A Working Definition of God

No, fine by me. The definitions of God seem to have generally settled into, "God is a subjective experience, not an objective reality."My phrasing it that way will probably re-spark commentary on the subject, but in the meantime, your guys' conversation is interesting. Run with it!

You are trying to pull a definitional fast one here. "Myth" means "made-up story," meaning the term itself defines it as untrue, therefore it begs the question of (argues in a circle) whether it is true or not. That is, it states up front definitively that it is not true, and defines its evidentiary value away. I was understating things to say it is a much stronger statement than "there's no way to know." It's a perfect case of circular reasoning that proves the conclusion in the very premise. The independent corroborating evidence is the witness reports of the Old Testament. That IS corroborating evidence, but you simply define it away by pre-judging it to be a myth. It is written as an account of actual events, it has been taken as an account of actual events for some 3500 years by rational people. Again, by trying to define away the question it is you who are arguing in a circle and begging the question. Call it a myth and you DEFINE it as untrue. You needn't bother then with considering it the evidence it most certainly is. That is true, and irrelevant. If something happens and you know it happened but it left NO physical evidence, it nevertheless happened, yet all you have to show for it is TESTIMONY. And that is valid evidence whether you call it scientific or not. It is utterly irrelevant if it's "scientific" -- that's just another definitional ploy.The point is that eyewitness accounts are often the only evidence available for something that REALLY DID HAPPEN, and I said to you earlier that you yourself experience this every day. Give physical evidence for what you had for breakfast on Wednesday. Give physical evidence that it rained on Tuesday. Give physical evidence that you had the flu a month ago but recovered. Give physical evidence that you saw a collision between a truck and a car a year ago. By the way, a written account of the accident and your role would be WITNESS evidence.In ordinary everyday life we experience events all the time that leave no physical evidence. We depend on eyewitness evidence for our knowledge of all kinds of things. There is no logical difference between these ordinary daily experiences and the grand-scale miracles of the Bible. Since they ARE extraordinary, however, God provided millions of witnesses and had the witness reports written down and obsessionally carefully copied to preserve accuracy over 3500 years.It is a great folly to call a person deluded or a liar for something he tells you he witnessed for the one and only reason that you find it hard to believe, but you are saying that about millions of people. I don't know what you can "reasonably" expect but the fact is we have many many ways of knowing. We have the eyewitness testimony of the writers and the people they quote, preserved carefully over the centuries and always available for your study. And we have the testimony of the millions who have believed it true and not a myth over the centuries since the writing, which amounts to a TON of "character witness" evidence.If you demand physical evidence for events that by their nature leave no physical evidence, you are doing the epistemological equivalent of putting your eyes out.

I just seemed as if you were leaning well into personal attack territory with some of your statements and examples. If Faith expresses a belief that it is only through Christ that people are saved, this shouldn't be assumed to be a personal attack -- it is simply Faith expessing a denomination's theology.However, if one turns around and starts accusing Faith (the person) about how closed-minded they are for holding this view, then it is becoming a personal attack. I think I agree more with your theology than Faith's in regards to Christ's saving nature for "all people". However, I do not agree with insulting Faith (the person) by accusing the poster of being shallow minded or even suggesting ignornace for holding to a particular doctrine.One could express confusion. One could express concern. One could reasonably divide thier theology into distinct components where a contridictory nature might be apparent. I think all religions, including my own, have inherited at least some degree of cognitive dissonance.However, when one attacks the person instead of the idea -- then I feel they are flinging crap at another person and ruining the impact of their own message (no matter how well expresed their thoughts might be). She didn't. I did. With a clear distinction being made though.I'm not sure if Faith makes an appeal to Natural Law or not -- but some Christian denominations do. The basic idea is that people cannot be held accountable for things that they are simply not aware of.In my own view, Christ, on a spiritual level, is certainly the "door" to heaven -- and that there is no other way to the Father...period.However, I wouldn't interpret this to the point that I suspect that only those who proclaim with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord!" are the only ones who are being "saved".I cannot speak for Faith, but Faith and I probably disagree on this matter. It's not my place to deny salvation -- so this point is not sustainable.However, if you are asking, "Can someone who doesn't believe in Christ go to heaven?" I would answer with certainty, "Of course they can."Or, if you are asking, "Can someone who rejects belief in Jesus Christ go to heaven?" then I would be less certain of making any definitive statements according to what my Catholic faith teaches.Instead of bashing non-Christians over the head with the Scriptures while utilizing a McDonald's salvation mentality of "Over 1 Billion Saved," I would rather look toward those things which Christians and other faiths share in common and focusses on those positive things in order to lead them to Christ.The Book of James states plainly: Clearly, if one is doing "good" in the sight of God, it is because their conscience is not closed to God's "still small voice" and God has moved them by the Holy Spirit do so. Taking the example of the Good Samaritan to heart, this is found to be true regardless of whether the person doing good is Christian or not.Does this "goodness" constitute salvation?I honestly do not have a clear answer for this and therefore will leave that for theologians to debate (although I have many thoughts onthe matter). When in doubt, one should always consult their own pastor, priest or elder in order to clarify a Scriptural position from their own denominational view-point.I will, however, note one thing and comment on this appropriately:Actions speak louder than words.Compassion, when aligned by the Holy Spirit, it the compass of our soul. A person can claim to be Christian and still not have salvation. In fact, their actions often render the words spoken by them nearly void and leaves the name of God blasphemed amongst the non-believers.In short, if God is not exalted, it is usually (but not always) because we have personally failed to witness God's love in a kind manner prompted by the Holy Spirit -- not because the listener was unwillinng to listen.Paradoxically, those who are closest to God often possess the greatest potential to inflict evil onto the world. This seems to especially happen whenever those whom should know better either don't or simply refuse to.Examples come to mind, such as Judas Iscariot, whom personally walked with and was instructed by the Lord for at least three years, or the adversary himself, whom was once the most beautiful of all angels within God's Celestial hierarchy. Both fell from Grace at exceptionally high points in their walk with the Lord and both "falls" had exceptionally high repercussions due to their close proximity to God.Coming toward the concept of heaven and us entrering it through Christ, it seems as though at the end of time God will weigh each person's life in the balance of their own conscience in relation to Christ.This is to say, I believe each person will be called upon to give an account of how Christ has "manifested" in their lives, whether by thought, word or deed -- with each person being held accountable in proportion to what has been revealed to them.I believe that those who have willingly rejected his revelation from those who "lovingly" displayed his truth will have much to answer for. In addition to this, it also seems to me that those who have led others astray will retroactively pay for the sins of those who who they have led astray.The difference in this retroactive payback is determined by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. All sin eventually points to the adversary. In the end, it seems to me that Christ will remove the sin from those who are saved and place it squarely back onto the adversary.The adversary desired to be God in his own right, and in the end when God separates all things clean and unclean (leaving the adversary totally separated from God), he will allow the adversary to have exactly want he wants.However, since the adversary is not God, he will lack the power to sustain the unsaved who are clinging to him, his children that have looked to him for "salvation." He will also lack the power to sustain his portion of the Cosmos left void of God's presence.In the end, without God's sustaining grace, evil will implode and annihilate itself. Paradoxically, since the soul exists forever, this annihilation will likewise last forever.This, to me, is what I picture hell to be like. And I believe this will be done through the blood of the Resurrected Christ which was shed on the cross and given literally to us for the remission of our sins.Indeed, it is already finished. We just haven't seen it come to its fullness yet -- in my faith anyway, this will come on the Last Day at the "end of time itself".

