For anyone who feels qualified to answer them:

1. John 3:4 defines “sin” as a transgression against the law of God. Is this an accurate definition? If so, then what about people who have never been made aware of the law of God. Is it possible for a person to willfully break or disobey a law they are ignorant of?

2. The Bible seems to imply in many verses that unbelief in God is a sin in itself. Is this so? Are all unbelievers necessarily sinners simply by the fact of their unbelief?

3. Was Jesus Christ a being capable of committing sin? If he was, did he ever sin? If he was not capable of sin, then what was the purpose of Satan attempting to tempt him? Was Satan unaware that Christ was incapable of sin? If Jesus was incapable of sin, then did he have free will? Is it possible to create a person with free will but without the capability of committing sin? If so, then why didn’t God make humans that way in the first place?

4. Do saved souls in heaven have “free will”? If so, is it possible for people in heaven to commit sin? If not, why not?

5. What is the doctrine of “original sin”? How is it conceivable that a person is guilty for the sins committed by their ancestors, or that for a person to commit a sin invariably means that their descendants will be sinners?

6. “Original sin” was supposed to have originated with Adam and Eve and their original transgression of disobedience to God. But is the story of Adam and Eve, which has highly mythological overtones, meant to be an actual account of a historical event, or is it an allegory (a story using tangible symbols to portray an abstract set of ideas)? But if Adam and Eve are allegorical or mythological characters, then where does “original sin” come from? And if the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, then how do we know that other stories in the Bible which portray fantastic events are not allegorical as well (such as, say, the resurrection of Jesus)?

7. It is either directly stated or implied in several verses in the Bible that the fate of individual humans is foreknown or foreordained by God. If this is true, then how could people have freewill?

8. When God created Lucifer, did he know that Lucifer would become Satan and rebel against him? If so, then why did God create him? And having created him, why does God permit him to do evil? Does God utilize or allow Satan to tempt people (for example, as told in the story of Job)? If God makes use of Satan in such instances, then how can Satan be said to be opposing the will of God?

9. Can the tendency of people to sin be explained or given a tangible cause in scientific or psychological terms? If so, how?

10. Does it upset God when people sin, or make him angry or sorrowful? Does a perfect, all-powerful being like God really experience such petty human emotions as frustration and anger? Don’t such emotions in humans arise from an inability to achieve one’s desires? How can an all-powerful being fail to have his desires realized? Furthermore, if God created sin and brought it into the world, how can he justifiably be upset by its existence?

11. What is the Doctrine of the Trinity? Is it intelligible? If so, then what does it mean? Can it be adequately explained by any sort of model or analogy? Must a person believe in the doctrine in order to be saved?

12. How does someone who is a non-believer, or who has no set belief in something expected to come to a belief in that thing without tangible evidence? If I tell you that I have a pet purple polka dotted elephant who lives in my apartment, and offer no evidence to support the claim, then can you make yourself believe that statement – and I mean honestly and sincerely and without any doubt whatsoever? Can a person will themselves to believe that two and two are five? If people are incapable of making themselves believe things that go against their knowledge and experience, then how could someone who is unable to believe in God or in Jesus to be blamed for their nonbelief?

13. It is a general tenet of most fundamentalist Christian sects that the only way to merit salvation is through belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the savior of humanity and that one’s good works and efforts, whatever merit they have, have no bearing on salvation. Is this tenet correct? If so, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that various verses in the New Testament state or imply that salvation is possible without faith, or with just works? For example, in Matt. 19:16-18, a man asks Jesus what one must do to have eternal life and he gives a list of commandments to keep, but says nothing about belief or faith in anything. And in chapter 19 of Luke, Jesus proclaims that Zacchaeus has achieved salvation because of his good works in giving his goods to the poor. And John 5:29 refers to “those who have done good” coming into the resurrection of life. These and many other verses seem to suggest that good works ARE sufficient for salvation.

14. When God first created humans, did he know that he would later regret it, as told in Genesis 6:6? If so, then why did he go ahead with that creation? Did he know as he was creating them that he would later be required to sacrifice his only begotten son to redeem them?

15. Did humans turn out the way God intended for them when he created them? If not, then was his creation a failure?

16. Why did God require a sacrifice of his only begotten son in order to redeem humans? Couldn’t he have redeemed them without a sacrifice? If not, then why not? Who was the “sacrifice” that God made to? If it was Satan, then what power did Satan hold over God to compel him to make such a sacrifice?

17. It is often said that God “sacrificed his only son” that we might have eternal life, but according to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of God. How is this a “sacrifice”, if Jesus did not actually die?

18. Could God have made Abel the Messiah, and then allow Abel’s murder by Cain to satisfy his requirement that there be a blood sacrifice for the remission of sin and for the redemption of humanity? If so, then why didn’t he do it this way? If it was NOT possible for Abel to fill the role eventually assumed by Christ, then why not?

19. When God grants salvation to people who declare their belief in him and in the sacrifice of his only son, presumably he is doing so to reward them for some virtue they display in professing that belief. What exactly is that virtue, then? Is it possible for that virtue to be duplicated by another act besides belief in God and Jesus? If not, then why not? Or is God simply an egotist who doesn’t care about whatever else a person does as long as they acknowledge him as their creator and flatter his vanity?

20. Why did God have a “chosen people”? (The Israelites) Were they in any way required for any of his plans to redeem humanity? What role did they thus play?

21. According to the Christian doctrine of Salvation, Jesus (who was innocent) paid the penalty for our sins. Is it any kind of justice for the innocent to suffer in place of the guilty? Consider this analogy: a vicious criminal who is responsible for several brutal murders and whose guilt is unquestioned is scheduled for execution. On the eve of the execution, a kindly, beloved local parishoner calls up the governor of the state and requests that he (the parishoner) be allowed to be executed in place of the convicted killer. Of course such a proposition would never be accepted. How then, can the Christian atonement be considered just or sensible?

22. According to the New Testament, Jesus only went to Hell for a few days before being raised from the dead into an immortal existence at the right hand of God. Yet unsaved sinners face an eternity of torment when they die. How then can it be said, as Christians often do, that Jesus “paid the FULL penalty” for our sins when he suffered only a few hours and those who are not saved suffer for eternity?

23. In God’s view, was Jesus’ crucifixion a good act or an evil act? Were those crucified him ultimately doing right or wrong? Jesus said (Luke 23:34) “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Seeming to imply that the crucifixion was an act of evil by its perpetrators. Suppose, then, that Pilate or the mob had instead set Jesus free? Would God’s plan of redemption and salvation have collapsed? If so, then how could God have viewed the crucifixion as an “evil” act? Along similar lines, why did Satan assist in the crucifixion by possessing Judas, as he was said to do in Luke 22:3 and John 13:2? Did Satan know the purpose of the crucifixion was the redemption of humanity? If so, why didn’t he work to prevent it instead of aiding it?

24. According to the accounts of Matthew and Mark, Jesus cried out to God while on the cross and asked why he had “forsaken” Jesus. Did Jesus fully understand at this time the purpose of the crucifixion? If so, then why did he express such despair?

25. Given that the majority of the people who have lived and died during the time of Christ never accepted him as their personal savior, is it correct to term God’s plan for redemption through Christ a failure? If not, why not?

26. Say a young man decides to accept Christ as his personal savior. Now say that that same young man, several years later, becomes disillusioned with the Christian religion and decides to give it up. By doing so, does he automatically forfeit the salvation he presumably gained when he first accepted Christ? Now take this same man. Say that shortly after first accepting Christ, he had been hit by a car crossing the street and been killed. If he died with his salvation intact, then was his accident not fortuitous? And by the same token, was it not extremely UNLUCKY for the person in the first example not to have been killed in an accident, and later lose his salvation?

27. What is the purpose of hell? Since unsaved souls are tormented there for eternity, it cannot be to redeem them. And since heaven is a place of perfect peace and security where everyone is free from harm, it cannot be to protect the people of heaven from the people of hell. How is it just to punish people eternally for crimes they committed during a short, finite lifetime? Why is it necessary for God to separate souls into two classes after their deaths?

28. What is the status of people who live their lives never having heard of Jesus or the Christian religion? Are they automatically damned? If so, how can it be fair to deny them salvation because of knowledge they did not have? If such people ARE granted salvation, then it is clear that belief in Jesus is NOT a requirement of salvation. Why, then, is it required of people who have heard of him? How can it be fair for someone to be damned who has heard of Jesus and doesn’t believe in him, and to automatically save someone who hasn’t heard of Jesus (but who might have disbelieved in him if he had)?

29. Say that a non-believer kills another non-believer and is sentenced to be executed for this crime. While on death row, the killer “finds religion” and accepts Jesus as his personal savior (as many real-life death-row inmates do). Does this now mean that the killer, upon his execution, will have his soul pass on to heaven while his victim is suffering for eternity in hell?

30. What is existence in heaven like? Will souls be supplied with bodies similar to those on Earth? If a person lived their life in a severely deformed body will they find it healed in heaven, or will they have to carry their handicaps with them for eternity? Likewise, will people who suffered from mental retardation on Earth be given a normal level of intelligence in heaven? What about souls who died as babies or as fetuses? Will people who were ugly and unattractive in Earthly life have to keep their bodies, or perhaps will they be given choices of “beautiful bodies” like in the Twilight Zone episode “Number Twelve Looks Just Like You”? If one does not have the same body one had in Earthly life, won’t this compromise one’s sense of personal identity?

31. Satan is represented in many Bible passages as well as traditional doctrine as constantly attempting to beguile or deceive humans into committing sin. Since Satan as a supernatural being is presumably much more powerful than an ordinary mortal human, it would seem that he would have a great advantage and the power to achieve this goal in most cases, and that most people would be helpless against this power, making them his victims. So is it fair to say that people who have been deceived by Satan in this way deserve damnation? What proportion of the responsibility for a person’s sin falls upon them and what upon Satan?

32. What is the status of souls who lived and died before the time of Jesus? Were they automatically saved, or are they eternally damned? Are Adam and Eve in hell now? The Old Testament makes no mention of hell as we know it in the New. Does that mean that hell itself was not created until Jesus came on the scene?

That's all I have for right now . . .

Wow. Understand that these will be fairly short, compact answers.

1. The Bible, at least in Romans, would argue that nobody is "ignorant." For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (1:20). This, of course, is somewhat vague. Some would argue this simply refers to an intuitive sense of god (as seen in many native peoples). This is hotly contested in Christianity.

2. Yes, I would say that disbelief is a sin because it is willfully ignoring God.

3. Jesus Christ was capable of committing sin (as a person), but never sinned. Hence the temptation was real. The idea of free will is another very complex issue; I would say, by OUR human standards, it does not appear like free will and inability to sin reconcile, but this may be something that we just cannot understand.

4. Souls should not be looked at as people. They cannot sin because they are within God and God cannot abide sin.

5. Original sin is another complex and controversial issue. I think of it as cancer that regardless of "fairness" or not, is passed down sometimes from generation to generation. However, I also believe that since every human sins anyway, the "fairness" of it becomes moot.

6. I believe it to be an actual story and not an allegory.

7. The idea of free will and an omnipotent God is fascinating to reconcile. I believe that we have the "power" to control our destiny as we understand it, but God being God knows and has predained our destiny. God isn't linear, we are.

8. God created Satan to give him glory, which he does indirectly now, as God defeating Satan does just that. God allows him to do evil both as a result of the curse of sin and I think as a tool for temptation (a la Job). He still opposes God because he is an unwitting tool.

