, humanity, and the world at large... and see if they ring true. If they do, then maybe, just maybe, believe that a little bit of truth has made it through all that human contamination. :-) And if they don't... then don't. Just keep in mind that, again, there is no discrimination- and believe it or not, the offer Christ makes to each of us, as the Bible records, is open to everyone... and that means, very much, that you're invited! :-)

We agree to disagree, it seems. Let's leave it at that.

I think the problem is the word "discrimination" has been given such a negative connotation. But think of other usages of the word--the "discriminating" consumer, a person firing "indiscriminately"--in this case, discrimination is not negative but a sign of applying thought, criteria. In God's case, it's admittedly a very small piece of criteria.

May I just ask, if Muhamed/Buddha etc. *had* died for everyone's sins, would that make all their religions the path to heaven?

I'm a non-believer personally, and I too feel as though Christianity is an exclusive club. I just come up against the whole idea of believing Jesus Christ died for our sins and....I can't.

Your argument (and I'm not trying to get at you, or anything) seems a bit like, "Christ did more than anyone else, therefore his religion is 'better'"? I'm sure I'm mis-understanding you but would love to hear your response, please?

Well...wait a minute, how is Islam not an exclusive club? Islam is arguably way more exclusive than Christianity--there's five pillars, many of which require extensive deeds. Buddhism also has a pretty set path for Nirvana. I just don't see Christianity as like the religion that's "more" exclusive than any others. In fact, compared to the other monotheistic ones, it is LESS exclusive.

Not to seem like I'm trying to pick a fight, Mike... but I really can;t agree with you that 'discrimination' is the right word in the first place. Let me put it this way (oh no, here come the metaphors again! :-) ) If a ship's captain comes across the passengers of the Titanic, and he throws a life preserver with a rope attached to EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, making no distinctions, and then says "Grab ahold, we're here to save you! But I can only haul you in if you grab onto the life preservers!" could the captain be considered to be 'discriminating' against those that didn't get hauled in? Seems to me the rescue was offered indisciminately, and it was the choice of the individuals (this hypothetical scenario assuming, of course, that all were conscious and able to grab the life opreservers- gotta cover the bases on a Niticker site ;-) ) NOT to grab the preservers that resulted int heir not being saved- which can hardly be laid at the feet of the captain! :-) So again, there is no discrimination by God involved, because He is not making the choice of "you are saved, you aren't." The choice is made by the individual.



Jessica- well, since this is a nitpicker website, the first answer I have for you is "would that make all their religions the path to heaven?" is the wrong question. I don't believe in religions. religions are basically the set of rules people make to try and connect to God. To me, it's about beliefs, and faith (something personal between you and God) not 'religion' (the sets of rules and regulations and traditions and ceremonies.)

As for your question, though... if Muhamed/Buddha had indeed lived a flawless life, a perfect life, and had no wrongdoings of their own to pay for, and then had taken the wrongdoings (and their accompanying price to be paid) upon themselves, as Jesus did... then yes, they would be the way to Heaven.

My argument is not that "Christ did the most, so He trumps the rest," or anything like that- though I can see how my explanation would sound like that. What I am saying is this:
Based upon the nature of God's perfection, our imperfection, the wrong things we've done, etc. as described above, the only way we can be in Heaven, in His presence, is to have our wrongdoings, what you're always Christians refer to as 'sins,' taken away. And Jesus Christ taking those sins upon Himself is the only way that can happen, since we can't get rid of them ourselves. And He was the only one who could take them because He was the only one who didn't already have sins or wrongdoings of His own to pay for.
In essence, what I'm saying is not that "Christ did more than Buddha or Muhamed and that makes Him superior," but instead "Christ is the only one who actually did what was necessary to remove the sepparation between us and God," because none of us, no matter how hard we try, can get rid of our sins and wrongdoings on our own.
Again, I would suggest that Christianity is not an exclusive club because 'membership' is offered to every single person on Earth- yourself included! :-)
Does that clarify things at all, or does it sound like 'same song, second verse, a little bit louder, a little bit worse?' :-)

Yes, that's true. Could I say that all religions to *me* are an exclusive club? Or that Heaven is one? The only way I can get in is by using a 'key' which I don't seem to be able to get hold of. But if I'm not a bad person, should that be the case?

It's just that Merat seemed to be saying that not only does one have to follow the 'rule book' to get into Heaven, one must also accept and believe in Jesus Christ. So if I believed in the Hindu god and worshipped them, I could get into their heaven. However even if I follow the Ten Commanments, pray to God etc. but don't fully believe in Jesus, I won't go to Heaven?

Like I said, I am probably mis-understanding. I'm not coming down on Christianity in favour of other religions though, Mike.

Whoops, you posted the same time as me! I'll have to answer you on Monday, I'm nearly out of time at work!

I said WHAT now?

Note: What follows are my personal feelings and beliefs on religion, sin, and heaven.
I don't think there is any "key" to heaven other than trying to be a good person. Unlike on Earth, intentions do count in heaven. I am not fond of homosexuality, but have no problem with people who are homosexual. The same way I am not fond of pre-marital sex, but have no problem with people who sleep together before they get married. It's personal opinions, ethics, and feelings and I wouldn't try to hold anyone but myself to them. It's not always easy, but I try to forgive people who I see as having sinned, the same way I would hope people would try to forgive me when I sin. I try to be a good person and hope to be good enough to get into heaven. Of course, I fully expect that if I DO get into heaven I will be with people of faiths other than my own, but who also tried to live good lives.

This notion that all paths lead to heaven or that believe in God and you're in is silly.

"19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"






James 2:19-20

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:19-20;&version=49;

"Yes, that's true. Could I say that all religions to *me* are an exclusive club? Or that Heaven is one? The only way I can get in is by using a 'key' which I don't seem to be able to get hold of. But if I'm not a bad person, should that be the case?" -Jessica Hall

Well, here's the thing. It's not a popular one to hear. But... on what grounds do you consider yourself a good person? Because, you know what? I'm not. I've lied. I've cheated. I've taken things that weren't mine. I've been selfish. I've done plenty of rotten things in my life. In fact... everyone has. Sure, we may not all be mass murderers- but all of us have done wrong things. And those things separate us from God, who is perfect, and perhaps the only true 'good person.' :-) Perfect and imperfect cannot co-exist. It's the nature of perfection and imperfection. That's an inevitable separation; from a perfect standpoint, we're not "good people." No matter what good we've done, we're still 'sinners'- we've done wrong things, and we're flawed.
But, from God's point of view, we're also dearly loved. He hates the idea of you not entering Heaven as much as (I assume) you do! That's why Jesus came to Earth and took all of the penalty for those wrong things that we've done, so that the 'debt is already paid.' And if we accept that, that all of our wrongs doings were accounted for and paid for when He took them on Himself and died as payment for them, then all of the things we've done, and ever will do, are wiped away. We become, in practice, 'flawless' again- and we can go to be with God. So, the key is not unatainable- the only key is believing and saying 'Yes, I accept.'
And that is why I think I would dissagree with Merat (as you quoted him)- it's not about the rule book. Now, somehow, I think if someone TRULY believes in Jesus and accepts that gift of being saved, I don't think they're going to go around breaking all the rules on purpose. But being saved is not about following the rules- if we could do that perfectly enough to save ourselves, we wouldn't need Jesus sacrifice in the first place! :-) The only thing that you need to be saved, to enter Heaven, is to believe in Christ and accept Him and His sacrifice, to say "Yes, I believe you paid the price for all of the wrong things I've done, and I accept. I will allow you to wipe out my debt." To quote The Princess Bride, "Anyone who says otherwise is selling something." :-)
But your last statement, "However even if I follow the Ten Commanments, pray to God etc. but don't fully believe in Jesus, I won't go to Heaven?" is correct, because again, it's not about the things you can do, such as 'following the rules,' it's about accepting Christ's sacrifice. Because following the rules doesn't take away any sins. Letting Jesus take away your sins takes away your sins. :-) Not that those are BAD things- I fully believe that the Ten Commandments, etc. are designed for our BENEFIT, nor our restriction- that life will be improved for everyone when those are followed (after all, who could claim that life wouldn't be better if no one stole, no one murdered, no one lied, no one envied, etc.?) but they aren't what save us. Accepting Christ's sacrifice is.

