Something that has always bothered me about christianity.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Is this a good thread for me to come out of the closet in?

Perfect!

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

Rules? Who gave us these rules? Show me that they came from god and I'll listen.

As far as our "limited human perception" I completely agree. We're VERY limited in our understanding of why we're here (if there's any purpose at all), and what is "out there" which is why I cannot rationalize it by saying "god did it". I need a bit more. Personally, I think those that "reject" god are the ones that end to accept their "limited human perception"...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

Basically the only solid point here is that people who do not believe will be damned.

Man, that is a great (read: funny) line.

[st.cronin]

rexallsc I suppose it depends on what you imagine 'God' to mean. I have always defined it as 'that which I do not understand.'

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

rexallsc I suppose it depends on what you imagine 'God' to mean. I have always defined it as 'that which I do not understand.'

I guess so. To me, "that which I do not understand" is simply "that which I do not understand". I would feel ridiculous trying to label or explain it.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

If its true, then God is not just, and if God is not just, God is not God.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

If its true, then God is not just, and if God is not just, God is not God.

How so?

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

The thing is there is nothing that says those who were not exposed to God will be sent to hell. Also theres nothing that says they will automatically go to heaven that I know of. Its just not dealt with as far as I know. So those that are saying I dont want to be a christian if God isnt fair are either looking for a cop out or seriously jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

[Passacaglia]

Since we're talking about Christianity, here's my question for y'all. It may have ben touched upon on here before, but: Is Christianity monotheistic? I mean, there's the Trinity -- father, son, and holy ghost. More specifically, Christianity makes several references to Jesus being God and Jesus being the son of God -- which is it?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Since we're talking about Christianity, here's my question for y'all. It may have ben touched upon on here before, but: Is Christianity monotheistic? I mean, there's the Trinity -- father, son, and holy ghost. More specifically, Christianity makes several references to Jesus being God and Jesus being the son of God -- which is it?

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

[judicial clerk]

The question posed is one of my big religious questions. Another is how do we know that the Bible is true?

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

How so?

Well, what I'm trying to say is, God wouldn't limit himself to people over the age of 7 and living particular regions or cities or towns. Its true that the vast majority of people in the world don't pick their religion (survey them all and choose the best one for themselves) but ones culture and environment determines ones religion.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

Well it wasn't too hard for the theologian who made it up to understand. The word Trinity isn't even in the Bible and there are only references to the Trinity that can be easily interpreted different ways within the bible.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Well, what I'm trying to say is, God wouldn't limit himself to people over the age of 7 and living particular regions or cities or towns.

Again, how so? The will of God is something man doesn't have access to, except insofar as it manifests itself in his personal experience.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Again, how so? The will of God is something man doesn't have access to, except insofar as it manifests itself in his personal experience.

Let me rephrase that, the alternative to what I am saying is bascially if your born in a certain area then your already damned.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So what your saying is basically that since someone was born in a certain area, then they are damned?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that you seem to think that God's will is something that can be understood and reasoned with (or about).

[Sharpieman]

So God's will is not reasonable?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Well it wasn't too hard for the theologian who made it up to understand.

bolded the important part there for you.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

I think you're skewing this a bit. For those who actively search for and choose a religion (rather than simply taking the one they inherited), it only makes sense to go with the one that makes the most sense and "feels right" to the person. I may reject a concept of God because it does not fit in what I believe to be fair, and choose a different concept of God because it does fit in what I believe to be fair. Beyond what makes the most sense to me and feels the most right to me, what basis to I have to choose religion A over religion B?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

In my metamathematics class, there was a theorem that said something like a contradiction implies anything. One of the other students in my class used to say whenever he was implying something from a contradiction, "I am the pope," meaning he could state whatever fact he wanted to. It seems fitting in this case, since I am the pope.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.

Kinda makes it tough to do "his bidding" then, doesn't it?


EDIT: Damn time stamp bug.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So God's will is not reasonable?

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.

So God is irrational now. If what you are saying is true, then there is no reason to speculate or practice religion because it is all beyond our understanding. Without having meaning in ones life its pointless to live.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So God is irrational now. If what you are saying is true, then there is no reason to speculate or practice religion because it is all beyond our understanding. Without having meaning in ones life its pointless to live.

Incorrect. If God's Will is beyond your understanding, it does not follow that God's Will is without reason.

And the meaning one finds in one's life ... well, I'm not going to touch that one just yet. Too many ways to go.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Me too, but I'd rather learn vicariously through someone else.

Maybe on Level One they just give you a hot foot or a wedgie a few times a day.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Incorrect. If God's Will is beyond your understanding, it does not follow that God's Will is without reason.

And the meaning one finds in one's life ... well, I'm not going to touch that one just yet. Too many ways to go.