9. Perhaps. I guess it could be tied to psychological tendency to disobey authority, but I'm not a psychologist.

10. Yes, it upsets God. And God is not above "petty" emotions--he frequently calls himself jealous, angry, loving, all "human" emotions. They should not be interpreted in the human sense--when God is said to "regret" making man, it is not in the sense as if God changed his mind, as if we are looking at an omnipotent being that operates at a different level.

11. I do not believe, within reason, that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. The Trinity basically is that God exists in three parts at the same time--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The silliest analogy I can think of is Venom the symbiote in Spider-Man (Venom is both Eddie Brock and the Alien).

12. I believe that the Holy Spirit prompts conversion and belief. There is no set "scientific formula" for belief and what may prompt someone is entirely different than another.

13. I believe that faith in Jesus is the only answer. Paul says that we are not justified through works; rather, they are more commands and "proof," so to speak, of salvation. So it's not just works (but you have to do works). Rather, Paul makes the point that we must believe in Jesus' message of salvation. I interpret Jesus' words as more general praising for the people's works and not a theological blueprint for salvation.

14. See above: I don't believe God is linear.

15. No. But again, it is complicated with the idea of an omnipotent God. I look at it as more mankind screwing up than God.

16. The sacrifice, oddly enough, was to God Himself. An analogy would be a death sentence imposed by a judge (God). In this case, someone else (Jesus) steps in to accept the death sentence. This was the only way as interpreted through the theology of the Old Testament, which urges sacrifice.

17. By not dying, it is actually an eternal sacrifice. Jesus conquered death and thus defeated the whole system per se.

18. I suppose God could have. But God likes to work through specific ways--he uses a process, he likes prophecies, and most importantly, Abel was not God's son.

19. Actually, it isn't a reward for anything. When a father gives his son a Christmas present, you typically don't think of it as a reward unless the son is a real rotter, but he's probably going to get something anyway because the father loves the son. Reward implies we earned salvation; we didn't. God doesn't owe us anything and we don't owe God anything.

20. God has a chosen people...because He wants to. They ended up being a key role for salvation, but God has always stressed that he chose the Israelites for no real reason other than He did.

21. The point is that it is illogical. Under a proper justice system, of course, the guilty party would pay--that means we would all go to hell.

22. Some would argue that Jesus did not actually descend into Hell; I am skeptical as to whether the place we know as Hell actually existed at that point in history (the Bible seems to imply that "Hell" does not come into play until after the Final Judgment). Jesus paid the price regardless by dying and then rising again to imply that he had mastery over this.

23. It is a bad act done for a good purpose like so many other events in Scripture. God utilized many unbelievers or enemies of God for this purpose.

24. A complex issue as relating to the Trinity. I will just say that Jesus did not want to die (as seen by his plea to God in the Garden). His statement about being forsaken is difficult to interpret and may be more of an anguished lament rather than an actual question.

25. A failure for the people, perhaps.

26. Another excellent controversy within Christianity. I believe that only God knows a person's heart and generally, a person's salvation cannot be "lost" provided the conversion was actually sincere to begin with. Many times people who "drift away" were never really that serious at all. I cannot presume to speak the truth here though.

27. The purpose seems to separate those saved from those not. It seems to have to do more with judgment than anything else.

28. See question one.

29. Yes. The robber next to Jesus on the cross believed; it is unknown the status of his victim. It is unfair in man's sense, but man is not the one judging here.

30. We will be given new bodies that are impossible to really conceive of on an earthly status. It's like if I told you we were all going to wear borkas. What's a borka? I don't know. I don't think questions about personal appearance, personal identity, or even what we were like on Earth are even going to be relevant.

31. Responsibility is always on you the person. Satan will tempt you, but he cannot "make" you sin. Example if I tell you to kill the President and you kill the President (I'm not hiring you or anything), you're still going to go to jail.

32. I believe that pre-Christ, people were saved through the following of the Law, but that this is not exactly a hard and fast concept.

Well, thanks for taking the time to try to answer all of these, Mike. I really didn't think anyone would do that, at least in one sitting. And some real good responses too. I'll just try to do my own responses in clusters:


1. So then belief in the Christian religion is not specifically required? Salvation simply depends upon a belief in God and it does not matter what religion? I think this idea contradicts both the New and the Old Testament in which God is represented as a jealous God who does not want his creations worshipping any other God but him.

2. The use of the word "willful" again, seems to equate belief as being associated with the will. Again, if I tell you that right now as I type this, I am sitting next to my pet purple-polka dotted elephant in my living room, can you will yourself to believe this? Are you being "willful" if you disbelieve it?

3. If Jesus never sinned (although he had the capacity for sinning) then it is conceivably possible that another human being could come into the Earth somewhere down the line who never commits a sin. Although another such being may never be born, it is still possible.
For my own part, I don't subscribe to belief in things that cannot be fully understood.

4. He seemingly could abide it enough to bring it into the Earth. And if souls are not people, then what are they? What sort of conciousness and autonomy do they have? I think for most people who believe in the afterlife and/or heaven, that belief includes a personal existence very similar to the one they possess on Earth.

5. Well, if everyone sins anyway, that makes the idea of "original sin" moot, too.

6. If one says that the story of Adam and Eve is completely factual, then one must of course defeend that position against anthropologists who give an entirely different account of human origins. Of course, there are many many other logistical problems with the story of Adam and Eve, too many to list right here now . . .

7. The doctrine of predestination, associated with the theology of John Calvin (among others), is given a wealth of support in the Bible. On the other hand, the concept of free will is also given Biblical support. And it is certainly interesting to attempt to reconcile the two ideas, in the same way that it is interesting to speculate about what a square triangle looks like. If I have a choice between two options, X and Y, and God knows ahead of time that I am going to choose X, then is it still possible for me to choose Y? If not, then there is no free will, at least as us humans (with our linear persepctives) understand the concept.

8. >God created Satan to give him glory
I presume from this statement that you mean Satan was created by God to give himself (God) glory. Put that way, it kind of seems to make Satan God's own personal straw man. It seems to me that that would be an artificial glory, like winning a game with loaded dice. But maybe I misunderstood your statement.

More to come . . . again, thanks for your replies

My replies to your replies:

1. I believe that a belief in the "Christian God" is specifically required; the area of contention generally is with people who would have had no opportunity to hear the Gospel (such as American Indians pre-Colonial times). I do not think that salvation purely comes from a belief in a god.

2. In a way, yes. I am willfully choosing to disbelieve that there is a pink elephant in your room. I have the option of believing you or disbelieving you and I willfully choose to disbelieve you. Note that willful does not mean obstinate, uneducated, or foolish in this setting.

3. I disagree with your proposal because Jesus was both fully god and fully man, so to have a perfect man, he would also have to be god.

4. God can "tolerate" sin on Earth, but the way I conceive Heaven, it could not be abided there. You are correct in most people seem to conceive of heaven as a very personal existence, but this is not supported by Scripture, which suggests that all we are doing is glorifying God. Again, I think it is hard to conceive of godly matters with a human mind; to me, a believer, this sounds confounding and even boring because I can't fathom the idea of eternity.

5. Original sin still does have some bearing regarding newborns and fetuses, which I believe to be human. Obviously, a fetus cannot sin, but I believe it to still have "original sin." This leads to the interesting question of what does that mean for a newborn and fetus' salvation, of which the Bible does not say. Even what I just said is hotly debated among conservative circles; a general feeling is that one cannot be held "accountable" for sin until one understands what sin is.

6. I believe it to be an actual story but a supernatural one, meaning that logistical issues may or may not have an effect here and that it is not "proven" by science nor should be said to be.

7. I agree--it is a fascinating concept and one that many Christians agonize over. I am a strong believer in predestination, but not to the somewhat ludicrous extent that it is taken by some branches of Christianity (such as Jehovah's Witnesses that has "capped" the number of people that can be saved).

8. From a human perspective, it does seem like a straw man. But it kind of reminds me of the goofy question "Could God make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?" Invariably any enemy God creates is going to be weaker.

While answering the questions, I realized that for convenience's sake, it may be helpful to describe my general belief of salvation:

*I believe that humanity, through original sin and their own sinful actions, has been condemned in the sight of God. God cannot abide sin and requires restitution (following the OT principle of sacrificial offerings).

*Jesus, God's Son (and Him), was a "lamb without blemish." He died on the cross as an offering for all humankind and rose again to prove His mastery over death.

*Belief in these precepts is sufficient for salvation, although a true believer is known by his or her deeds, including love and charity.

This is commonly known as the "Romans Road" or more simply, "Bad News/Good News" principle.

OK this is an interesting insight here. But about your comment that you cannot be held accountable for sin until you understand sin. What about those people who are mentally challenged and cannot understadn the concept or children who snuff it before they are old enough or a miscarried baby? Since they are "infected" with the taint of the original sin are they still condemned for it even though they are incapable of understanding sin or do they get an exemption?Also what if a person's understanding of what sin is is different than what the "christian" understanding of what sin is is? They are still shafted from the way I understand thigns are are they?

Either way interesting discussion.

Good questions. And ones that I really can't answer. Generally, in Christian circles there is a concept called "age of awareness," in which one is not held "accountable" for one's sin until one can understand what sin is (which may be never, in terms of mentally challenged people). This is definitely not gospel and two of the pastors at my church disagree over it.

A few more quick comments on some of your replies:

#11

>The silliest analogy I can think of is Venom the >symbiote in Spider-Man (Venom is both Eddie Brock >and the Alien).

Well, that's certainly as good an analogy for the Trinity as any I've ever heard!

#13

Well, again, I have to reiterate that the stories are pretty clear. The man asks Jesus specifically what one must do to have eternal life. Jesus gives the man a set of commandments to follow (which resemble the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament). He did not stipulate that the man should have faith in or believe in him as the risen Lord. Matthew 16:27 even explicity states that "The Son of Man . . . shall reward every man according to his works." So salvation by works is given Biblical support, as well as salvation by faith.

#15
Well, I would still hold to the maxim that if something is created with defects, the creator is at least just as responsible for the defects than the thing is in malfunctioning because of them.

#17
I don't see how it could be properly said that Jesus "defeated the system of death", since death still existed afterward.

#19
I have to take exception to this. The idea that salvation is not "earned" or is not a "reward" is simply not true according to the traditional Christian docrtine of salvation. If only people who believe in Jesus or God get salvation and the people who don't don't, then that clearly means that salvation is most definitely an earned reward, by definition.

#20
>They ended up playing a key role in salvation

Again, how so?

#21
>The point is that it is illogical

Or to paraphrase a famous earlier Christian apologist whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment, "I believe BECAUSE it is absurd!"

#23
Well, if God utilized them (i.e. they were under his control) then how can they be fully blamed for their role in it? Christians today revile the name of Judas. If he was instrumental to the crucifixion that brought about the opportunity for mankind's salvation, should they not praise it? (As an aside that has nothing to do with the question: I've always wondered why the name of Judas was always traditionally reviled while the name of the other disciple Peter is spoken of with praise and was canonized. It seems from the NT accounts that Peter did at least just as much to betray Jesus as Judas did.)

#25
Well, if God really desired that all humans come to an awareness of him and to salvation, then I think he certainly could have done more than he did in this regard. I really don't see how the failure of the Christian scheme of salvation is due to mankind.