"Whoops, you posted the same time as me! I'll have to answer you on Monday, I'm nearly out of time at work!" - Jessica Hall

"Time and tide wait for no man..." :-) Have a great weekend, Jessica!


Merat- well, biblically, that's not really accurate- in the Bible, Jesus states rather explicitly "No man comes to the Father except through me." And for the reasons I described above, just doing 'good things' is not enough to get you to Heaven because even when you do good things, the wrongdoings that you've comitted still remain. In essence- there's no way to pay off your own debt because your bank account's 'in the red' to begin with- since you always have a debt to pay, you never have the capitol to pay things off. Sort of like those old logging towns where they'd take so much out of your pay for room and board that you'd never accumulate enough mooney to pay off your initial debt. That's why it takes someone who didn't have debt to begin with (I.E. who led a sinless life) to take care of your debt, because He has 'capitol' in His account to begin with. ;-)
However, I wasn't entirely clear from the quote above whether you were coming from a Biblical perspective or not in the first place.


"This notion that all paths lead to heaven or that believe in God and you're in is silly." -Lisa

Well, let's put it this way... the concept of Heaven comes from the Bible, yes? So why is it that people are willing to believe that it exists based on the Bible proclaiming it's existance... but not willing to believe what the Bible says about how to get there? (I blame a pop-culture-ized version of Heaven for this.) Isn't that kind of like saying "I believe that there's a Timbuktu, as I read in the encyclopedia, but I also believe that they're worng and it's really located in Australia?" If you're going to believe in something based on it's description in a source... why believe only half of what the source says about it? :-)

Zarm, you have to remember that to many people, the New Testament is not a canonical book, and therefore it is not considered "divinely inspired" by them.

Hence, any instructions in it on how to get to heaven don't need to be believed.

Andrew,
Right, I wasn't coming from a completely Biblical perspective on that. Like most people of faith, I do not follow or believe all that was written down in my holy books. This makes me flawed and very likely sinful, but for me, that's part of being human. It's what makes me a worse person than the saints but a better person than people who care only for themselves or believe only in themselves. This isn't a slam on atheists, mind you, or at least not most of them. Many atheists do believe in things, just not a higher power. Many of them believe in other people and derive their moral code from that. Personally, I think some of them might be in for a bit of a shock when they die and find themselves in heaven for having lived good lives. I know that some atheists will find that offensive, but, well, tough. It's no more offensive than you telling me that there is no afterlife and I'm not about to complain about that.
I just have a different view of God and heaven than you do, and I'm OK with that. I have put my beliefs on display and will let them stand for themselves. I'm very likely wrong. I doubt that there has ever been a human alive that was absolutely correct (with maybe one or two notable exceptions) about the truth of all this. I will just trust in God to judge me on my actions and intentions and try to live my life in the best way I can. I'm content with that.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7:21-23
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23;&version=9;

Kindda seemed appropriate with the Pope putting on this big show in the US today.

"Zarm, you have to remember that to many people, the New Testament is not a canonical book, and therefore it is not considered "divinely inspired" by them.

Hence, any instructions in it on how to get to heaven don't need to be believed." - ScottN

Right, but see... why should they believe there's a Heaven at all, when it comes from the same 'non-canonical' book?


The same applies to your statement, Merat- "Like most people of faith, I do not follow or believe all that was written down in my holy books." If you don't believe what was written down in your 'holy book,' then where does what you believe come from? Why, if you believe in the things first described in said 'holy book,' would you not believe in the whole thing?

I just don't understand the concept that someone can believe in a concept that originated in the Bible, thus 'taking the Bible's word' that it exists... but at the same time, be unwilling to 'take the Bible's word for it' when the Bible tries to tell you anything ABOUT it, or how to get there! Can anyone explain how this works?

As with my faith, I can only express my own opinion. For me, the Bible is a divinely inspired work, but it is not a divinely written work. As with every other human endeavor, it is flawed. It is the closest we have to the word of God. However, I do not accept everything said in it. There are contradictions within it and it is the mind of man trying to understand the mind of God, something that is impossible. It is called an "ineffable plan" for a reason. It is like the way that they try to describe heaven in books or in movies. It is always vastly less than it truly is. Limited humans can't get their heads around the truth of it, so we do the best we can to understand and interpret.

I once got into an argument with a philosophy TA back in college during a class. He maintained that because God was all knowing we couldn't have free will because he would have already known what we were going to do, thus preventing us from having a choice. I argued that he was forcing God to conform to our limitations. That he was viewing God as being like us, traveling one way through time, living in only one moment, and that it was the same moment we were living in. We know what Andrew Jackson said at the Battle of New Orleans. We know his tactics, he choices, and his mistakes. This does not mean that we prevented him from choosing those actions.

Similarly, we try to understand God the best we can from our limited perspective. We just can't. So, for me, I try my best to understand what God wants of me. Sometimes, my understanding of him conflicts with the understanding and interpretations of those who wrote the Bible. I worry that I am getting things wrong, but I trust him to forgive me. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I will exercise my God-given free will to try to lead a good life. I am content.

I guess the part I struggle with (or have the urge to nitpick ;-) ) is the dual question: "How could God divinely inspire a work so inefficiently that it only got things half-right?" and "If you don't believe all of it, why should you believe any of it?" Any work regarding truth that you can pick and choose the truth of... doesn't have much of a handle on the truth. :-)


"I once got into an argument with a philosophy TA back in college during a class. He maintained that because God was all knowing we couldn't have free will because he would have already known what we were going to do, thus preventing us from having a choice. I argued that he was forcing God to conform to our limitations. That he was viewing God as being like us, traveling one way through time, living in only one moment, and that it was the same moment we were living in." -Merat

Well, I completely agree there. Many people object to god far too readily because He can't fit within their own self-limitations. My only question is, again, if God is truly limitless and greater than our understanding... how could He have such a great big blind spot as to only Divinely Inspire a half-truth? :-) But, for the record, on the Free Will front, etc. I completely agree with you.

"So, for me, I try my best to understand what God wants of me. Sometimes, my understanding of him conflicts with the understanding and interpretations of those who wrote the Bible." -Merat

Well, if you don't mind my asking... where does this understanding come from, if not Biblically? Also, if the Bible claims that it states EXACTLY what God wants of you, and that is simple faith in Jesus... what reasons do you have to disbelieve that? (Not that I am challenging those beliefs- just curious as to how you arrived at them.)

This concept of God knowing everything so we must not have free will confuses me.

If I invented a time machine and saw the future and came back to the present, and knew where you would be 10 years from now, does that mean you don't have free will?

Andrew,
I'm human, I'm a study in contradictions. I think its like trying to get a TI-86 calculator to understand a quantum computer. The calculator sees the parts, but not the whole, and does its best to understand the truth of it from its limited perspective. Its the old three blind men and an elephant story. It's not God's fault that the Bible is flawed, it's ours. We are limited. We can't see the whole. We do our best to describe it, but fall short. We can't express the truth. To use a Star Trek analogy, its like Kira not understanding what goes on in The Great Link. She doesn't have the mental framework required to. Neither do we.