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm

DM

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

And they could be totally right. It would behoove you to determine which it is. The stakes are very high.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

And they could be totally right. It would behoove you to determine which it is. The stakes are very high.

Or completely meaningless depending on the "right" answer.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

Yet it was created by man! Heeelarious!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

Well, sure. That's one way of looking at it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm

DM

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours,
but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour
and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Let me rephrase that, the alternative to what I am saying is bascially if your born in a certain area then your already damned.

WHICH IS WHY WE BOMB THE HEATHENS.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you can help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." -GWB

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Celeval

And Mark leaves a nice wide hole for those who may believeth and are not baptized. Your point?

"He that believeth not shall be damned." Which part of that is ambiguous?

That is what we are talking about here. Those who "believeth not" because the all knowing, all powerful, benevolent god neglected to give them an opportunity to beleiveth and, therefore, damned them.

Unless you go with the loophole theory.

There's a loophole (which the perfect jesus forgot to mention) that says if you haven't heard about it, then you're not damned but instead go somewhere else.

If you go to heaven under the loophole, that's very strange, because then you have running around in heaven, for example, the mayas whom I alluded to in a previous post who spent their lives worshiping various gods, sacrificing humans, committing all sorts of unspeakable atrocities, who get in under the "didn't hear about it" loophole. In contrast, take someone like Gandhi who actually put christ's teachings into practice and lived by them but was never a christian or any of the millions of Jews who spent their lives devoutly worshiping god (the same one as the christians) and doing nothing but good works during their lives but get damned to burn in hell for eternity because they did not accept jesus as their savior.

That's one strange loophole and one strange system of heaven and hell.

Or maybe the loophole is that those who weren't given the opportunity to believeth go someplace other than heaven, maybe to a better kind of hell than Gandhi and the Jews get (for they must get the worst, having rejected christ) or maybe some type of limbo where they wait around for thousands of years until jesus comes back and says, "I'm king of the world," and at that point they all get to accept him and go to heaven despite their lives of idol worship and atrocities.

Still a very strange loophole and strange system of heaven and hell.

In any event, where are these loopholes explained in the bible? I'd like to read them.

[Telle]

There is a liberal Christian train of thought that basically says that "hell" is merely being separated from God. So I suppose that those that never heard of God to begin with won't exactly know what they're missing out on.. and thus them "going to hell" isn't that big of a deal.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by yabanci

In any event, where are these loopholes explained in the bible? I'd like to read them.

They're not. And I'm okay with that. There are absolutely things that one has to take on faith... or come to terms with not understanding everything. Doesn't mean I don't want to understand, just that I don't believe I will fully understand until... whatever comes.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Telle

There is a liberal Christian train of thought that basically says that "hell" is merely being separated from God. So I suppose that those that never heard of God to begin with won't exactly know what they're missing out on.. and thus them "going to hell" isn't that big of a deal.

Actually, that's a very jewish view.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

Absolutely.

[panerd]

So on 9-11-01 a athiest firefighter goes into the twin towers and saves a bunch of Christians and is killed in the process. One of those saved lived a life of crime, deciet, and ill will towards man but repented and now has asked for God's forgiveness. When you show me a church that will correctly tell me which of the two men (firefighter or low life) deserves to be in heaven and I will start considering listening to Christianity again.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by panerd

So on 9-11-01 a athiest firefighter goes into the twin towers and saves a bunch of Christians and is killed in the process. One of those saved lived a life of crime, deciet, and ill will towards man but repented and now has asked for God's forgiveness. When you show me a church that will correctly tell me which of the two men (firefighter or low life) deserves to be in heaven and I will start considering listening to Christianity again.

We are saved by grace, not works. Because none are truly worthy, not one.

[Raiders Army]

I believe that there are reasons for everything. Maybe not good reasons, but there are reasons for everything. The answer to the OP's question is another question. Why are we here? What is our reason for being here and living a life? If that answer is found, then the OP's question can be answered.

Personally, I like to think that maybe we experience "life" and then when we die, we experience "life" on a difference level. Perhaps there is no Heaven or Hell, and the only reason why those concepts were brought about were to scare people into being good and providing a "just reward" for good people.

If God is all-powerful, then why is there a Devil? Why does God let good people die? Well, one theory is that God is selfish. God wants us to pick him. Is God a good guy? There are many arguments saying that maybe he isn't. Who would kill millions in a flood (don't tell me that Noah and his family were the only good people in the world)? The Old Testament is full of God being wrathful and perhaps a little unmerciful.