#26
So, if the person who was killed shortly after accepting Christ had a conversion that God judged was not sincere, then he is damned even if he himself is not yet aware that his conversion is unauthentic.

#31
Well, I don't think the analogy of one person telling another one to commit a crime and the other person makes a concious decision to do it holds up in the case of Satan. Again, Satan is supposed to be much more powerful than men and have supernatural abilities. He is able to control people to make them act AGAINST their will.

Ok I see how it can be argued. It is still a bit of a point/issue with me as I cannot understand how a child/baby can be a sinner and would fall within the camp that says a child is innocent.

#15 the problem of how can a perfect creator create an imperfect creation?

#17 I believe he was referring to jesus escpaed and defeated the system of death for him. Unfortunately we mere mortals are still stuck with the whole death thing...

#19 PLay nice and believe in me and you get the candy, dont believe in me and you get the stick sort of thing. I gotta agree that is the way it somewhat seems to me. Sort of like working for a company, believe in the company mission statement and get rewarded with an office or perks, dont believe and get the cubicle by the copier.

#31 I am not certain Satan/Lucifer actually had those abilities in the actual christian bible. I thought that he gained more of his powers in the mythos and teachings that came alongside the bible. It has been abit since I studied thigns that hard though so I may be wrong. But still whos more foolish the fool or the one who follows the fool? Can be paraphrased as whos more evil the evil one or the one who follows the evil one?

13. But I think what Jesus was doing with the man was demonstrating that his attitude was incorrect. After all, the point was not so much to "do" good works--the guy was doing that, but he wouldn't give up his money. We don't achieve salvation by just spending all our money on the poor, but on making Christ the focus of our lives through accepting Him.

15. I look at (again, slightly faulty analogy) of a father and son. You can be an awesome dad and still have a bad son.

17. Jesus defeated death for everyone because no one has to die anymore if they accept salvation.

19. It's still not an earned reward. It's like everyone in America receiving an Ipod for Christmas. They didn't do anything. Now not everyone will CLAIM their Ipod. The act of claiming it does not mean you "earned" it. Believing that there is something called an Ipod is also not "earning" it. The Ipod, like salvation, is not contingent on "playing nice."

20. Jesus was a Jew and fulfilled numerous Jewish prophecies.

23. Judas was used by God to do good things, but he still wasn't a good person. You could argue that the only reason the state of Israel exists is because of the Holocaust, so shouldn't then Jews revere Hitler? Also, Peter did deny Christ, but this is different than betraying him. Judas sold out the location of Jesus; Peter just denied knowing him so he wouldn't be killed too, which is still wrong.

25. Can you elaborate?

26. I can't judge whether a person's conversion is sincere or not. All I know is that I know people who went to church and probably would have said they were Christians, but certainly didn't act like it and probably wouldn't have been able to tell you word one about salvation.

31. Satan, at least in the Bible, never shows the ability to MAKE anyone to do anything, unless one counts the instances of demon possession. In Job, Satan causes evil things to happen to Job but cannot make Job do anything. The idea of Satan entering Judas is to me more conceptual rather than implying that Satan made Judas, a good person, do a bad thing.

Re: #20

20. Jesus was a Jew and fulfilled numerous Jewish prophecies.

Please rephrase as, "Jesus was a Jew, and according to Christian doctrine, fulfilled numerous Jewish prophecies."

Thankyou.

Yes, that's true, although all of my statements should really carry that disclaimer.

>13. But I think what Jesus was doing with the >man was demonstrating that his attitude was >incorrect. After all, the point was not so much >to "do" good works--the guy was doing that, but >he wouldn't give up his money. We don't achieve >salvation by just spending all our money on the >poor, but on making Christ the focus of our >lives through accepting Him.

The point is that the man specifically asked him what he need to do to have eternal life, and Christ directly replied "to enter into life, keep the commandments," also to "Give all that you have to the poor, so that you may store up treasure in heaven." He did not say anything about faith.

>15. I look at (again, slightly faulty analogy) >of a father and son. You can be an awesome dad >and still have a bad son.

I don't think that analogy quite holds up. A father raising a son is not the same as a creator making something. And the way a son's character turns out will be based on a number of factors beyond the control of the parent, no matter how good a parent they are. Wheras, with God, nothing should be beyond his control.

>19. It's still not an earned reward. It's like >everyone in America receiving an Ipod for >Christmas. They didn't do anything. Now not >everyone will CLAIM their Ipod. The act of >claiming it does not mean you "earned" it. >Believing that there is something called an Ipod >is also not "earning" it. The Ipod, like >salvation, is not contingent on "playing nice."

Well I think we're getting bogged down in a matter of semantics here. Let me put it another way. The crux of the matter is that salvation is deliberately being withheld from nonbelievers by God. God has the power to grant them eternal life, it must be that he does not because he is displeased by their unbelief. The only alternative would be that he does not have the power to save them, which of course is inconcievable if God truly is an all-powerful being. Therefore I think that according to the Christian doctrine, salvation is "merited" or "earned".

>20. Jesus was a Jew and fulfilled numerous >Jewish prophecies.

If you're referring to the Old Testament passages which are quoted by the various Gospel authors, these are not really "prophecies" at all. They are nearly all passages quoted out of their original context and made to seem prophecies. Thomas Paine wrote the definitive study on this topic in "The Age of Reason Part Two" which is probably availible online somewhere.

>23. Judas was used by God to do good things, but >he still wasn't a good person. You could argue >that the only reason the state of Israel exists >is because of the Holocaust, so shouldn't then >Jews revere Hitler? Also, Peter did deny Christ, >but this is different than betraying him. Judas >sold out the location of Jesus; Peter just >denied knowing him so he wouldn't be killed too, >which is still wrong.

Yes, technically Peter's actions of continually denying Jesus are not the same as the active betrayal that Judas was said to have performed. I was just observing the fact that it is strange that Peter is traditionally represented as being the gatekeeper of heaven when Jesus said in Matthew 10:33 "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven." Jesus even at one point referred to Peter as "Satan (!)"

>25. Can you elaborate?

Sure. According to certain Bible passages, God wants people to be aware of his existence. (First Timothy 2:4, for example.) In Old Testament accounts, God many times performed miracles in order to display his power to humans. In the New Testament, Jesus' miracles were supposed to display the power and the glory of God as well. It seems clear that the Bible portrays God as a supreme being, all-powerful, who has a keen interest in human affairs down here on Earth. He listens to and answers prayer. He loves us and wants us to love him (and his son) in return. God is concerned that we know the truth about him. He wants missionaries to spread the word about him, and, according to the Bible, he (and his son and some of his son's disciples) performed miracles to prove his reality.
The conclusion I draw from all this is that if the God portrayed in the Bible were to exist, then he would not have permitted the great plurality of religions and belief-systems that exist in our world today. These belief-systems are for the most part incompatible with each other, and have been the cause of immeasurable conflict between the peoples of the world as well. The God described in the Bible would have, throughout human history and up until the present day, performed miracles or used other methods to make his presence known to humanity. Human beings for the most part are curious about the world and universe they live in, and want to know the truth to the "eternal questions" about existence. It would not interfere with their "free will" for God to make himself visibly and physically known to people. Yet he has not done this, at least not to the satisfaction of the vast majority of people.

25. Not that I have any time to debate this, but I remember reading an old Jewish legend that God did appear before all other peoples on the Earth, and did offer them the Torah. Only the Jews accepted it.

I've heard the story. I believe it's in the Talmud, but I'm not sure.

Scott N: That makes sense. I would assume the vast deposit of Jewish legends would be in the Talmud. Although, It sounds more like a myth than a legend. Myths explain how the present order came to be, whereas legends are the deeds of Heroes and Saints.

The Muslims have a similar story. God did reveal himself many times, but the words of the prophet were always corrupted by latter generations. God gave his final revelation, an infailble version of the True Faith, to Mohammad, which would "patch" all previous mistakes in revealed religion. The Muslim expansionist wars are not seen as wars of conquest, but rather freeing humanity to live under the true faith and true law, free from lies and corruption.

The Zoroastian would argue that humans have always had a free choice to worship either God (Ahura Mazda), or to worship the Devil (That villian from Season 6 and 7 of Highlander, Aberhiem I think) But because Zoroastrian Hell is penitential, you get out of it after you have done your time.

13. Again, I just don't see Jesus as really establishing hard, etched in stone doctrine. What he is really doing is reinforcing what the man already should have known: the OT principle of achieving salvation. Jesus could not have told the man to believe in His death, which had not happened yet.

15. God could MAKE us all obedient, but chooses not to. He chooses not to totally control us.

19. I would say it is primarily semantics, but it is a very important semantic issue for Christians. We do not EARN salvation nor is it merited. The only distinction between believers and nonbelievers is their "belief"--acceptance of salvation. But this does not "earn" the gift of salvation.

20. My point in stating that was to explain your question as to what role the Jews played in salvation.

25. But making Himself physically known would hurt the principle of faith on sight unseen. Also, since even in the OT where God was physically involved and people were not unanimously in line with Him, I'm not sure if it would make a difference.

>19. I would say it is primarily semantics, but it >is a very important semantic issue for Christians. >We do not EARN salvation nor is it merited. The >only distinction between believers and nonbelievers >is their "belief"--acceptance of salvation. But >this does not "earn" the gift of salvation.

If salvation is neither earned nor merited, then only one of two possibilities present themselves: either no one will be saved (since everyone deserves damnation) or everyone will be saved (due to an act of unmerited grace by God).
However, orthodox Christian doctrine usually teaches that some people will be saved, and some won't. Furthermore it is said that those who get saved will bring their own salvation about through an action or choice they make. So what is this if not "earning"?

>20. My point in stating that was to explain your >question as to what role the Jews played in >salvation.

So their role was to have their chronicles later taken out of context by New Testament writers and made into pretended prophecies?
There ARE prophecies in both Testaments, but they usually present themselves as such in their original appearances. However, most of the prophecies in the Bible went unfulfilled or turned out to be false.

>25. But making Himself physically known would >hurt the principle of faith on sight unseen. >Also, since even in the OT where God was >physically involved and people were not >unanimously in line with Him, I'm not sure if it >would make a difference.

Well, didn't God appear to people in the Old Testament all the time (Noah, Moses, Abraham, Job, et al)? Why does he not do so today? Did he retire from making personal appearances?
Likewise Jesus appeared to disciples following the Resurrection. He even proved to Thomas he was real when Thomas expressed skepticism. So why doesn't Jesus continue to do that kind of thing for people today? Why isn't he out walking the Earth and preaching his message today?

19. Again, semantics but important. We are saved through a choice, but the choice DOES NOT merit salvation. It would be like me telling you "I'm going to give you $5,000." You can either take it or not take it. Just because you take it doesn't mean you merited it, it just means you took it.

20. This could be best served on a different thread.

25. God chooses to work differently today--in the OT there was no Holy Spirit, so He had to directly intervene more often. I believe Jesus chooses to work through his Spirit and his followers instead of physically being on this Earth now.

I would like to go back to Todd's original question. If your eternal destiny is decided by faith in Christ's resurrection (whether you call it a "reward" or not -- it apparently depends on how you define that), what virtue is being demonstrated that allows that person to enter heaven? The ability to believe in things that are unseen? What kind of virtue is that? That's more a matter of how one's mind works and their desire to believe something, not anything with a moral dimension. It seems to me faith comes from the believer, not the object he believes in, because you can have faith in something that doesn't even exist. But anyway...if it isn't a virtue, then why should your eternal destiny hinge purely on that ONE thing, the ability to believe the unseen? Why is that the sole thing to separate heaven from hell? So if you are skeptical and hard to convince, you burn for that? How is that fair? Not to mention the fact that I will never be convinced that eternal torture is fair for ANYONE.