I arrived at my current understanding and beliefs by reading the Bible, a great many criticisms and interpretations of it, talking with my priest, and finally, through a great deal of soul searching. It took me a very long time to come to this. However, it was my OWN soul I was searching, so I can only speak for myself. It is how I interpret God's teaching, how I believe he wants me to act. It's a personal belief that I have arrived at through a lot of thought, and I have no illusions that anyone else believes exactly the same as I do. Like you said, I'm not trying to challenge anyone else's beliefs, I'm just explaining how I feel and what I believe. As I said, for me it feels right. I am content with that.

So...you know more than those God Almighty himself used to write the Bible? We may be limited, but God isn't. It's the Bible he wanted us to have.

I'd tend to agree with sentiment. Especially since, even in the world of 'picking what's true and what isn't' in the Bible, everything that it states about sin and salvation (as laid out above- God's perfect, we're not, we cannot coexist in those states, soemthing is needed to remove our sin, Jesus was the only one able to do that, etc.) all ring true, both from a loigcal-framework perspective... and a comparrison-to-reality-and-human-nature perspective. So even if some part of the ible WEREN'T true- I see nothing to indicate that part is it! :-) In fact... everything I see indicates the opposite!

No offense to Merat, but either the Bible is correct or is not. I mean, either God inspired men to write the bible or it's just a meaningless book of fiction written by men.

To say the Bible is flawed is to underestimate the power of God.

Andrew,
And that is the interpretation of a great many people! I just don't happen to be one of them. Personally, I believe in the holy trinity and see Jesus as part of my path to eternal salvation. That's part of what "leading a good life" is to me. I just don't know if it is for everyone. I just can't see God the forgiver, who told us to hate the sin and love the sinner, keeping someone who led a good life from heaven just because they erred in their beliefs. I could be wrong, and I expect to find out eventually. Hopefully not TOO soon, mind you. It's just what I believe. I am content with it.

Your instance on stating you are content with that seems more defensive than anything.

Do you believe in the power of God?

And one more question : What is more important? What you believe to be the path to salvation or what God says is the path to salvation?

Zarm, that's rather Christian-centric, to assume that everyone's version of heaven is the NT version. Just because the NT is not canon to some, doesn't mean that their holy books don't contain Heaven. Specifically, the Tanach (aka the OT to you) does, and for those of the Islamic faith, I'm sure the Koran has a description of Paradise as well.

How can Jesus be part of a path to salvation if He isn't who He says He is or doesn't save the way He says He does? Really, I'm not looking to nitpick your beliefs, but they aren't holding up to the old C.S. Lewis test- "Jesus Christ is either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord." If you believe in Christ, why not believe what He says about salvation? I don't mean to offend, truly... but that seems intellectually dishonest to me.

"I just can't see God the forgiver, who told us to hate the sin and love the sinner, keeping someone who led a good life from heaven just because they erred in their beliefs." -Merat
But see, that's the problem... if the setup of salvation IS as laid out in the Bible, then God isn't doing anything to keep you out... you are. Again, the captain's thrown out the lifering, but you have to grab onto it in order for Him to pull you in... and if you don't, it's not an act of His condemnation.
I am glad you are conent, and hope you remain so... but the logistics of this bear some consideration before that 'not TOO soon' happens, methinks. :-)

Again, I appologize if this has turned into a nitpick of your beliefs.

Andrew,
Again I say that the Bible is a flawed work. It contains contradictions, mistakes, and was edited by various people of unknown motives over the centuries. I would compare it to Beowulf, which was altered by well meaning monks. The original Bible was inspired by God, written down by his flawed instruments, and edited by further flawed humans. Christ was neither a liar nor a lunatic, but what we have is not the original word. That is why I feel the need to interpret it for myself, to try to understand what God wants me to do. I'm only seeing part of his message and trying to fill the rest in myself. I will get things wrong, but God as I understand Him will forgive me for it. That's all that I can hope for.

In your opinion, it contains contradictions. Do you believe God is so weak as to not ensure his Word could survive down to this day?

If you know what the Bible says and yet go against it, how can you expect God to forgive you for that?

You know what his will is and yet you are WILLFULLY not doing it.

And I ask again, what is more important? What God says is the path to salvation, or what you believe to be the path to salvation?

Well, I might not put it so harshly, but... I think Lisa makes an excellent point, here. IF- and I am saying this completely for the sake of argument- IF what the Bible says is true, and Christ is the only way to salvation, I don't think "Well, see, I know the Bible said exactly what to do, but I decided it was something else somehow and that you'd be okay with that" will fly especially well as a defense; especially as the issue of Sin (I'm assuming that's something you still believe in?) is rather undeniable and the Bible- and life in general- has never offered any other option for it's remedy but Christ.

Again, just something to consider- I'm not trying to go all Occam's Razor on you (never had much respect for that argument as I unwittingly formulated the same thing when I was 8 and any philosopher who's original thoughts were only on par with an 8 year old's doesn't get many props in my book :-) ) but it really is one of those situations wherein "If you think God will forgive you anyhow, and plan to live a good life anyway, but there's also a chance that believing in Christ is the only way to Heaven... what have you got to lose by accepting a freely offered gift on top of your 'good living?'" :-)

"Zarm, that's rather Christian-centric, to assume that everyone's version of heaven is the NT version. Just because the NT is not canon to some, doesn't mean that their holy books don't contain Heaven. Specifically, the Tanach (aka the OT to you) does, and for those of the Islamic faith, I'm sure the Koran has a description of Paradise as well." -ScottN

Oh, yes, I'm well aware of that- but as the Koran contains Paradise, and the OT is not refering to Heaven but Abraham's Bosom (I believe- or at least not the post-Christ locale referred to as Heaven in the popular vernacular) I was opperating under the assumption that we were talking Biblical Heaven, here. If the question is how to get into Muslim Paradise, I don't have the answer... but would also assume that someone would refer to it as such and not as "Heaven." (Unless both the Jewish and Muslim faiths refer to it by the same name? I was under the impression that they each had separate terms.)

Well, considering that the first line of the Torah is "In the beginning, G-d created Heaven and Earth", etc... Yeah.

If you're talking about eschatology, I'm not sure.

Perhaps... but I do believe the quote was "The Heavens (plural) and the Earth" indicating a different context- heavens, meaning skies, as opposed to Heaven, as a propper place name.

As an aside, I found out recently that apparently the Heavens and Earth referred to in that verse, in the original Hebrew, refer not to litteral places but to materials, apparently? It seems as if the verse is stating more accurately "In the beginning, God created the stuff that He'd use to form the Universe" and then goes on to describe the creation of the Earth, as opposed to our current indication in the english translations which seems to suggest "In the beginning, God made the Heavens and the Earth, but the Earth was blank and unmade, so here's how e made the Earth..." :-) But, since this whole discussion is taking place in English anyhow... that's neither here nor there.

Perhaps the term Heaven is a little more multi-purpose than I was using it. I do believe in the context of the discussions with Merat, Jessica, and Tim Mcree, I think the Christian-centricness of the term is excuseable.. considering that Christian beliefs were the primary topic of the debate. But I will attempt to be more precise in the future.

Hmm...this thread exploded while I was eating lunch and driving home. I'll weigh in more after digesting this.

And just think of poor Jessica, dropping in on Monday! :-)

And the Bible itself is unclear on what one must do to achieve salvation. For example, some verses say that good works during one's lifetime mean nothing in regard to one's salvation status, while other verses say that good works are necessary.