So God says don't pick these other religions or you won't go to the Playboy Mansion of the afterlife. Fine. The Devil is evil. Don't pick him. Great. Now, people are left with no choice but to pick God (who may or may not necessarily be a good dude). I believe God was the first politician. These guys are evil. I may have my faults, but pick me because I'm the best choice. I'll even sacrifice my son so you'll join me. I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is that there is no choice. Christians may argue that people have a choice, but God offers none.

My nickel.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by yabanci

In contrast, take someone like Gandhi who actually put christ's teachings into practice and lived by them but was never a christian or any of the millions of Jews who spent their lives devoutly worshiping god (the same one as the christians) and doing nothing but good works during their lives but get damned to burn in hell for eternity because they did not accept jesus as their savior.

Who does Gandhi think he is, being born in India and all?

[Airhog]

He probably thinks he's Ghandhi

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Airhog

He probably thinks he's Ghandi

You lost me there!

[st.cronin]

To me the questions of hell and evil are primarily academic questions, and are tangential to the essential nature of Christianity, which is

That God loves us and wants us to be happy, and

That we need not fear death.

[Abe Sargent]

Okay, Rev. Sargent weighing in here. First of all, it is never unfair to ask questions of Christianity, God, or faith. No question, asked to gain knowledge and enlightenment, is inappropriate.

The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to this question, because the question was not addressed in the writers of the Bible. There are several legitimate interpretations of the Bible on this point, based on where you put your weight.

1). Some believe that the idea of original sin means that all mankind is doomed to Hell unless they repent. Since those who have not heard of God cannot repent, they are bound to Hell.

2). Some believe that the idea of original sin applies once someone has sinned. To be fair, even children can sin. Even when I was 6, I knew that when I shoplifted from the local store, it was wrong. I hid my actions, I did not tell anybody, I hid the comics I stole in my room so no one would ask questions, and so forth. Once a child is old enough to sin, then they are old enough to ask for repentance. Failure to do so results in going to Hell after death.

3). Through a combination of nature, intuition, and experience, God reveals himself to all men. Even if they have never heard the gospel, they can know he exists and accept him as their lord, and are judged on that.

4). God, as the knower of all knowable things, knows hypothetical knowledge as well. Therefore, God knows whether or not a specific person would have accepted God, if they had the appropriate information. As such, God will judge those based on the predicate choices they made.

5). When a person dies, they stand before God to be judged. At that time, anybody who has not had an opportunity to do so, will have a chance to be redeemed.

6). Prior to Christ, all people who died went to Hades, where they lived in either Paradise or Sheol (this is Old Testament doctrine) based on their actions and decisions. After Christ died, he decended into Hell to set free those who lived in Paradise to take them to Heaven. The Paradise/Sheol dichotomy is also used for those who have never heard the Word of God, and when Christ comes back a second and final time, again the captives will be freed, and the remainder will be sent to the Lake of Fire.

7). God has preordained who will accept him and who will deny him. As a result, those who never heard, were preordained to never hear and never choose, and thus they suffer damnation.


All of those are arguably Biblical. You can find support for any of these views, and they all appear to be legitimate interpretations of scripture. I may have missed one or two (although I intentially left out extra-Biblical answers). How one answers this question helps to determine what doctrine you adhere to. For example, I am an Arminian. That means I am essentially anti-Calvin. I reject any idea of predestination, and believe instead that God is a living being whose interactions with us can change things.

To me, an ordained minister with a heavy American Baptist background, I lean towards the third option. First of all, it's canonical (check out Romans Chapter One). Second of all, it seems logical. I detest idea #7, and I only include it for completeness's sake. In fact, hard core Calvinist thought (idea #7), has largely left the Protestant Churches. There is a modern day softer Calvin approach, and of course individuals are free to choose Calvinist doctrine as their beliefs, but very few teach it today.

Once again, no question is out of bounds. Likewise, understand that Christians do not always have the answers. Certainly no one individual does. Feel encouraged to ask questions, and shame on any Christian who discourages you from asking the hard ones. I remember a Sunday School teacher, when I was a child, who was asked by another child "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock so big He can't move it?" It's a classic question, and one asked regularly. In fact, it calls into question the very natures of God's power, and is a perfectly logical question to ask. However, the teacher responded, "You should not test God." My response, internally, was to wonder how asking a good question is "testing" God. So don't feel like you have to stifle your questions, like I was encouraged to do as a child.

On another note, to discuss some of what I have read in this thread: Churches are a human instituion, and as such, are subject to all of the failures of humanity. There is corruption, lust, villiany, pride, greed and more all in the churches. Humans are not perfect, so their works cannot be either. This is not a refelction of God, however. God has not created the individual churches, He created The Church, the instituion of Christians meeting together for worship and fellowship, not the First Baptist Church of Randomville.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If God is all-powerful, then why is there a Devil? Why does God let good people die? Well, one theory is that God is selfish. God wants us to pick him. Is God a good guy? There are many arguments saying that maybe he isn't. Who would kill millions in a flood (don't tell me that Noah and his family were the only good people in the world)? The Old Testament is full of God being wrathful and perhaps a little unmerciful.