Don't Christians believe that our sense of conscience and morals came from God? Then why would God do these things that almost all people would agree are unjust if it were anyone but God doing them? It makes God look evil. But people ignore that because a)God is always right, no matter what and b) they don't want to burn. So they never consider that this might be a God invented by man with all-too-human flaws.

And on God's personal appearances: it's not like someone else was mad at us and tried to burn us and God rode in on a white horse to save us. HE came up with the definition of sin, created us so that we were capable of it, and created the punishment for it. Now he generously offers us a way out. Seems like the least he could do, considering we were born into this situation with no choice in the matter. But to really accomplish his goal of getting people into heaven, he really should clear up all this religious confusion. There are (it seems to me, at least) millions (billions?) of people convinced that they are going to heaven who are wrong. Shouldn't God tell them in some clear, unmistakable way that they are following the wrong path? I'm an atheist and he hasn't told me what the right religion is yet.

The Christian position on this is that the Holy Spirit does indeed call everyone to his Church, and that salvation is a free gift offered to everyone, but that not everyone accepts it. See the Parable of the Sower.

Second, in the time the New Testament was written, the Church was under persecution. Having faith in something that could get you killed is a bit more intense, don't cha think.

Third, the purpose of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith through Grace is not that good people go to hell, the purpose is that Human action is unable to win salvation, and that only Christ's death and resurection was able to do that.

Fourth, Hell is not eternal torture. At it's most theological level, Hell is permanant and eternal separation from God, as a punishment for spending your whole life trying to be separate from him. Surely the Wicked suffer for their sins, but most of what you know about Hell is either allegory or mythology.

Fifth, God's ways are mysterious and we are unable to fully understand them. Why he created beings with the capacity for Evil is one of those mysteries. My answer is that God wanted "beings made in his own image" and that image includes Free Will. But it is understood that God's actions are a balance between Mercy and Justice. For further exploration of these issues, I suggest "The Screwtape Letters."

"Human action is unable to win salvation." I'm not sure exactly what that was a reply to, but Christians enter heaven because of an action they took which non-Christians did not take. And our eternal destiny hinges on that action, which is based on the ability to believe the unseen. I guess I just question why that's so essential.

Which ties in with the Holy Spirit calling everyone. I think you're saying that God calls everyone in some clear way, you know that it's really God and that salvation is real and you purposely reject it. I can't prove anything either way; all I can say is I was never convinced of the reality of salvation. Maybe God just hasn't gotten around to me yet. If I die and he still hasn't given me the truth, unfortunately I won't be able to say so. Therefore I can never disprove this.

That's interesting that you mention the capacity for Evil and then that God wanted beings made in his own image. I would assume God has free will. The Christian argument seems to be that free will is inevitably accompanied by Evil. So...could God commit Evil? Nah...he says he couldn't. At least I think the Bible states that. But wait...that means free will is not inevitably accompanied by Evil. So why couldn't God have created us that way? Isn't that how things will be in heaven? Free will without evil? Another mystery...

Human action is still unable to win salvation. The only action you take "claims" salvation, not wins it.

But to get that salvation you have to take the action of accepting the mythological being of jesus as your savior. So therefor eby choosing the one narrow vision of that person or church you win the game by not choosing another equally good and loving faith like islam, buddism, wicca etc....

I would rather have a person who acts and is good than a person who thinks that just because they believe in a certian thing they are good.

Nova: By human action, I mean good works. I would compare salvation to unwrapping a gift. Yes, it's an action, but you didn't earn it.

Well, it's religion, you can't prove most of it. That's why it's irrational. But the "reason" for this is that God will not impose his salvation, friendship and kinship upon us. So it has been freely given, so it must be freely recieved. The problem isn't God here, the problem is human Christians, who aren't the greatest embassaries, and the Devil, who spends most of his time spreading lies, untruths, and confusion.

God cannot be evil because evil is a contradiction of his nature. Evil is a lack of good, and God is perfectly good. Most of God's objectionable actions in the Old Testament are accompanied with a strict sense of justice.

Ultimately, Free will is a sticky concept, one I can't entirely understand. But the essense of freedom is the freedom to sin. The Freedom to reject God and his commands. If you can't sin, that is to turn away from God, when you are not free.

R: I would argue that Christianity is superior to those religions for that very reason. That God came to walk amoung man, to die for him and deliver him from Death. All other religions are Man reaching out, trying to grasp at God, trying to by their own merit, applease him. In Christianity, God comes to man.

Your latter point, I have something, but meeting, soon.

Actually Pesti Islam requires one to submit and accept the will of god in their lives just like christianity. Islam has testify and prayers and faith just like christianity. In fact Islam even acknowledges the existence of the prophet Jesus. Note he is merely another prophet and not the one true prophet who is mohammed and definately not divine just another preacher running around the desert who happend to speak with a divine being, he just didnt get the entire message like mohammed did. But aside from that and a few other more minor cosmetic difference the core of true islam (not the extremist talibanish style islam) and the core of christianity is not much different. This is one reason why i dont understand why so many peopl e see the two as oil and water.

Now as for God. He is evil. He created humans in his image. This means either he flawed when he created us therefore he is not perfect, or he is capable of evil because we are. He is omniscient which means he knew before hand that eve would do the sin thing and condemn all humanity to hell, yet he did nothign to stop or even come down and have a chat with her if he didnt want to force her.

And speaking of which why would he get so bent if humans knew of the knowledge between good and evil? What he doesnt want people to question his word or his interpretation of good and evil?

Also if he is omniscient and all powerful then he cannot have freewill because if he already knows everythign that has, is or will happen then he cannot change the path of his own destiny so he cannot have freewill because he would know if he had or will have had changed the future before he did it. (if you can understand the verb tensing there.)

And as for a person's freewill god has no right to get peeved for a person to use their freewill to reject him. The way I understand it just rejecting his salvation is enough to get a person condemned to an eternity of hell and damnation (thats a fair cop yeah right) The way i see it if a person uses their free will and disbelievs but is still a good person and does no harm they are still an equal to god and god has no right to condemn them. Two people who have done the same actions and the same attitudes but one believes and the other doesnt are exactly equal in their worthyness for the kingdom of heaven. And especially since the devil is nowhere near as powerful as god and actually works for him as is shown in the bible the "devil" is just another aspect of the christian god. Theologically speaking. All this god and devil nonsense is just people trying to rationalize normal huamn psychology.

I will give you that with buddism the burdon of action is on the human but that is because while there are higher beings they are just aspects of the universe more akin to angels than any true god.

the main goal of buddism is for humans to open themselves to the forces of harmony of the universe and ascend outside the cycle of death rebirth and life through actions of peace and assistance so that a person may acheive nirvana a state of being outside suffering and need and mortal frails. Not too different than what i have heard some people say heaven is like.

What my friend who is a wicca priest says about wicca is that each must open themselves to the will of the goddess and life their life worthy of her. Do no harm to another and help as much as they can. Otherwise life your life. Not too different than christianity in most ways.

But we dont have the space here to go down each and every religion but christianity does not have a stranglehold on god coming to man.

R: Yeah, I've taken comparative religions. Your point? Islam is a false religion because it denies the divinity of Christ, and because it denies the Trinitarian Nature of God.

First of all, an Absolute Sovereign cannot be evil, by definition. He defines good, therefore he defines lack of good, that is to say, evil. Second, humanity is a lesser being to God. God is not flesh, Mankind is not perfect. Third, your statements on omniscience presume something. There is no absolute evil. Evil unwittingly serves God's purpose. On the fall, he told Eve don't eat from the Tree. What more could he had told her?

Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command on not eating the tree. As for the fruit, Beings that are innocent don't know the difference between good and evil.

God has absolute sovereignty, he can do anything he wants. Second, God is eternal and unchanging. Third, being omniscient means you can see every possible outcome of free actions. Like that episode of Star Trek where Worf leaped from timelines.

God is an absolute sovereign. He can judge anyone in whatever manner he wishes. He has every right, and you have none. His sense of both Mercy and Justice is perfect. What the unbeliver does is reject his mercy, therefore he invites his justice. And before God's justice, none can stand.

The Devil is an independent actor.

Technically, Gods in Buddahism are usually an aspect of local culture, and are more like Celestrial Kings. They cannot bring release from this world, or the cycle of life (samsara) as they are part of this world.

But the Problem with Buddahism is not that it resembles Christianity. A lot of religions do, since they are trying to seek out the Truth Christianity already posesses. The problem is that one, it claims humanity can acheive salvation through works, which it cannot. Same thing with Wicca.

No, no. Other religions have divine revelation, no doubt. But none of them are as direct as God incarnating into human form, giving us commands, and then dying for our salvation. A couple vauge prophetcies don't compare.

>Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command on not eating >the tree. As for the fruit, Beings that are >innocent don't know the difference between good and >evil.