Actually, no. The Bible is quite clear that by faith we are saved, by believing in Christ alone. And again, as spelled out above (at the beginning of the day's discussions) the Bible is quite consistent that no deeds are sufficient to remove sin, and therefore no deeds can save us. What the Bible does say (and what many people confuse as contradictory to being saved by faith alone) is that 'faith without works is dead.' This is to say, a faith in Jesus Christ as a savior and someone who's taken away all of someone's sins that does not produce, in response, at least some works towards living a life as God commanded is unlikely to be a very real faith; if someone claims to accept Jesus salvation and believe in Him, but then goes on living a life in complete contrast to Biblical principles and commands without at least attempting to change... then it's highly unlikely that individual ever truly believed in the first place.

However, the Bible is very clear, time and time again, and does not contradict itself in stating that it is by faith alone that we can be saved. It is also quite clear in stating that no one is perfect, not one- which is why our deeds can never be our salvation- because no one is perfect enough to do all good all the time... and again, 99.9% perfection with 0.01% imperfection is still imperfect.

So in that case, the Bible is very clear.

"Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." Romans 9:31 and 32

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." Ephesians 2:4

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8 and 9

"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." Titus 3:4-5


So, how does all of this work?
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."" Romans 10:9-13


Seems pretty clear-cut and consistent to me. :-)

Some people just look for contradictions and sorta take things out of context in order to discredit the Bible.

In Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19, and Luke 18:18-22, a man asks Jesus what he must do to obtain salvation in the afterlife, and Jesus gives him a list of commandments to keep similar to the ten commandments. Jesus doesn't tell the man anything about faith or about believing in him.

In Luke chapter 19, Jesus tells Zacchaues he has obtained salvation for his acts of charity towards the poor.

John 5:28-29 and Matthew 16:27 are other passages that clearly affirm that good works are sufficient for salvation.

II Cor. 5:10 says that all people will stand before Christ on the judgement throne to be judged by whether they have done good or bad during their lifetimes.

Rev. 22:14 again says that those who "keep the commandments" will achieve salvation.

Romans 2:5-6 refers to "The righteous judgement of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds."

Finally, Rev. 20:12-15 speaks of the final judgement of all the dead. This clearly states that each person will be judged according to their works.

It is clear from this and many other places in the New Testament that salvation based purely on works is supported. Anyone honestly trying to come up with a clear and consistent model from the Bible for what one must do and believe in order to achieve salvation is going to find themselves hopelessly mired in confunsion, inclarity and contradiction.

>Some people just look for contradictions and sorta take things >out of context in order to discredit the Bible.

So believers in the Bible are fond of telling us. But it is more often than not the Bible believers themselves who take verses out of context in futile attempts to demonstrate that one verse does not contradict another one or is not problematical.

I don't see it as a contradiction--there is a difference between "salvation" and "reward." There is a reasonable amount of Christian thought suggesting that Christians will receive a certain level of "rewards" in Heaven based basically on their works--but it wasn't the works that saved them, it was Christ.

It doesn't surprise me that Jesus doesn't explicitly spell out belief in Him; He hadn't died yet, what was he supposed to say? "Wait a few weeks and then I'll die and I'll rise again and believe in me then." He was exactly right--at the time, you did achieve "salvation" by following the commandments (although Jesus did allude to his salvation to his disciples and others at times). But I think of the example of the thief on the cross--the thief clearly led a bad life without obeying the commandments, admits it, but expresses belief in Christ and Jesus says he's going to paradise.

I don't pretend that I know all the answers about salvation, but after taking a "big picture" approach of all Scriptures and dwelling on it, I think I have a idea about salvation that is not hopelessly mired in inclarity and contradiction.

MikeC has hit the nail on the head- while the Bible speaks to judgement based on deeds in terms of rewards, it does NOT speak to deeds-based-judgement as a mode of salvation. Again, there is no inconsistency. This reward/deed/judgement applies to your cited Romans 2:5-6, Matthew 16:27, II Corinthians 5:10, and Revelations 20.

In your cited passages (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18,) you stop short of the end of the story- Jesus first reminds the man of the comandments but after doing so continues "One thing you still LACK"- following Christ. Also, MikeC makes a good point about the pre-crucifixtion.

In Luke 19, Zacheus announces his intentions, then Jesus proclaims that salvation has come to his house- but never once does he suggest that this is a result of Zacheus' intent to give the money back- both make their pronouncements at the same time, this is all. Again, no contradiction.

For John 5:28, I notice that you neglected to roll back 4 verses and include the entire quote- John 5:24 rather EXPLICITLY states "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." Verse 27 then speaks of the judgement of the dead (reward-based) as we spoke on above- to which verses 28 and 29 apply.

All of these- taken in conjunction with the passages I cited earlier, the actual theological ramifications of sin, salvation, etc. as laid out at the beginning of this whole discussion, and again, MikeC's excellent point about the thief on the cross- continue to point to an inescapable and BIBLICALLY CONSISTENT position- a man will be judged and rewarded according to his works... but only by faith in Christ and acceptance of the payment of his debt will he be SAVED.


"So believers in the Bible are fond of telling us. But it is more often than not the Bible believers themselves who take verses out of context in futile attempts to demonstrate that one verse does not contradict another one or is not problematical." -Todd Pence

Actually, Todd... pretty much every verse you just cited was taken out of context- especially John 5:28, which, when you look at the 'context'- the entire chapter comes 4 verses after a DIRECT STATEMENT that it is by belief in Christ ALONE that salvation comes. In essence... it's just that simple. Believe in Christ. That's all that's need for salvation. And it is theologically, biblically, and logically supported and consistent throughout the Bible as the only way to be saved after Christ's salvation. The issues of pre-crucifixtion salvation and the judgement (which is never stated to be an issue of salvation, but of rewards in Heaven, which is explored in-depth in Revelation) do confuse things on a surface level, but a close exploration of the passages will reveal that there is, in fact, no conflict.

Oh my god! What happened? I go away for two days, and the place is a riot :-)!!

Merat, I must just emphasise, I was trying to explain how your views came across to me, I am not saying "This is what you said, end of argument". I am wanting to hear your views, because I feel I am mis-understanding you, so I hope I'm not p-ing you off or anything.

OK, trying to sum up everything in one go....

If one does not know if one is a good person or a bad person, how can we try to be good? Is your conscience not enough to be able to tell if you're doing OK or not? If it is not, are we advocating then that the Bible *is* a rule book (or a guide book if that sounds better) in the sense that if one were to follow everything it says, one will attain heaven and be a good person? Some people obviously don't, so...

I take on board this statement about Jesus taking away my sins, but....I'm trying to explain that if I have an incapacity to believe in Jesus, then heaven is unattainable for me. So the analogy of the Captain and the lifebelts doesn't work in the sense that I don't have to say "I believe in this life belt" before I can touch it. It is there, it is real, it is saving my life whether I say, "I don't believe in you" or not. I don't have to pray to it for it to save me.

Of course, we do come back to the notion that heaven cannot exist for me, since it is a concept from the Bible. If I don't believe in the Bible, then heaven and hell are simply concepts for me and there is nothing after death. I could accept that, it is only that I can't grasp the idea of nothing. Just...ending. You can't understand not being alive until you come back to life. Except I won't. To me (and I know this is my *personal* point of view), religion has been invented as a source of comfort to people - and I do stress, this is not said to enflame anyone, this is just MY belief. It has been a useful tool for the Powers That Be in the sense that it gives a moral guide line to the general population - the Ten commandments, for example, are not a bad way to live your life - and there is this vast source of power in the background to back up the church ("Do what we say, or you'll go to hell"). I feel the Bible was written by men, for men, I don't find it hard to believe that an extraordinary man called Jesus Christ lived, and was crucified for saying we should be nice to one another. Perhaps he was a verbal Einstein, with the parables etc. To go with Merat's point, but from the opposite end of the scale, Christ didn't write his words down, it was (another) man, and the Bible has been re-written and re-interpreted again and again, I don't think that everything has been reported faithfully. Could we think of it like me trying to explain the theory of relativity after having heard it once?