Here are some excellent questions, and ones asked regularly. In philosophy, the question that you asked is referred to as The Problem of Evil. If God is good, then He does not want evil to exist. If He is Omnipotent, then he is able to stop it. If He is Omniscient, then He'll know how to do so. As such, an omnipotent, omniescient, omnibenevolent being would stamp out evil, or prevent it from ever occuring.

The classic Christian defense is what is called the Free Will Defense. Creatures with free will (us) are of a higher importance than creatures without free will when determining good and evil. In other words, if I do good works because I am forced to do so, then I have done nothing good. However, if I choose to good works, of my own free will, then that has merit. In order to achieve free will, God has to allow evil to be chosen as well, and that is where evil comes from.

Fair enough, the Problem of Evil guy responds. Maybe some evil has to exist. However, certainyl there could be less evil than what we have right now. Plus, your Free Will Defense does not address other evil, like plague, earthquakes, and so forth. When God creates the world, he has to create the best possible world. After all, God knows how to, can and should wnat to create the best possible world. But folks, this ain't it.

How the Christian addresses this further point from The Problem of Evil differs. Some responses of which I am familiar:

1). Yes, this is the best possible world.

2). God's knowledge is of all knowable things. The future is unwritten and therefore unknowable. As such, God could not know what sort of world he created, he just did the best he could.

3). Although God exists, he lacks either omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniescience, and as such, is lacking one fo the three things needed for The Problem of Evil's premise.

4). You have to examine a world in its totality. Imagine a galaxy teeming with life. Most of the alien races treat each other kindly, warmly, but there are a handful of planets where people are downright mean and nasty. Still, overall, the galaxy's inhabitatns have chosen good actions 90% of the time. Suppose this is the best possible world. Even then, there are places where it is really bad. Likewise, we have witnessed particularly brutal times in our history, but overall, our history is one of helping each other to succeed, and that is why we are the best possible world.

5). Why would God stop at creating one world? All of the factors that went into making one world would also result in God wanting to add another world. When God considers all possible worlds, he chooses the best and creates it. Then, after resting, he creates the next best world, and so forth. He continues until all worlds where good outnumbers bad are created. So no, this does not have to be the best possible world, it just has to be one of the good ones.


I prefer answer #5, myself. It seems the most rational and logical to me.

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

On another note, to discuss some of what I have read in this thread: Churches are a human instituion, and as such, are subject to all of the failures of humanity. There is corruption, lust, villiany, pride, greed and more all in the churches. Humans are not perfect, so their works cannot be either. This is not a refelction of God, however. God has not created the individual churches, He created The Church, the instituion of Christians meeting together for worship and fellowship, not the First Baptist Church of Randomville.

This is interesting. The way I translate this is that humans are imperfect, so our churches will naturally be imperfect, but is not indicative of the perfectness of God. So....I can imply that God is perfect.

That is a very disturbing thought to me. If God is perfect, then why are we here? Are we amusement for God? Obviously he let the Devil exist and let man sin if he is perfect. Then he lets us decide whether to embrace him or "turn away" from him. That is a cruel and selfish God, not a just and loving God. I believe that if this is the case, then our entire existence is only for the amusement of God, ala Sid Meier's Civilization.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This is interesting. The way I translate this is that humans are imperfect, so our churches will naturally be imperfect, but is not indicative of the perfectness of God. So....I can imply that God is perfect.

That is a very disturbing thought to me. If God is perfect, then why are we here? Are we amusement for God? Obviously he let the Devil exist and let man sin if he is perfect. Then he lets us decide whether to embrace him or "turn away" from him. That is a cruel and selfish God, not a just and loving God. I believe that if this is the case, then our entire existence is only for the amusement of God, ala Sid Meier's Civilization.

You can see some of my thoughts on this question in my other response. I believe that God created us because we add to the overall good of existance by our presence.

Imagine that good has a numerical value assigned to it. The better a world is, the greater a numerical value it has (and by "better" I mean anything you mike like to include, that matter is up to debate.) Evil worlds (again, use whatever qualificstions you perfer for "evil world") have a negative value, where the worse they are, the lower the number. I imagine that God created all of the positive worlds that increase the overall good of existance.

Of course, that's just my thoughts on the matter. As to specifics on why, I imagine that God's benevolence is the answer. What use is there is being all-loving if you cannot show that love?

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

This is assuming that God is all-loving. His actions contradict that somewhat (see above arguments). If God is not all-loving, then why would God want to increase the overall good number? My thoughts would be it would be for his amusement or ego.