Well, not knowing the difference between good and evil (and hence right and wrong), how could A&E have been expected to know that it was wrong to disobey a command? Being primeveally innocent beings, how could they understand the concept of consequences for disobeying a command, having never directly experienced those consequences or having had them outlined or demonstrated? OK, the Lord did tell them that they would "die" the day they ate it, but A&E of course had no concept of or understanding of death, having never seen any living thing die. For that matter, how could A&E have understood what the word "die" meant?
And further concerning God's warning, the phrasology itself is curious: ". . . for in the day that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die." Of course, the traditional interpretation is that God meant that Adam would become mortal when he ate the fruit and then would eventually die. However, that was not what God said. He specifically said, the way I read it, that Adam would physically die the same day that he ate the fruit, and of course this didn't happen. Is this then the first failed Biblical prophecy?
The serpent told A&E that if they ate the fruit that they would not die, and instead their eyes would be opened and they would come to an understanding of the concepts of good and evil. Which is exactly what happened. So it would seem from the account that the serpent told A&E the truth, while God lied to them.
In either case, the serpent seems to have been more convincing to A&E than the word of God was. Eve later states "the serpent beguiled me", which would seem to be a true statement, considering that God punished the serpent as well as her.
St. Paul seems to suggest in I Timothy 2:14 that Adam was not as culpable as Eve was in the Fall. If she was beguiled by the serpent, shouldn't she be less culpable? And doesn't culpability suggest that Adam and Eve were assumed to have known right from wrong before they ate of the fruit, which contradicts the idea that eating the fruit imparted to them the knowledge and awareness of good and evil?
The serpent's punishment was of a twofold nature and both folds are curious: "upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life." As the serpent was then condemned to travel upon his belly, it makes one wonder what mode of locomotion he had praticed preforth. And as a result of the serpent's actions, it seems the reptilian family as well as that of homo sapiens were to suffer from the doctrine of original sin as well, since all the serpent's descedants now travel about on their bellies. However, since no modern species of serpents known today eats dust, it would seem that the snakes at least escaped this part of the curse. Apparently as a side effect of the curse, our modern snakes, unlike their Edenic progeninator, have lost the power of speech.
Certainly God must be held to his own share of culpability in the Fall as well. Why did he place the tree of good and evil in the garden of Eden if he knew how dangerous it would be to his new creations and what a temptation it was to the first man and woman? Why didn't he destroy it, or not create it in the first place? Is God any different from a parent that leaves a handgun within easy access to a small child, with merely an admonition not to touch it as a safeguard?
Did God know about the serpent's duplicitous nature beforehand? If so, why didn't he warn A&E, or else destroy the serpent or at least exile him from the garden? Imagine one of God's own creations, a lower animal noless, that manages to thwart and defeat his plans and destroy his paradise!
And if the serpent can be considered to be evil, does that not mean that God erred when at the end of his efforts at creation, he pronounced everything "good"?
Of further curiousity is the fact that the omnipotent, omnipresent Lord God does not at first seem to be aware of A&E's transgression. The two, hearing him walking through the garden, hide themselves. God asks them "where are you?" (surely this must be a rhetorical question, since doesn't God know the location at any time of all of his creations). Adam shows himself and explains to God that he hid himself because he was ashamed of his nakedness (why Adam should feel such shame toward his creator, who should be quite familiar with seeing him in such a state, is never explained) and eventually Adam spills the whole story, which the all-knowing God seems amazingly enough to have had no knowledge of before (unless he ws just putting on a show of ignorance to better affect his outrage).
The exile of A&E from the garden of Eden is then neccesiatated by the fact that the Lord becomes fearful that the couple will next partake of the tree of life, and thus regain the mortality he has stripped from them. So he places a guard over the garden of Eden, a chrubrim with a flaming sword, who presumably still guards the location to this very day, and presumably if the location of the original site of the garden of Eden could be definitively determined and a pilgrimage made to that spot, this sentinel could still today be observed at its appointed duties . . . I have to stop here. Even I can only take so much silliness at one sitting. And further attempts to demonstrate the inherint absurdity of the garden of Eden story would be belaboring the point. And yet it is on the foundation of this fairy tale that the entire Christian scheme of salvation rests.
If the story of Jack and the Beanstalk had been in the Old Testament, the pulpit would treat it today with all the same gravity and seriousness as they treat the stories of the garden of Eden, the tower of Babel, Samson, Jonah and the Whale, et al. Sermons would be preached every Sunday on the bravery of Jack and its meaning for our lives today, and church-funded archealogical expeditions would be sent overseas to determine the historical location where the lad sowed his magic beans.

Pesti are you saying that all other religions are false? Other than the one true christian faith (whichever one that it is you accept) I know several millions people who would probably disagree with you (some of them even have rather explosive tempers about this...)

Perhaps the truth? That if she ate from it she would gain the knowledge of good and evil and would be an equal to god which god feared. I mean when i tell my children they are not allowed or supposed to do something I take the extra moment to make sure they know why and that I am not just making rules up for the fun of it.

So if he is eternal and unchanging then he has already taken the actions that he will take and cannot cahnge them no matter even if he had or does see the alternatives of those actions. If he is not eternal and unchanging then he can have free will.

In what way is the devil an independent? He works for god in Job, he has served him in other books and you have yourself just said evil does god's works. SO how he can be independent is nonsense.

Since the other religions do not believe in teh christian god or play by the christian rules they can belive in works from their POV. From their POV the christian faith is the wrong one and a false one. (except buddist which doesnt engage in this egotistical BS of my religion is better than your religion) As long as the religion is self consistent and does more helpful than harmful actions they are good and not evil. By the definition of harm = evil and help = good I would say that many christian sects are evil. But we been down that road before.

I've got to wonder why the christian's get off finding nudity so offensive. I've heard the shamefulness of adama and eve as the reasoning for it. Personally the human body is one of god's works so people should be proud of it and not be such uptight narrow minded prudes.

The whole garden of eden thing is an allegory.

Hey R, you know that a rather large subset of nudists agree with you? They are hardcore christians, and often have very conservative views on many things but enjoy the feeling of nudity and don't feel that it is sexual or shameful; it's just another state of (un)dress that one can choose if it's more comfortable.

Really? I was not aware of that. Most of the hardcore christians I've dealt with are not like that.(sex for procreation, nudity is a bad thing, the body must remain covered). And it has been several years since I have been around a large degree of nudists. (Ohio isnt exactly a nudist mecca) That is good to see though.

And looking back at my post i just realized I typed Adama and eve. oops. Maybe they did have somethign to do with the lords of kobol......

OK, you cannot "win" salvation through human action, but you "obtain" salvation through human action (i.e. faith and acceptance, baptism also in some denominations). There is an action that those who are saved took, that those who are not saved did not take. I still haven't heard an explanation of why believing in the unseen is considered THE defining action that determines your eternal destiny. But I suppose asking "why" of God is like trying to catch the wind. I'm just trying to say, "Maybe this isn't God, but a flawed human belief." Kind of like how a loving god condemns people to eternal torture. That's not just different from Man's idea of justice, that's light-years away.

Well, it's religion, you can't prove most of it. That's why it's irrational. But the "reason" for this is that God will not impose his salvation, friendship and kinship upon us.

If God doesn't want to impose himself on us, that's fine, since he gives us free will. But how does that lead to religion necessarily being irrational?

Yes, I see your distinction between "win" and "obtain"; I prefer to see it more as "claim," but I understand your point.

R:
On False Religions: Religious truth is like all other forms of truth. It can be explained through the allegory of the cave. However, the prisoners are confined to the cave, and cannot leave to see what the shadows are. They cannot indeduce it in whole. Everything they say and think about the outside world is ultimately spectualation, and will be at best, an imperfect description of reality.

Now, the Gospels do teach that a Man from the outside did enter the cave, and tell the prisoners the eyewitness truth about what is on the outside. They killed him for it.

Now, applying the metaphors, I would argue the Tribal Religions (named such because most of the World's religions are deeply tied into the cultures of which they emerged from, unlike Christianity which was the first religion to both claim and have universal status independent of any culture.) are like the men in the cave speculating. They may have some good ideas, they may have some deep understandings on the nature of reality, and they may have answers to the big questions that are acceptable their respective cultures. But ultimately, it's still lampadomancy, it's still divination. Christianity, on the other hand, claims a divine mediator, who hand delivered delivered the Truth to mankind from outside the cave.

Second, if you are an atheist, you argue there is nothing outside the cave, and all the spectuation is false. If you are a agnostic, you are argue all religions are equally lost about the nature of the shadows. Please explain how those views differ from mine? I mean, this is religious musings, this is a board where the subject matter is Christianity, and I get to argue on my religious beliefs.

Well, God did give a reason in Eden, "or surely you will die." I mean, clearly Humanity was better off not eating the apple, but I argue that Jonbar point had to happen.

God cannot be certian what the actions of humanity are going to be. There is a phrase in Scripture called "God Repented of his acts" The repentence is always done in conjunction with a change in human behavior. Take when God attacked Moses. He would have surely killed him, but Moses's wife circumsied his son, and God stopped, in accordance with his justice. It's humans that change, and any changes that God does are in reaction to human actions.

The problem with arguing the nature of the Devil is that much of what we think we know, is Persian in orgin, or properly belongs to mythology. I concede the evidence does exist to make the case that the Satan are a class of spirits that exist to seek out sin and where none exists to stir it up, rather than the Lucifer of Milton and Dante. But that the devil is part of God is not true. Christ himself identifies a scism between the two parties, and if Christ says their is one, then such one exists.

All evil serves God. It's not that they take orders from him, it's that evil actions can be bent to serve his will. If let's say, the devil was behind the death of Christ, like every other prophet, he served God's purposes.

Yeah, that works if you are a hedonist and suscribe to hedonism. I don't.

Nudity is tied to modesty. Christians are to dress in a humble manner, and are to not to sexually provoke one another.

If you are talking about nudity in art, it should be remembered that a lot of this stuff was the pornography for the rich of it's day.

Ok from the top. So since the other religions refuse to accept the "belief" that christians do they are not as good as christianity and that christianity is better. Very tolerant.

Also christianity is an amalgam of various cultural origins and has assimilated many pagen holidays and beliefs over its creation time. I would say that christianity owes its very existence to the pagen religions that preceded it.

How do those views as you put them differ from yours. On the surface not much. Deeper not really much either, it is all belief. The only thing that is true is science. And right now there is no scientifically acceptable proof for god or jesus as of yet. As for which one is the right one it is whichever one the person who holds them believes for themselves to be the right one for themselves and themselves alone.

No one has the right to deny another their personal beliefs as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on another or use their beliefs to harm another. I have said this repeatedly. This is why the christian taliban and all those who agree with them are evil and do not deserve respect or support. They try to destroy freedom, goodness and assimilate by force all who oppose them.

That is a chessy reason. Parents say i told you so so they dont have to deal with their children. So again according to the christian beliefs and your own words god wants huamsn to be children and not adults able to stand on their own.

And so the eternal and unchanging all knowing and all powerful god can change his mind and his actions because of us mere mortals? Wow so I guess he isnt as all powerful and unchanging as his press dept wants to make him out if a mere mortal can cause him to change that means we are more powerful.

Personally I like the constantine interpretation of the devil, and god and all.

So god is a manipulator and player who uses people and demons and everything for his own purposes? Thanks tahts what I always thought.

And what is that supposed to mean? I dont and have'nt said that to each their own is not the way to live. I just dont like the christian taliban's evil attitude of your way is the wrong way and ours is the ONLY way. Gee thanks I dont need or want you help go bugger off should be sufficient to get the biddies to stick their nose out of my business. To do otherwise is to be evil and risk punishment.

And what is sexual about somebody just being there nude? Sexuality is in the eye and mind of the beholder not in the mere fact of a person being naked. I mean my wife and I walk around nude sometimes if the weather, mood or moment strikes us (or like has happened recently someone pounding on the door at 3 in the morning) and we can differentiate between the nonsexual nudity of changing clothes or swimming in the pond from the sexual nudity of getting it on. Anyone who can't has the problem in their own head and is the pervert. Which unfortunately I think one of the most perverted people are the christian taliban as they see sex everywhere, sometimes in things that arnt even.

And you say pornography likes its something bad. What two or more consenting adults do of their own free will is no one's business but theirs.

Here are some highly pertinent comments I discovered in relation to the question of whether or not salvation is "earned" in the Christian doctrine. These are quoted from Dennis McKinsey's seminal and authoritative Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.

"The fatal flaw permeating the previous comments and observations (in which McKiney had quoted various Christian writers who took the stance that salvation was an unmerited free gift - ed.) however, lies in the fact that salvation is not a free gift at all. It is earned; it is merited. There's nothing free about it. Even in Christianity it must be earned. You must take an affirmative act, i.e., accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or face condemnation. One merits salvation when he accepts Jesus. In fact, salvation can't be denied if one commits himself to Christ."

"Biblicists fail to realize that faith itself is a work. You must do something, i.e., believe, in order to be saved. Salvation is not a gift and if you don't fulfill the necessary requirement, you can't be saved."

"Faith is as much a work as physical deeds, because both require people to take an affirmative act. Consequently, salvation is not a free gift. It is earned or achieved, is based on merit, is not based on grace or God's mercy, and has a price attached. God is obligated to pay a debt to all those who fulfill the requirement of believing. Although most biblicists say there is nothing you can do to merit salvation, in reality, percisely the opposite is true. There is not only something you can do; there is something you must do."