I think I need to take away the belief that when I die, I will cease to exist, end of.

Jessica,
But I don't think I'd said anything on this board up to that point, and certainly not what you said I said.

Again, I can speak only for my own belief, which is necessarily personal. My moral compass is influenced by the Bible but not controlled by it completely. You don't need the Bible to be a good person, but it can certainly help. There are many good people who have never read the Bible, but who still try to lead good lives. It is MY belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for that. I'm not of the opinion that Heaven is some kind of Christians only club, but that it is an eternal reward for many. I have no idea if Norman Borlaug is Christan, Jewish, atheistic or what, but if my belief system he will get into heaven for all the good he has done for humanity.

Religious belief is, by necessity, dogmatic, which is why I'm not trying to convince anyone to come around to my point of view. It is also why I am not arguing against anyone else's belief. I have merely been stating my position, answering any questions about it, and attempting to clarify it.

And it takes much more than a fairly sedate and reasoned discussion of religion to p@#$ me off.

That's a relief! I didn't want you to be offended by the fact that I seemed to be putting words in your mouth!

Not a problem, although "not only does one have to follow the 'rule book' to get into Heaven, one must also accept and believe in Jesus Christ" is pretty much the very opposite of what I believe, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said that.

Which is the opposite of what the Bible says, my dear. So don't blame God if he doesn't reward you for intentionally doing the opposite of what he requires,

> MikeC has hit the nail on the head- while the Bible speaks to >judgement based on deeds in terms of rewards, it does NOT >speak to deeds-based-judgement as a mode of salvation. >Again, there is no inconsistency. This reward/deed/judgement >applies to your cited Romans 2:5-6, Matthew 16:27, II >Corinthians 5:10, and Revelations 20.

Sorry, but two of those verses clearly and unambiguously describe a deeds-based salvation in the afterlife, while the other two strongly imply it. The Romans passage specifically and explicitly says eternal life will be granted to those who do good deeds, as does the Revelation one (“And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.”)
And while some might interpret the Corinthians passage as a judgement that occurs during one's lifetime, the image of "the judgement seat of Christ" echoes the imagery by which the Bible typically describes afterlife scenarios. Matthew 16:27 taken by itself also might seem to be refrerring to an earthly, rather than an afterlife judgment, the passages leading up to it put it in that context. Incidentally, the following verse, Matthew 16:28, proved Jesus to be a false prophet.

>In your cited passages (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18,) you >stop short of the end of the story- Jesus first reminds the man >of the comandments but after doing so continues "One thing >you still LACK"- following Christ. Also, MikeC makes a good >point about the pre-crucifixtion.

Actually the full quote is the following. "One thing you still lack - sell all that you have and then distribute it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then, come follow me." The rich man is thus being told to perform an act of good charity as a prerequisite to earning the right to become a follower of Jesus and earning his way into heaven. Sounds like a works-based system to me. On a side note, I've known extremely few modern-day Christians who seemed to feel compelled to follow this particular requirement of Christianity (i.e. selling ALL their possessions).

>In Luke 19, Zacheus announces his intentions, then Jesus >proclaims that salvation has come to his house- but never >once does he suggest that this is a result of Zacheus' intent to >give the money back- both make their pronouncements at the >same time, this is all. Again, no contradiction.

Actually this passage is curiously ambiguous. Jesus is responding directly to Zac's declaration of charity, but he also amends his proclamation of salvation with the rationale "because he is also a son of Abraham". In either case, faith doesn't seem to play a role in Zac's salvation whether it came about through the nobility of his deeds or an accident of his birth.

>For John 5:28, I notice that you neglected to roll back 4 verses >and include the entire quote- John 5:24 rather EXPLICITLY >states "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes >him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; >he has crossed over from death to life." Verse 27 then speaks >of the judgement of the dead (reward-based) as we spoke on >above- to which verses 28 and 29 apply.

Well, there's one of the Bible's numerous contradictions you've pointed out. Verse 24 explicitly states that faith is sufficient for salvation, while 28 claims that it is dependent upon our good works. Which are we to believe?


?>All of these- taken in conjunction with the passages I cited >earlier, the actual theological ramifications of sin, salvation, >etc. as laid out at the beginning of this whole discussion, and >again, MikeC's excellent point about the thief on the cross- >continue to point to an inescapable and BIBLICALLY >CONSISTENT position- a man will be judged and rewarded >according to his works... but only by faith in Christ and >acceptance of the payment of his debt will he be SAVED.

Again, the Bible says so many different things on the subject of salvation that support can be found in its verses for practically any model of salvation one chooses to believe in.

>Actually, Todd... pretty much every verse you just cited was >taken out of context- especially John 5:28, which, when you >look at the 'context'- the entire chapter comes 4 verses after a >DIRECT STATEMENT

I really don't see how anything I cited was out of context at all. The fact that the two contradictory passages in John are so close to each other is just a prime example of how rife with contradictions the Bible is. And the notion that you seem to be advocating - that the requirements for salvation changed subsequent to the death of Chirst - well, there's just not much Biblical support that I can see otherwise. Clearly salvation by works was just as important after the crucifixion as before, as shown by a number of verses supporting salvation by works that were written after the crucifixion, such as the ones I cited above.

If you have REAL faith, obviously good works follow. Faith without works is dead.

And as for the person Jesus told to sell all his possessions, Jesus didn't outline that as a requirement of Christianity. He told that SPECIFIC person to do that. And the next verse specifically tells us this person had many possessions he was attached to. So obviously, Jesus senses this person had a problem and was testing his faith.

Todd, you are trying too hard.

Todd... a little busy to respond fully tonight, will check back in when I have the time this week, but to touch briefly upon one of your points-
"The Romans passage specifically and explicitly says eternal life will be granted to those who do good deeds, as does the Revelation one (“And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.”)
And while some might interpret the Corinthians passage as a judgement that occurs during one's lifetime, the image of "the judgement seat of Christ" echoes the imagery by which the Bible typically describes afterlife scenarios."

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point- yes, the Judgement seat of Christ is spoken of... but nowhere does it say that this judgement is the basis of salvation. Look at the verse you cite right there in the quotation- again, it speaks of the dead being judged, and rewarded based upon their actions, and yes, it is post-death- but NOWHERE does it say that their salvation is dependant upon the judgement!


"Actually the full quote is the following. "One thing you still lack - sell all that you have and then distribute it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then, come follow me." The rich man is thus being told to perform an act of good charity as a prerequisite to earning the right to become a follower of Jesus and earning his way into heaven." -Todd

No, that is incorrect. Treasure in Heaven AGAIN refers to a reward, and the aforementioned judgement... it is not a requirement of folliwng Christ, nor is it a prerequisite of salvation! And likewise, Jesus never makes the command "All of my followers must sell all they own." This was a specific command speaking to the life of this young rich man- as the story clearly indicates, the issue of his selling all that he owned stemmed from the fact that he was giving God and money/posessions equal priority in his life... and in the end, he sadly chose money- which was getting in the way of his faith.
(Which I see, belatedly, that Lisa has already manage to point out far more eloquently in half as many words.) :-)


"Incidentally, the following verse, Matthew 16:28, proved Jesus to be a false prophet." -Todd
A mighty strong- and completely wrong- claim. Several of the disciples standing there were indeed present for the Transfiguration mere weeks later, and John, who was present, was also witness to all of these things in the visions recounted in Revelations.


"Well, there's one of the Bible's numerous contradictions you've pointed out. Verse 24 explicitly states that faith is sufficient for salvation, while 28 claims that it is dependent upon our good works. Which are we to believe?" -Todd


I beg your pardon? I just spent the cited paragraph pointing out that verses 28 and 29 do NOT indicate salvation by works, whereas verse 24 indicates salvation by faith. You need to point out an actual 'inconsistency' if you are going to claim it exists. :-)



I'll write back in more detail when opportunity presents itself. Likewise, to Jessica.

(Appologies in advance for all of the periods starting paragraphs... the internet doesn't like my indentations today for some reason!) :-)

First, to Jessica-
"If one does not know if one is a good person or a bad person, how can we try to be good? Is your conscience not enough to be able to tell if you're doing OK or not? If it is not, are we advocating then that the Bible *is* a rule book (or a guide book if that sounds better) in the sense that if one were to follow everything it says, one will attain heaven and be a good person?"

Well, in order:
. A. It's pretty simple to know if you're a good person or a bad person... you're a bad person. :-) Unless you can honestly say that you've never lied, never stolen, never cheated, never done anything wrong in your life... then you've sinned at least once. That makes you a sinner. And even if you're a 'good person,' in terms of sin and separation from God, you're a 'bad person.' But, the story doesn't end there... (see the 'primer' below...) :-)
. B. Yes, conscience should be enough to tell you if you're doing right or wrong... but funny thing about us humans, we have this nasty habit of ignoring our conscience or convincing ourselves it isn't true if it becomes too 'inconvenient' for us... :-)
. C. Yes, the Bible is a 'Rulle book/Guide book,' in that it contains the things that are right and are wrong... and yes, if one were to follow everything in the Bible to a T... they would be going to Heaven, no faith needed, because they'd be perfect. The only thing is... no one can. There's no one who hasn't done at least ONE wrong thing in their life... so that precludes them from simply doing everything that the Bible says and getting to Heaven... because they haven't. :-) So basically, the Bible tells us the things we ought to do, yes... but since inevitably we haven't always done them, or have done the things we aren't supposed to, simply doing everything it says is not an option for getting us to Heaven. Make sense? This is why the Bible says "Not by works, but by faith alone"- because nothing we can do is good enough to make us perfect.


"I take on board this statement about Jesus taking away my sins, but....I'm trying to explain that if I have an incapacity to believe in Jesus, then heaven is unattainable for me. So the analogy of the Captain and the lifebelts doesn't work in the sense that I don't have to say "I believe in this life belt" before I can touch it. It is there, it is real, it is saving my life whether I say, "I don't believe in you" or not. I don't have to pray to it for it to save me." -Jessica

. I understand that, actually. I have several friends who have told me the same thing. I'll tell you what I told them, though... I don't think that there's anyone in this world that 'can't' believe. There are those that do, and those that don't. Those that believe it, and those that remain unconvinced. Perhaps you're one of the latter... but I don't think it's impossible for you to believe (and if, somehow, that were possible, I'm sure God would make provisions for it... but I don't believe it's the case.) But I understand that to you- and to many others- it is hard to think of something that you can't hear, smell, touch, taste, see, etc. as being as real as that life preserver.
. That's the trick about faith... it kinda requires... well, faith, in something you can't prove or observe. And I understand that it's a difficult leap for some people to make; we live in a world of senses and evidence. (And I also know that, should you find that you change your mind someday and you are 'able' to believe... Christ will still be waiting there with open arms to welcome you!) :-)
. I hope that doesn't sound condescending or patronizing in any way... what I'm trying to say is that I've experienced well how difficult it is to trust in something that you can't see... like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and that invisible plank... when you can't see it, it's hard to bank everything on it just being there... that's when your only option is finding a source that you trust- be it someone you know and trust, your own observations about the world, or, as in Indy's case, a book that has proved right so far about all of the things that you CAN observe ( ;-) )... and trusting that source enough to believe the parts it's telling you about what you can't observe. That's how it is for me, and my faith... I can see enough in the world about human nature, about the way things work, about what the Bible says of sin and the way to a better living on Earth... that I am willing to also believe that it's right about the things I can't observe... like the sacrifice of Christ and the salvation He offers.


"I feel the Bible was written by men, for men, I don't find it hard to believe that an extraordinary man called Jesus Christ lived, and was crucified for saying we should be nice to one another. Perhaps he was a verbal Einstein, with the parables etc." -Jessica

Well, just keep in mind C.S. Lewis famous suggestion that Jesus Christ is either "A liar, a lunatic, or the Lord"- because a good teacher doesn't claim to be something he's not, doesn't lie to people about the way to be saved... so either He was telling the truth (in which case He is the son of God) or He was lying/deluded... which doesn't make Him a very good teacher, now does it? :-)


"To go with Merat's point, but from the opposite end of the scale, Christ didn't write his words down, it was (another) man, and the Bible has been re-written and re-interpreted again and again, I don't think that everything has been reported faithfully. Could we think of it like me trying to explain the theory of relativity after having heard it once?" -Jessica

Well, I dissagree, of course (another point I take on faith, I suppose) in that there's no evidence that the Bible has been changed... but even so, I would urge you... look also at the theological/logical points laid out below. Ask yourself... even if you're not entirely comfortable with the historical accuracy of the Bible... does what it says about human nature match up with what you can see? Does what it's saying about right and wrong, sin and salvation, perfection and imperfection, add up? If so... then maybe, just maybe, the Bible's got soemthing there after all. ;-)

"I think I need to take away the belief that when I die, I will cease to exist, end of." -Jessica

Perhaps so. Just remember... a belief in oblivion after death that one hasn't experienced takes just as much faith as a belief in Heaven and salvation... and for my part, at least, I'd rather have faith in the more attractive alternative- after all, I'll hardly be in a position to be dissapointed if I'm wrong, now will I? ;-)


"And it takes much more than a fairly sedate and reasoned discussion of religion to p@#$ me off." -Merat

. Try mentioning God on the Dr. Who boards... and the reaction you get may just succeed. ;-)
. Seriously, though... this whole discussion has been sedate, reasoned, non-inflamatory and non-flaming... I must say it's a welcome change of pace... and the courtesy (even in extreme dissagreements) all-around is greatly appreciated.



To clear up, reiterate, and re-enforce...

A brief primer on Salvation: before, during and after.