Sorry for the delay.
R: Tolerance is a fine civic and political value, however, it's not a religious virtue, in the same vein as charity or disassociation. Every religion makes the claim as having the best grasp on the Big Truths, this is not just a Christian thing. Muslims belive Christians are in error, Jews belive Christians are in error, and so on. However, I do not aruge as a Jew or a Muslim, I argue as a Christian.

I'm not sure what your point is. So Christianity borrowed a few cultural events. So what, the major doctrines have tracable orgins in scripture.

So it's a belief, what's your point. Who the heck cares what Science says about religious beliefs. Science should mind it's own business and stick to cosmic order, and leave cosmic purpose to the philosophers and theologicans. Science is merely a system of how we know things. Science can't prove a lot of things. It can't prove Justice, it can't prove Equality, and it can't prove Mercy. Abstract concepts that are beyond proof have been a part of human thought for ages. To restrict truth to the narrow definition of what can be tested and repeated is needlessly limiting.

No, God wanted humanity to be free of suffering, sin and to live in communion with him. Humanity rejected that, and gave up innocence. But then again, you haven't said what's so great about adults.

Umm, no. God is Just, and he must judge based on the facts at the time. If the Facts were to change, God would have to change his judgement accordingly, because the original premises on which his judgement were made are invalid. What God "can't" do is change his mind if all the facts stay the same. I mean, what rational being would? You must remember, God has knowlege of all the facts, so there is no new evidence, (which is grounds for appeal) and God has infinite Wisdom, and is Eternal (timeless) so he's not going to have a different insight over the passage of time (which is not grounds for appeal, but still happens to us mortals).

Spare me your cynicism. All relationships and social networks can be cast as explotation if you wish.

Hedonism is a Theory of Thomas Hobbs that actions should not be judged primarily not by the Greater good or a higher Truth, but rather by the pleasure or pain they cause. I'm not a hedonist. You appear to be.

Umm, yeah, the continued success of playboy shows there is no association between nudity and sex. No, your arguments are flawed because those activities are based upon an expectation of privacy, that other people won't see you, and that they are in front of your wife, which if you wish to go by Christian beliefs on marriage, should see you naked a lot.

As for pornography, may I remind you this is a message board about Christianity, not on libertarian social ethics. The Christian belief is that pornography does cause social harm. The Christian view on the proper purpose of sex is that it is a means of communicating love between husband and wife, and the futherance of procreation. What porn does is debases and distorts this, turning sex into the end, and the person becomes the means. It's an abuse of a beautiful gift. Again, not a debate on libertarian social ethics, the nature of free speech, or the fourth amendment rights, just on Christian morality.

The Christian belief is that pornography does cause social harm.
Luigi Novi: Whether porn causes harm would seem to be a matter of fact rather than belief, and therefore, would require evidence.

I guess the consensus of the opinions here is that the facts of history are irrelvant as the entertainment industry has taught us to live in and for the moment. The past is an anachronism and the future is not guaranteed for anyone so we only know what we experience and the latest fad that generates money for someone is what we devote our energy to until the next thing comes along to pique or interest when get jaded against our current line of thought. It never fails to amaze me when anyone claims that someone who is 'religious' is being non-Christian by being intolerant. They say Jesus was merciful toward everyone no matter what. I have read the Bible and find this is just not true. There are several occasions in which Jesus was considerably less than tolerant or merciful when he went out of his way to confront people. According to this thread, with current wisdom, I should be labelled anti-Semitic because I once had a Muslim roommate. Any set of soundly held beliefs is inherently contradictory since we who hold the beliefs are flawed. We are simply exchanging one set of dogmas for another. Any soundly held doctrine is based on self-interest and is therefore, by extension, intended to be offensive to everyone else. We need to determine how to deal with this percieved/implied offense. Usually we all want to sit in judgement and define everyone with the worst label we can find to give us a false sense of power over the other person. We think this is fair, but there is nothing 'fair' in life but the one the county puts on every year. There is only justness which is found by disagreeing without being disagreeable. Those who have little appreciation for the statements in this post will disagree, but I prefer to treat conflicting concepts to mine with dignity and respect. Anyone who cannot is so full of self loathing they are unable to appreciate any other point of view except that which they have been indoctrinated into. Whenever you can love another or vice-versa, it is not based on they can give you or what you can give them. Love is something a person gives to themselves through another. This is why 'Salvation' as a concept is neither an earning or a gift.

*Sigh* Pesti, pesti pesti.

As for tolerance I have heard it preached from the pulpit enough to make it as if it was one of the "virtues" of religion. And no Jesus was a very intolerant and down right hateful man at many times during the stories about him. Many christians are very intolerant and hateful. Intolerance is the backbone of the christian taliban's doctrine of hate and discrimination.

My point is that the christian church has made these claims to the origin of their faith and how it is all divinely authored and such. When many of the christian holidays and worships and rituals are just stolen from the very pagens they supposedly condemned. Assimilation by hook, crook or force.

Science is not a belief. It is the truth of how the universe works, it describes for the most part how and why and where and when. Basic physics, chemistry, science in general are both denied and ignored by many christians who are otherwise intelligent and should know better. Just because they would show how false and wrong man y of those beliefs are. I will agree that psychology and faith do overlap. And in those cases unless you are trying to figure things out for a court of law go with whichever makes you happy. For courts of law or other places where facts and the truth must rule such as courts science must always win and be the only choice allowed. And actually justice, mercy and equality are all part of the sciences of sociology and psychology. So they can be quantified and examined and determined, maybe not the same way as ions of salt or grains of sand but still.

What is so great about adults? Well for the most part we have free will to make choices and decisions for ourselves (within logical and reasonablew perimeters) without having someone else think for us. (for the most part if we can get the christian taliban to go away) We are responsible for ourselves and to ourselves (again within reasonable perimeters) and those we choose to be responsible for. The garden of eden and what your god wants are not innocence it is ignorance and being controlled and dominated worse than being a child or in basic. It is being treated like nothing more than an animal or property.

As for nudity and pornography. I was discussing in the relevence of christian beliefs as it has been taught and i have seen and experienced. Most of the "christians" I have encountered have been wierded out by nonsexual nudity which can be seperated by and from sexual based nudity by form, function, action and timing. Primarily actions of course. But then sex is mostly mental so it is in the eye of the beholder. But fine you think it is wrong and degrading, thats cool you dont have to look at it you dont have to do anything about it. Just dont say or do anything to stop other consenting adults from looking or doing with other consenting adults. Notice the words consenting adults in that phrase. That is part of free will. What two or more consenting adults do with their bodies or themselves is not your problem or your concern or your "god's" problem.

And as Luigi quite correctly pointed out. Harm is irrelevent to belief. To show harm you must show proof and so far not even the christian taliban has been able to show any incontrovertable proof or facts. What you or christianity believes about porn is irrelevant to society on the whole. I could say that many of the attitudes towards marriage that many christians have is degrading and harmful to women and society as a whole.

Ok as for this hedonism thing. You are obviously trying to be confused. Because good means taking actions to limit or prevent harm that equates out to pleasure. True I will give you that one should be pleased when they have taken good actions and should not be pleased when they have not. There is no need for a higher power or supernatural being in that statement. Just because I or someone who feels the way i do about that rejects the need for a supernatural mythological being or that there are no higher truths than good = no or little harm does not make that statement false or bad or untrue.

As for what is or is not true about your god that is a matter of belief and I concede that to you. You see your god as a good and just being. I dont even see your god as existing. I reject and denounce the existence of jesus or god. They are mere inventions of humanity. An ignorant humanity trying to understand the forces of an uncaring and unintelligent universe.

Brian: I want to explain this to you so you dont go down the wrong path with judging me. I have no beef with christians or religious people at all, given that they keep their religion and beliefs to themselves and do not try to impose their beliefs on others, use their beliefs as an excuse to discriminate, denigrate or otherwise hold themselves superior to anyone else just on their religion.

I have enountered way too many "christians" who think that just because they are christians they have the right and priviledge to tell anyone and everyone else how to think, feel, act or believe.

By my personal beliefs if you will, Each individual adult is responsible for their own life and must live that life with the least amount of harm to themselves and each other. But they must do so according to their own path.

So basically christians wanna be uptight and not have sex or nudity or listen to loud music or whatever fine let them. Just let someone who likes nudity, or sex or loud music or whatever do it. So long as it is only consenting adults who are involved. Those two words right there are the most important.

Also this country has a history of separation of chruch and state. Too many christian taliban members want to destroy that safety wall and turn this country into a theocracy. Somethign that anyone who values and defends decocracy, liberty and freedom and justice for all would not want to see happen.

And in closing I will say this: Better to be a social libertarian than a conservative secularist christian talibaner.

DUhh. Not secularist. I tried to make a pithy comment and got my words wrong. I am a secularist as humanity means more than religion. Humanity Is more immportant than religion. Secular is very much the wrong word for the christian taliban as they hate loathe and want to destroy the secular way of life.

So delete secular from that line. If I knew how I would.

Quite the contrary 'R' I want to thank you for helping to prove my point.
I don't wish to sound judgmental in return but to make an observation. You seem to use the same methods you disdain in others by using this forum to proselytize your views. For the record, I freely admit I am trying to make you consider an alternate viewpoint.
As a trained scientist who has been called to evaluate evidence, I find that science tends to intrigue me more about my religious beliefs. I have also become a fan of history. The facts always seem to confirm themselves. I have found that science and faith tend to go hand-in-hand. Of course junk science creates as much of a distortion as faith perverted. When people readinto the facts what they want to, well Hitler said: an old lie is more popular than a new truth.
I singularly fail to see what the separation of church and state has to do with anything (it is about as applicable as there being no law in the commonwealth where I live for driver's licenses to require photos…meaningless but it drives the conspiracy theory types nuts). I guess fanatics of all types need to have an agenda, I know I do.
That said, I know our beliefs are different but I wish you a blessed day.
I'm not a Muslim but I have been studying some things about Islam for my intellectual curiousity; since Taliban literally means "students of Islamic knowledge", I guess that makes me one?
I also have certain beliefs about God and Spiritual expression but have no formal training even though I have been active in my church. Since Secular literally means "someone who is not a clergyman or a professional person", I guess that one applies to me as well (even though I admit to having a strong 'religious' belief set.
Pobody's Nerfect LOL!!

Excuse me Brian. I'm not quite sure how i am prooving your point. My point is that there are many "christians" who would wish to take away or prohibit any way of life or POV other than their own narrow one. The christian taliban being the main proponents of changing america's laws to weaken the seperation of church and state that our founding fathers so diligently and strongly advocated and worked towards.

I will admit that "christians" are not the only group with that agenda or goal as there are exteremists for most POV. I get irritated and mad at those further left than myself even. Personally my POV is you life your life I life my life and unless I come •••• on your wheaties or you pee on mine we get along just fine. You( not menaing you specifically but generically) have your beliefs and be happy with them and anyone who agrees with you and is a consenting adult and those who agree with me go do our thing.

I am a student of history and a hobbiest level scientist. (mainly astronomy but they are all exciting and interesting) And for me science has helped me move away from religion and faith as it shows there is no need for a god or divine answer for everything that goes on in the world. But I dont particularly care if you believe the sun rises because some divine being causes it or its just orbital dynamics. Just leave the sceince class to science and philosophy class to philosophy. And you are right junk science is just as bad if not worse than misguided faith. That is why the only truth is that which stands up from no matter which POV you look at it.