. In the old testament, pre-Christ times, 'salvation' was preached through the law. Salvation could not come through the law, but through faith in God and the coming Messiah. However, Sin separating people form God was still an issue.
. As laid out way back at the beginning of this discussion, things break down roughly thus:
. God is perfect. We are not. Perfect and imperfect cannot co-exist. Hence, the imperfect must be destroyed. Ordinarily, this would mean 'we die.' Hell, eternal separation from God, etc. Not good.
. In the old testament time, the mode of dealing with this separation was to A. follow the law, to sin as little as possible, and B. Offer sacrifices. In essence, offer an animal's life up in substitution for your own to cover any sins, a.k.a. wrongdoings, comitted since your last sacrifice. Imperfect because, all things being equal... an animal does not have a soul or fre will to take all of yours sins upon itself, and even after such a sacrifice, you just keep sinning. Still, through this system of sacrifices and 'the Law,' closenes to God, as well as belief in Him and the coming Messiah, was preached as the way to salvation. (Note: Admittedly, I am a little fuzzy- as are most people, I thiunk, on the actual mechanics of pre-Christ salvation.)
. Then came Christ. Being God, He was able to come to Earth and live a perfect life, fully free of sin. Being a man (God come to earth in human form) He was also able to die. He became the ultimate sacrifice because, unlike the Old Testament animals, He was able to, of His own free will, take the sins of others- all others, in fact, upon Himself and die for them- paying the price of that destrucion; taking those sins as a part of Himself and destroying them, 'taking them with Him,' if you will, when He died. He was the only one in all of history that could do this... because He was the only one who never comitted any sins, and thus never had any sins of His own to pay for with His death, leaving the way open to take others' sins upon Himself.
. This is why Christians believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven- because theologically and logically, we cannot dwell with perfect God in a perfect place in our imperfect forms... and only Christ is able to take away those sins because only He was able to die and pay the price for them.
. Moving onwards... from the moment that sacrifice was made, all sins were paid for. Every wrong thing ever done by any person, ever, was now forgiven. However... due to the same Free Will tat allows us to live, love, make descisions, and generally be sentient... in other words, the same thing allowing us to have this conversaton right now- the gift of those sins being taken away still has to be our choice. It cannot be forced upon us. We have to accept it- and we will be saved. Every sin taken away. 'Perfect' in the sense that every wrongdoing has already been paid for- and able to go to Heaven to dwell in perfect bliss. Not only is this consistent with the biblical verses (note that while there is much talk of rewards, judgements, works, etc. every verse that actually talks about SALVATION says that it is by faith/grace that we are saved, NOT by works.), but it is also consistent from a logical point of view (looking at the nature of perfection, imperfection, states of being, human nature, etc.) and consistent from a theological point of view- it fits within the framework of human and divine nature established by the Bible (and pretty well backed up by observations of reality :-) ). It is honestly nonsensical for the Bible to suggest that salvation could be by works, because the Bible itself points out that no man is perfect, and those, no man could do completely good works, 100% of the time- and again, as pointed out before, 99.9% perfect is still 100% imperfect. The only way is for the imperfection to be removed, not to make up for it- so from a theological point of view, a salvation by forgiveness, and not by works, is clear, consistent, and makes sense.
. Finally, flash forward to the events of Revelations. Christ returns, sets up Heaven on Earth. The dead, those in Heaven, those still alive at the time, etc. are all gathered at the judgement seat of Christ. If you're a Star Trek fan, think of this as a Cardassian trial- the verdict is already decided. Those that have been saved have already been recorded- listed in the Book of Life. Salvation is not decided here, it is merely proclaimed here. Here, before the assembled masses of everyone, in all of history, your life is reviewed and you are publically praised, and rewarded, for the good works you have done. Basically 'This Is Your Life' with much better prizes. ;-) Finally, Heaven propper awaits. Those who have believed are saved. Those who refused to believe, even when salvation was boiled down to one simple thing- believe and accept Christ's sacrifice- and when it was presented clearly and offered freely- those who have chosen to keep their sins now depart to eternal separation from God because all that remains now is Heaven and the perfect presence of God- where the imperfect cannot dwell. But even in that time, there does not need to be ONE SINGLE PERSON who ends up being cast out, because that sacrifice that Christ made is truly for everyone- regardless of faith, gender, race, creed, etc.- it is freely open to everyone who will believe. And for those who choose to reject it, there is, sadly, no excuse... because salvation cannot get much free-er than a freely offered gift that you simply have to accept. It doesn't even take the effort that works-based salvation was... it is simplicity itself. (Only half the calories of Good Works and no transfats! ;-) )
. And yes, the Bible is consistent; that is what is required, belief. There are verses which speak of the judgement to come, of rewards, of treasures in Heaven. These are references to the judgement, yes- but that judgement is not a determination fo salvation, it is an evaluation of giving of rewards, a public proclamation of all who have accepted Christ's gift and 'entered from death into life.'
. And yes, there is an emphasis on works, especially pre-crucifixtion, where following the law (sinning as little as possible) and offering sacrifices (making up incrimentally for the sins that have been comitted) are the only ways to lessen the separation from God... but none of the passages in the Bible ever state that this is the way to salvation.
. Nor do any of the verses about the judgement state that they are the way to salvation. To reward, yes. Treasures in Heaven, yes. Blessings on Earth, yes. But for salvation, the Bible is very clear, there is only one way: our sins, our wrongdoings, those things that make us imperfect, must be taken away. And for that, there is only one method: Through Christ. Because no one else was ever perfect, and no one else took all our imperfections away.
. It's not inconsistent, it's not contradictory, - it's spelled out clearly.
. It's not biased, it's not snobbery, it's not an exclusive club- it is simply the only method that has 'what it takes' to actually remove our sins.
. It's not exclusive, it's not discriminatory- it's open to everyone. It's open to YOU. God loves you, and He is urging you to accept it, to just say "Yes, I believe it- I'll yield my debt and let you pay it for me. I want to be saved." It's that simple. It's that clear. It's that consistent. And it's free to all.

Wow! OK, I think I know where I stand...gulp!

Merat, I think I read a post where I didn't read who wrote it, and then tried to answer everyone at once, so you got a bit mixed into someone else :-). I've re-read your posts, I get you now.

Many thanks for the interesting reply, Zarm. That's a very detailed explanation. I don't personally believe it takes much effort to believe in nothingness as opposed to Heaven, but we can politely shake hands and agree to disagree :-).

As far as I know then, there is still time to come to Christ, I'll keep thinking on it.

And I'm out of time again, I need to do some work!

Please sir...more thread?

MORE THREAD?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Jessica, no worries. I think everyone online has done that as some point or another. I once sent an email complimenting my girlfriend on how good she looked the night before to my professor and my revised essay to my girlfriend. It happens.

How did that affect your grade? And your relationship?

The teacher thought it was hilarious. My girlfriend marked up my paper

I should point out that the concept of an Afterlife predates the Bible and Christanity. The Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and lots of other ancient civilization had there own views, long before Jesus came along.

Also, the native populations of North and South American, Africa, and Australia had their own beliefs, before the Europeans showed up and "civilized" them.

The Christians have their ideas, the Jews have their ideas, the Muslims have their ideas, and so on. However, it is arrogant for ANY religious group to come and say that their religion is the right one, and all the others are wrong. That kind of thinking has started wars.

My point is that I think there is an Afterlife, and that every religion may have their own take on what it is like. However, the truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows for sure. All we know is that SOMETHING is out there, but beyond that, we can only guess.

After all, ghosts have been reported for centuries, and are still being sighted today. They have defied every attempt to debunk them. If ghosts are indeed former human beings, and the evidence seems to indicate that they are, then this proves that SOME kind of existence is waiting for all of us, once our physical bodies die. As to what that existence entails, your guess is as good as mine.

So, there you have it. We have theories and ideas, but as to what actually happens when we cross over, we can only guess.

"However, it is arrogant for ANY religious group to come and say that their religion is the right one, and all the others are wrong. That kind of thinking has started wars."

Um...why be part of a religious group if you don't think it's the right one?

>No, that is incorrect. Treasure in Heaven AGAIN refers to a >reward, and the aforementioned judgement... it is not a >requirement of folliwng Christ, nor is it a prerequisite of >salvation!

The text does not support this interpretation. Again, the man is asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life, and Jesus is giving that as one of the conditions. While it might indeed be interpreted that these instructions are tailored specifically towards this individual, that makes it no less a works-based system of salvation.

> beg your pardon? I just spent the cited paragraph pointing out >that verses 28 and 29 do NOT indicate salvation by works, >whereas verse 24 indicates salvation by faith. You need to >point out an actual 'inconsistency' if you are going to claim it >exists. :-)

Again, you have pointed out no such thing. The verse clearly states that salvation by works is possible. The most that can be read into this verse is that it is offers salvation by works as an alternative to salvation by faith. The first part seems to indicate that those who have faith will automatically earn salvation and escape the judgement of the dead alluded to in verses 27-29. Those who are forced to undergo this judgement will still achieve salvation if their works are found good enough. It seems according to this passage at least, those who choose salvation by good works just have to go through a little more red tape than those who earn it through faith.

>After all, ghosts have been reported for centuries, and are still >being sighted today. They have defied every attempt to debunk >them.

Not true at all. Investigations of so-called ghost sightings nearly always succeed in exposing them as either intentional frauds or the product of overactive imaginations. It would be far more accurate to say that the gullability of people who believe in ghosts has defied every effort of those in possession of the mundane facts to talk sense to them.

If by "defied" Tim means that they continue to be propagated, despite the debunkings, then his statement is accurate.

The book of James points out even the demons believe there is a God. Faith is meaningless if it's not backed up by works. Saying "I believe in God" then doing nothing doesn't cut it.

>If by "defied" Tim means that they continue to be propagated, >despite the debunkings, then his statement is accurate.

Yes. But it would have been more clear to use the phrase "belief in ghosts" rather than "ghosts" themselves.

"However, it is arrogant for ANY religious group to come and say that their religion is the right one, and all the others are wrong. That kind of thinking has started wars." -Tim

I dissagree. By deffinition, only one CAN be right, as they are mutualy contradictory. Believing that something is right is not arrogant. Starting wars, on the other hand, is a problem. :-) But if you believe in your 'religion,' then by default, being unwilling to claim it is is true is self-contradictory... if you have a belief, it is, by deffinition, because you believe what you believe is right. :-)


"The text does not support this interpretation. Again, the man is asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life, and Jesus is giving that as one of the conditions. While it might indeed be interpreted that these instructions are tailored specifically towards this individual, that makes it no less a works-based system of salvation." -Todd

Jesus does not say "To achieve salvation, you must follow the laws." He says "You know the laws (lists them)... only one thing you lack." By deffinition, he is telling the man that the works he performed are insufficient for salvation; else He would not say "One thing you LACK." :-)

I dissagree. By deffinition, only one CAN be right,

Not quite correct. By definition, AT MOST ONE can be right. They could all be wrong.

I dissagree. By deffinition, only one CAN be right, as they are mutualy contradictory.

Incorrect. They can not all be right, but they can all be wrong.

"Jinx!..."

Sorry, I should have been more clearer in my comments in regards to ghosts. However, they are STILL being reported. Some can be explained away as overactive imaginations or fraud, but not all of them. There have just been too many independent reports going back centuries for ghosts just to be dismissed. There is a mystery out there, one we may never solve.

Besides, it wouldn't be much fun if we knew everything there was to know.

Seriously, ScottN, are you jewish or not?

You should be able to figure that out from my posting history... and I've got 10 years of posting history.

To Impressionist:

Lisa un-jinxed me by using my name

And to the all-powerful moderator, this board is up to 225K (HINT HINT)

"I don't personally believe it takes much effort to believe in nothingness as opposed to Heaven, but we can politely shake hands and agree to disagree :-)." -Jessica

Fair enough. Probably a consequence of the beliefs incorporated into our respective upbringings- belief in God has been such a part of my life from early on that oblivion takes more faith- or at least, more 'suspension of disbelief,' if you will, than salvation does. But I can see how the opposite would be true for someone who didn't have those beliefs growing up.


"As far as I know then, there is still time to come to Christ, I'll keep thinking on it." -Jessica

Very true... that's the nice thing- they say "God is a gentleman," and He won't force Himself on you, which is true... but He's also a very persistent suitor, and He won't give up on you. He'll be there with open arms if you change your mind. Just remember... life is uncertain... we never know how much time we'll have to make a descision... until we don't have it anymore. (This from a guy who's just gone through the process of picking a wedding date, so believe me, when it comes to tough descisions and time constraints, I know what I'm talking about! ;-) ) You're in my prayers!


"I should point out that the concept of an Afterlife predates the Bible and Christanity. The Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and lots of other ancient civilization had there own views, long before Jesus came along." -Tim

That is very true- but each has unique attributes, and I believe it is currently Heaven, as biblically defined, that we've been discussing. But I freely admit, I'm no expert on how to get into Vahalla or Mount Olympus (except what Disney's told me)... of course, I don't especially believe they EXIST, either, which is why I'm not so interested in the mechanics of their works. ;-)


"However, the truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows for sure. All we know is that SOMETHING is out there, but beyond that, we can only guess." -Tim

I would agree... that's why they call it 'faith,' because there's no way to know empiracally. Again, when it comes to 'choosing a religion' or 'which one is right and which is wrong,' the only thing I can do is look at what the various faiths have to say about what I can observe- the nature of people, the way of living that would make life better, the statements, claims, records, and philosophies that match up with what I can observe... and then trust that whichever one (if any) get that right knows what it's talking about well enough to get what I CAN'T observe right, too.


"Not quite correct. By definition, AT MOST ONE can be right. They could all be wrong." -ScottN

True enough. Poor phrasing on my part, but that is what I meant- only one can be right as in 'At maximum, one can be right.' And yes, there is no way to *prove* that one is right above the others... again, that's why it's faith. I happen to believe one is. I know many hear believe that none is. But believing that all are? that's just intellectually dishonest. And believing that someone who believes that one is right shouldn't... believe that one is right? That just plain don't make sense. ;-)

Well, according to South Park, it's the Mormons who are right

Though they eventually reversed that policy in "Best Friends Forever" in order for Kenny to fight Satan's army.

I don't find it difficult to believe in oblivion/nonexistence after death, having already experienced it - in the period before my birth.

Somehow, I doubt it. It's generally hard to experience nonexistance. (Also, lack of existance before creation is a different matter than a pre-existant entity ceasing to exist. Point taken, though.)

I don't see how non-existence would be any different before life or afterwards. In any case, I don't believe in anything but oblivion after death. In this respect I agree wholly with the Saddacee authors of the Old Testament (those that wrote Proverbs, Job, I Esradas, Song&Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus and I Maccabees), all of whom deny the notion of life beyond the grave.

Well, A. There is the concept of a soul being indestructable/eternal, which would render the concept of 'not yet existing' and 'having ceased to exist' very unique- I would see a cesation as a different matter from a lack of existing in the first place- but from the perspective of the 'experience,' I suppose that it would be all the same (or all the... lack? Since there is no experience...) for the Oblivionized individual (and/or lack of individual.) :-) Wow, what a wacky statement...

That's a mighty strong claim, however! I can't speak to Asradas, Ecclesiasticus, or Maccabees... but what in the world makes you claim that the authors of those books don't believe in life after death? Especially as Job starts with the first chapter IN HEAVEN? :-) (Although I am familliar with the beliefs of the Sadducees and their lack of belief in an afterlife.) Likewise for the Song of Solomon, Ecclasiasties, and Proverbs? I cannot recal any specific verses one way or another in those books in regards to Heaven- but what is it that makes you think their authors did not believe in it?

Well, here is where the fact that not everyone who dies goes to heaven bit. The afterlife in the biblical sense has totally been corrupted. The promise for SOME of heavenly life didn't begin till Jesus died and paved the way.

Lisa, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your first sentence means; perhaps you could rephrase it?

>Especially as Job starts with the first chapter IN HEAVEN? :-)

Actually my first chapter starts in the land of Uz. Beginning with verse six, there is a description of an assembly before the Lord of the sons of God (a curious designation, as the NT tells us Jesus is God's only begotten son). I can't find where "heaven" is referred to specifically (at least in that first chapter) and if it is in any translation, it is assuredly solely a dwelling-place for God and his minions, like the Greek Mt. Olympus. It is not referred to as a destination for souls after death.
For verses in Job indicating the lack of belief of life after death, try 1:21 and 3:11-19, for starters.

Old Testament verses from Ecclesiastes indicating a belief that existence ends at death are 3:19-21 and 9:5.