But speaking historically it has appeared to me that the second greatest cause of conflict and strife throughout the history of humanity has been religion. People have been willing to kill and maim and commit the worst atrocities just because the neighboring village wont bow down to the same image or say the same words your village does. Sheer stupidity in my book. Not to say that there are any good reasons to do any of that either mind you. Murder is still murder whether you do it in the name of god or king or resources.

Rather than go back over the history of my search and exploration of religion suffice it to say that i have studied enough of religion to be able to consider the alternative POV of the religious. And will agree that there are many good religious people, some of hom i do call friend. But they respect that i do not follow their beliefs and do not try to push theirs on me as i dont on them. The christian taliban do not respect anyone and wish to push their intolerance and hatred and narrowminded bigotry on everyone else who does not think like them.

As for proselyzing. This is a public discussion board. A soapbox in the town square if you will. I try to stay within the rules and respectfully debate ideas and give each their say. Though it has been dificult sometimes. But I dont quite see how what i say is the same as those i fight against. If you do then well thats you. Ill try and explain or clarify anythign a person asks me to ,if i can, and I am an emotional person so sometimes i shoot from the lip. But thats not uncommon among anyone, from any direction of the spectrum.

Oh and to clarify again who the christian taliban are: (I am aware of the direct literal translation) They are those "christian" fundamentalists who wish to impose and force their moral, ethical, religious and behavioral beliefs and codes upon all others who may or may not believe the same as them. Those who feel that just because they are christians they are the only ones who know the truth about life the universe and everything and since you are not of the body you know nothing. And when I say taliban I am more identifying and linking these individuals with the former islamic extremists who ruled afghanistan before we legally invaded that country.

Well I've never said I have ALL the answers just a lot more that make sense than the religious ones, at least for me and my life. And believe it or not I'm not offended by a polite bless you (its when someone says I'll pray for your soul in that holier than thou voice that i get peeved) and I'll wish you a good day in return.

PS how are things in Virginia? (If I recall my commonwealths correctly)

Just passing through and had to respond to this ...

>Here are some highly pertinent comments I discovered in relation to the question of whether or not salvation is "earned" in the Christian doctrine. These are quoted from Dennis McKinsey's seminal and authoritative Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.

>"The fatal flaw permeating the previous comments and observations (in which McKiney had quoted various Christian writers who took the stance that salvation was an unmerited free gift - ed.) however, lies in the fact that salvation is not a free gift at all. It is earned; it is merited. There's nothing free about it. Even in Christianity it must be earned. You must take an affirmative act, i.e., accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or face condemnation. One merits salvation when he accepts Jesus. In fact, salvation can't be denied if one commits himself to Christ."

>"Biblicists fail to realize that faith itself is a work. You must do something, i.e., believe, in order to be saved. Salvation is not a gift and if you don't fulfill the necessary requirement, you can't be saved."

>"Faith is as much a work as physical deeds, because both require people to take an affirmative act. Consequently, salvation is not a free gift. It is earned or achieved, is based on merit, is not based on grace or God's mercy, and has a price attached. God is obligated to pay a debt to all those who fulfill the requirement of believing. Although most biblicists say there is nothing you can do to merit salvation, in reality, percisely the opposite is true. There is not only something you can do; there is something you must do."
-Todd Pence

What in the heck is Mr McKinsey talking about?

He suggests that by taking an affirmative action, i.e., accepting Christ as Lord, you are earning salvation, and that God is obligated to provide it. This is absurd on it's face. If a friend gives me a gift and I accept it, an affirmative act, then is it no longer a gift? Have I now somehow earned that gift? No. I did no work nor did I pay any price for that gift. My acceptance of it did not retroactivily require that my friend buy it for me.

According to the American Heritage dictionary (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gift), a gift is "Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation." Christ's death on the cross was voluntary, and nothing we do can hope to begin to compensate for that gift. Accepting Christ as Lord is simply signing for the package at the door, nothing more.

Well, also according to the AHD

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=earn

I think that defintion number two is the one that best applies to the situation under discussion. Note the key phrase here - "to acquire OR deserve as a result of effort or action." This means that one may not deserve the attainment in question, but one may still acquire it.

I have to reiterate what I said in my post on 1/23 - if a person gains salvation, or has it bestowed upon them by performing an act; while another person under the same conditions does not acquire salvation because they did not perform that action, then it is axiomatic that salvation is "earned". I do understand your point about "belief" being an active act, versus "acceptance", which is essentially a passive act. But I think the Bible verses which discuss the issue of salvation consistently preach that one needs an active belief (John 3:18, John 3:36, Acts 16:30-31, John 8:24, Mark 16:16, etc., etc.) I think this whole issue is best summed up in Ephesians 2:8-9, which seems to me to be a self-contradictory statement: "By grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God . . ." if the faith is entirely on your part, then how can salvation be said to be "not of yourselves"?

>Well, also according to the AHD

>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=earn

>I think that defintion number two is the one that best applies to the situation under discussion. Note the key phrase here - "to acquire OR deserve as a result of effort or action." This means that one may not deserve the attainment in question, but one may still acquire it.

>I have to reiterate what I said in my post on 1/23 - if a person gains salvation, or has it bestowed upon them by performing an act; while another person under the same conditions does not acquire salvation because they did not perform that action, then it is axiomatic that salvation is "earned".
-Todd Pence

Only under a very distorted view of the definition of "earn." The action that the definition refers to has to be of some signifigance; otherwise, the definition is meaningless, and nearly ANY acquisition would consititute earning. I again refer you to my analogy of the friend giving me a gift. I have to take the action of accepting the gift (i.e. taking the package from his hands, or picking it up from where he left it). Have I now earned that gift through my action? No. It is not axiomatic, it is absurd!

>I do understand your point about "belief" being an active act, versus "acceptance", which is essentially a passive act.
-Todd Pence

I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding me, or I am misunderstanding you, but that was not my point at all. Belief and acceptance are not distinctly different concepts. In fact, they are synonymous. One can not be active while the other is passive when they are practically the same thing.

My point was the belief in Jesus' resurection/acceptance of Christ as Lord are insignificant acts compared to the salvation and everlasting life that God provides. They are equivalent of accepting a birthday gift from a friend, and come nowhere close to earning salvation.

>But I think the Bible verses which discuss the issue of salvation consistently preach that one needs an active belief (John 3:18, John 3:36, Acts 16:30-31, John 8:24, Mark 16:16, etc., etc.)
-Todd Pence

Aside from a reference to baptism in the Mark passage, none of the scripture you cited speaks of anything active about belief. There are many passages that speak of needing to take action with our faith, but none place works above faith. The active faith they refer to is a faith that spurs us into action, not one derived from our actions.

>I think this whole issue is best summed up in Ephesians 2:8-9, which seems to me to be a self-contradictory statement: "By grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God . . ." if the faith is entirely on your part, then how can salvation be said to be "not of yourselves"?
-Todd Pence

Who says the faith is on our part? Faith is listed as one of the "fruit of the Spirit" in Gal 5:22 and is listed as a spiritual gift in 1 Cor 12:9. That is why some are referred to as having "perfect faith" when our fallen, sinful natures preclude perfection: because the faith is not coming from us, but from the Spirit. (There is a whole predestination/free-will/Elect argument here, but it's tangential to the primary issue.)

OK works and actions are meaningless. Faith and acceptance of jesus as your savior are the only merits to get into heaven. That means a person can be the biggest, meanest bigoted jerk ever. Cruel to people and it wont matter because they will get into heaven just like mother theresa.

At least thats what it sounds like you are saying.

"Faith with Works" has to be carefully balanced between two variations which can, if not carefully delineated, border on the heretical: "Faith, not Works" and "Works and Faith." Of the two, the average modern person (Christian only by upbringing, lapsed Christian, "post-Christian," or non-Christian) trying to understand Christian Faith is more likely to fall into the heresey related to the "Works and Faith" extreme. Because of this many Christian apologetics over-emphasize the "Faith, not Works" position.

Very often people emphasizing "Faith, not Works" over "Works and Faith" do sound like your proposed example is what they mean. There are even some times when that is exactly what a few of them do believe. But that is why there is the letter of James.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
-- James 2:14-20

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Not 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. Many 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? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-- Matthew 7:15-23

R:
The problem with tolerance is that it is a compromise with evil. That may be a matter for politics, but is not for religion. Jesus should call it as it is. He should call people lying hypocrites, when they are in fact, lying hypocites. He should call them sinners, when they are in fact, sinners. Jesus did not serve man, Jesus served his Father, and should call it by God's words. Truth is a defense. Now, Christians should be forgiving on others faults, should always assume the best, and should focus on their own sins first before dealing with the sins of others, and above all else, live life in great humility as Christ did by taking on human form, but never should they allow evil and falsehood to rule this world without challenge.

No, the pagan orgins of Christian holidays does not affect their validity one way or the other. St. Paul states, be all things to all people, appeal to both Jews and Gentiles. As long as hey belive in the Gospel of Christ Cruficied, why does how they celerbrate Christmas matter? Christ still died on the Cross, regardless of where the idea for Easter eggs came from.

Second, your whole point contradicts previous statements of yours. Earlier, you criticize the Chruch for being static, unchanging, and unresponsive to the needs of a changing world. Now you criticize the church for being dynamic, adaptive, and highly responsive for creating a universal appeal amoung various cultures. Which is it?

No, science does not deal with truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Science deals with facts. Namely, facts which are 1. provable (or testable) and 2. subject to peer review. Claims about the existance of God are not provable and not subject to peer review, and therefore are not an area of valid scientific inquiry. Claims about the Death and Ressurection of Christ are based on eyewitness testimony, and must be accepted or denied on witness reliability, not empirical evidence. Do you really think my faith is such a minor thing it can be underminded by your spectulation?

Well, you see the problem is that Mercy et alt pre-exists the social sciences. So while they may have a theory on why they are prevelant, they cannot 1. define them as good, or 2. foster or promote them. But that's not the point. The point is that there are many things that are either not testable by the scientific method or exist only as ideas in the human mind that are not "Scientific Truth."

Again, you are confusing Free will, innocence, desire, liberty, and religious and political perspectives on such matters. Adam and Eve posessed free will. Free will is just the ability to reject the commands of the Lord, not to wear pink or red to the school dance. Innocence is not to be a child, it's to be child like. It's to be pure and free from corruption and evil desires. And that is the one true freedom, to be free from desire, which is the cause of suffering, freedom from which is what all men want, not personal sovereignty.

I'm sorry, but I missed the part of the Bible and the Constitution where "Two Consenting Adults" became a defense agaist Divine Judgement or the exception where it says I have freedom of speech, but not to condemn the actions of others.

Yeah, I wasn't having a discusion on pornography. I was stating the it is wrong under Christian belief in general, and that nudity which is little better than pornography is is likely to be detested by Christians.

Again, I am not a hedonist. I do not belive all pleasure is good nor do I belive all suffering is bad. If you are going to make a claim that something is bad because it causes pain, and that alone is your judge, it is not persusaive. In fact, I belive pleasure just begets the desire for more pleasure, which continues to grow until it is instatible. True happiness comes from the lack of desire, and a good life.

And in closing, it is supreme folly to forsake the eternal for the sake of ash and dust.

Yes R, under Christianity, all men can be saved, regardless of their actions.

Tom M: Well written.

No I am not changing my statement you are. I have said that the christian taliban is static and old fashioned in an inquisatorial way. By claiming that the church is the divine word and end all be all of their god and then assimilating the pagan rituals which they then condemn all pagens is just a bit hypocritical.

Whatever about religion. I leave that to you. I dont care anymore. In this country the Constitution of the United States means and is superior to the Bible when it comes to laws and public policy of our government. Freedom of and from religion and seperation of church and state is one of the founding fathers strongest bedrocks for our country.

The thing about religion is that it all comes down to personal point of view. Not the truth the truth is the facts beyond what you or i interpret and science best serves and displays the truth. religion is about what we think or believe is the truth. Science IS TRUTH! Religion is merely the perception of that truth as filtered through a person's beliefs. It does not matter if you beieve in the science all that matters is that it is real and true and unfilted.

No one has not said that you or the christian taliban are to be denied the right of speech. But there is a difference between speaking against and acting against others. The christian taliban's hateful and evil actions are what the defenders of good seek to deny.

And tolerance is not a compromise with evil it is accepting and humbling yourself and acknowledging that you are not the egotistical end all and be all of the universe.

I did not say causes pain I said causes harm. There is more harm than mere physical or emotional pain. There is loss of honor, dignity, position, freedom, among other things.

And what I meant was that a person can be "saved" by believeing in the person jesus and still be one of the worst and cruddiest person doing as much harm as possible but still being a "good christian" and believing they are getting into heaven and doing good.

And the church's actions in assimilating the other culture's rituals was not an act of peaceful joining or creating a universal appeal but of agressive destruction of the other culture's beliefs faith and a prime example of the church's intolerance and fear of anything they cannot control or understand or accept.

About the "earning salvation" argument: Here is one way to look at it. If your friend gives you a gift, it's not that you are not required to earn it. It's just that your friend has greatly reduced the requirement for earning it. You earn it by accepting it from him because he has decided that's all you need to do. If you don't do that, then you won't have it, simple as that. So a Christian still earns salvation (by his act of faith); that's enough to earn it because God has changed the definition of "earn" so that man can meet it. After all, if there was no earning required of any kind, all men would be saved with no effort on their part. (And we certainly can't have that.)

However, if the Holy Spirit determines who has faith and who doesn't (as Dustin mentioned), that answers the "earned" argument in a different way, because in that event, it is not earned. But that opens up the whole predestination issue. God saves who he wants and the rest are out of luck. I don't see any Justice in that, but since God gets to define what's fair, I guess that settles it. And it also makes me glad to have escaped religion and those kind of circular arguments.

And the original point of the "earned" argument was: Why does God use "faith" (which is basically believing something because you want to believe it) as the sole determining factor of our eternal destiny? In fact, why is that even a good thing at all?

God uses faith because the whole point is that we cannot control our own destiny (i.e., earn salvation). The only predicating factor is whether or not we accept God's gift, which is accomplished through faith.

I did, until I realized that it was just a non-winning lottery ticket.

I guess I should mention how I'm using the word "faith." I include in the definition a. the belief that God exists in the first place, as well as b. trust or acceptance in him. He could show himself (like my friend would do if he wanted to give me a gift). Then faith in the existence of God would not be necessary; we would have knowledge of the fact. And we would still be able to accept the gift (exhibiting definition b). That kind of faith means you're simply choosing to follow him. But why does our perception of his very existence have to depend on faith? If it's all based on faith, you would never know if you're wrong.

Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." God never says he is going to show himself.

If he did, that would clear up too many things.

R: Okay, so you are claiming that Christian Traditions that are of Pagan orgins invalidate Christian doctrine that are of divine orgin. Either, A, I don't see what the problem is, or B. I've reconciled the problem so long ago I don't see the problem now. I mean, festivles are outward expressions. They do not control the meaning of the Holiday. But ultimately, it's not important that they belive it, it's important that we belive it.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

You see, the problem is, most religious people belive what they belive to be the Truth. They don't claim it to be a point of view. Truth and True are not the same thing in philosophy.

No, humility and tolerance are not the same thing. Abe Lincon was one of the most humble of all men. yet he was not tolerant at all. The same could be said for Jesus Christ, or Martin Luther King Jr. Humility is awareness of one' self in the universe, as well as riding one of all pride. But it does not mean turning a blind eye to evil, on the grounds you are not better than it.

And well, as for science, it's great, but it's not the Truth, nor does it make such a claim. Truth is one of those big concepts. It's a methodolgy of evaluating statements about the nature of physical reality.

St. Paul, who refers to himself as the Chief of Sinners, persecuted the Church, only to find forgiveness within.

Your views on the spread of Christianity are baseless. I realize that the Secular Humanists think that Christians have some sort of Sith Mind Trick, before which large armies are killed by elderly clerics with bibles, and that's why the State needs protection from the Church, but it's not true. Christianity won converts throughout the world, including the hostile pagan nations of both the Romans and the Germans without state support. Numbers of Christians are heavily increasing in Africa, where we don't have state support. Christianity has held on in Europe and is growing, where the state has been mostly hostile for the last 200 years. Christianity is the most powerful in the USA, where it hasn't had state support in at least 200 years. The Papacy has become more powerful, when shorn of temporal power.

The standard examples you will bring up, such as the inquestion and the middle ages, are better examples of the cruelity of politics, not faith.

In contrast, Secularism and Democracy cannot even be forced with the barrel of a gun. So how could Christianity?

You are quite welcome for the civics lesson. It seems that many in the christian taliban could use one as well.

And I am sorry to inform you but your religion is merely a Point of View. It is your POV that there is a great spirit called god and that he made an avatar in human form and called it jesus and that everyone has to live by christian rules or go to hell. That requires faith and belief. Just like any other religion it depends on the POV of the fololwer. And just because there are quite a few people who share your point of view does not necessarily make it the most correct or the most universal of POV. Just ask the millions of muslims, or jews or people who fall into the "other" category.

Now as for science it is not a POV. It is the TRUTH because it does not matter if you believe or have faith in science it exists as it does and plays by its own rules regardless of whether you want to or not. Whether you believe in gravity or not you jump out of tree you will experience it. Even if you have all the faith in the world and beliuef that you wont.

I like your comparison of christians with the sith. Both use dark and evil methods to spread like a cancer and destroy freedom and intelligence. I never said there was a mind trick just your usual indoctrination of the young, brainwashing of the weak minded and willed who like to be led and told how to think and act and feel. Religion plays on the hatred and ignorance of people. Bringing out the egotistical we are better than them attitude. Dividing people and driving them to hate and perform evil acts.

You are right secularism and democracy cannot be forced but are the natural result of people rejecting evil actions, rejecting ignorance and growing up and taking their rightful place in the universe.

And as for the holidays. Take christmas, the orginal pagan holiday was more of a celebration of life in the middle of winter and praised the earth goddess. Along come the christians. You can't worship the earth thats not our god! they say. So they make up a holiday by claiming it to be the birth of their jesus. Changing the name of the god(ess) worshiped, the purpose of the holiday and effectively ending the pagan form of worship except for those holdout who managed to hide their faith from the christians.

R: Look, you clearly don't know enought about epistemology to continue this debate.

Once again, I could state the great good men of faith have done in the world for the last few ages, but clearly in your mind some hicks from the town over who didn't vote for Kerry negates that in your mind.

Except of course, when secularism and democracy are oppressive.

I'm still not getting this. Nobody that I know is celerbrating the Earth Mother, (Nor did they in antiquity, since the two holidays always named as predescessors to Chirstmas are named for male deities) when they have Christmas Dinner. I again say, so what? I'm not honoring Thor by using saying two days ago was Thursday, nor am I honoring Apollo by calling this month April. I'm not honoring some Anglo-Saxon Goddess by celerbrating Easter. They are just form, not content.

The form of the church is part of the content of the church. Wars have been fought by churches and religious organizations over the very thing.

And I fight against ANY opression of the individual person be it relgious or secular.

And once again you show your urban prejudice against country people. How typical of a person from the mistake on the lake region.

R: Look, I don't claim to know your personal beliefs, but I get the impression that you have issues with religious rural people who voted for Bush.

Okay.

Well, let me elaborate on form issue. The Content of the Church consists of all of the Truths, teachings, and general message of salvation throught the sacrifice of Christ. This includes things like the Gospels, or the Doctrine of Justification through Faith Alone. The form aspects consist of things like, how the church is organized, how the church is ran. This includes things which Hymnbooks to use, or to have contemporary or traditional services, or the level of lay involvement. Yes, I agree that sometimes these overlap, and that form follows content, but that the former is different from the latter by level of importance. For example, all Christians must belive in the Physical Resurection of Christ. They don't have to celerbrate Easter with eggs and jellybeans.

Ok first about form and content. I think we have been going down paralell paths with this. Form is very important because the form is what many outsiders see when they look at a particular religion. If the form doesnt draw then a person does not hear the content. Also the way that content is delivered can have an affect on if a person hears the message or not.

I grew up in a rural area so I am quite used to people being religious. Most of the time people have had a live and let live attitude where if you dont pee on their weaties they wont kick your arse.

With the rise of Bush though things have changed a bit. People are getting more offensive in their faith. Willing to step on someone else's toes and less tolerant of someone being different. Although it is still more of an urban thing than a rural thing.

For example I go to Milford and I have detailed my struggles with one of the churches of christ and its talibaner members.

I go to West Union (Adams COunty)and there isnt that much of an attitude or hate spewing done by the religious folks. Though there are plenty of we support the ten commandments yard signs, yellow ribbons and people wearing crosses and other nonconfrontational signs.

Non-confrontational would be the best word to describe the relgious behavior in the rural area. An attitude of this is our faith and our religion take it or leave it we like it so bugger off.While the urban is a bit more confrontational and willing to get up in your face and tell you off if you dont bow down and kowtow to their faith and religion. This is not to say that everyone in either one of these places falls into one of those categories as I have encountered confrontational rurals and nonconfrontational urbans, though not many.

And as for having a problem with those who voted for Bush, rural or urban. *shrug* it doesnt really matter anymore. Like it or not we are having to deal with him and his legacy and do the best we can.

Well, of course. Form does matter in that aspect.

I can't really speak to the confrontational versus non confrontational matter. I'm from the inner city, where the main problem is how to maintain a church that was built for 400 people with a congragation of 120.

That is interesting. I know of several churchs in this area that have had to move to bigger spaces, or expand, because their old ones where too small. Most of the other churchs I'm aware of are either holding steady or have only had small drops.

And then of course you have the mega churches like the one in texas (that I cant recall teh guy's or his churches name) that used to be a stadium.

Could be the problem with the 400 person church. Others went to a mega church and now not enough are left to fill the mid sized ones.

Same thing happened to the theater industry back around 2000. These big 24/30 plex theaters were being built and a bunch of the old 8-plexes closed down because no one wanted to go to a theater that couldn't open th latest big release on 4 screens with a showing starting every half hour.

Well there is that. And there is also that maybe people of that faith have moved out of the area and not enough people of that faith want to travel or live near enough to the church to wanna go there. Or maybe the message, tone or attitudes of that church have changed and people dont want to go there because of that. There's several problems that it could be.

A Theological Question I
once heard , it went like this
"For Christians is it really sincere genuine love of God if they follow Christ just to go to Heaven when they die, just to go to Heaven and escape Hell, is that the proper
Motivation for people to follow Christ, the type of love God wants"

Jeff, I want you to scroll up to the topofthis page and see how a real debate runs. A question (or more accurately 32 questions) were asked and answered.

Try that method sometime.