Faith Really?Which report is correct? Oh, no! Seven days before the flood. The same day as the flood! Which report is correct? Come to think of it who would have been left to record except for Noah and family?{Wouldn't you think that they would get it right?} Is incest forbidden? Or shall you? Who proofreads this stuff?WITHIN THE SAME BOOK. You must have a different definition of corroborating than me.

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

quote:

---

Contrary to this 'evolutionary' position, the lifetime work of Wilhelm Schmidt (published in his Origin and Growth of Religion: English Ed. 1931) found that, thoughout the world, primitive cultures have a notion of a supreme god. This god has the following characteristics - remarkably uniformly across the world:

---

Wow, this list is completely wrong in so many aspects.I'll go through it now...

quote:

---

He lives in, or above, the sky -- anthropologists refer to him as the "Sky-God", although the name the peoples have for him is more commonly one meaning "Father" or "Creator".

---

Except for the Goddess religions, or that polytheism is much more common across cultures than monotheism.Also, there are cultures in which their gods live in everything, including rocks, trees, animals, rain, the ocean, etc.Let's not forget the buddhists, who do not believe in a God at all.

quote:

---

He is like a man, or a father.

---

...or an elephant, a woman, or a jackal, or dozens of other exaples.

quote:

---

However his form cannot be physically represented, and so there are almost never idols of him.

---

This is just laughable.Have you been to a museum lately? They are chock full of many, many ancient representations of all sorts of gods.

quote:

---

He is the creator of everything.

---

Polytheistic cultures usually have many separate creators.Some religions say that both the universe and god/s have always existed.

quote:

---

He is eternal (i.e. He existed before anything else, and He will never cease to be).

---

The ancient Greeks and Romans belived that gods could cease to be.

quote:

---

He is all-knowing.

---

Again, even the monotheistic Hebrew God of the OT isn't all-knowing.He's surprised all the time.

quote:

---

All that is good ultimately comes from him.

---

Some cultures, including the early Jews, treated God as an entity that need to be appeased and not angered so that the crops would grow, etc., instead of an entity that was responsible for the success of the crops.

quote:

---

He is the giver of moral law.

---

Clearly, the Greek and Roman pantheon displayed a wide spectrum of moralities.Buddhists do not believe in a God, so they believe morality comes from people.

quote:

---

He is good, and abhors all evil.

---

The early Jews really stressed the "power" thing in their depictions of God much more than the "good" thing, as the OT readily shows.

quote:

---

He is all-powerful.

---

Again, clearly the God of the bible is not all-powerful, and neither is the Greek Pantheon of gods, and neither are the Hindu pantheon, nor the animist "gods", and of course buddhists do not believe in a god.

quote:

---

He judges people after their death.

---

Many religions believe in reincarnation.

quote:

---

People are alienated from him due to some misdemeanor in the past.

---

This one is peculiar only to the Judeo/Christian faith, for the most part, AFAIK.

Faith, No, I paraphrased one of the definitions of myth from my Oxford English, & it is not implicit that myth = false. It can mean that, but I'll be the judge of the context in my own writing, OK? The assertions of the bible are what are in question, the writings of the OT cannot therefore be considered "independent" corroborating evidence of the bible when they are actually in the bible! Good grief, Charlie Brown. If I know something happened & there is no evidence, then there is no reason that anyone need accept my words as fact. And quite often it is a lie. I had aliens for breakfast. Martians. Delicious. Great with waffles. You have a reason not to accept my eyewitness evidence? You accept I eat Martians?Or could it be that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?The bible is a religious book. The people who wrote it are dead. They cannot be cross-examined, or placed at the scene in any way whatsoever. In nearly all cases there is no independent evidence that they even existed as anything other than fictitious characters. Characters we cannot show to have existed by independent verification cannot be considered eyewitnesses. Documents that we cannot actually link to those characters cannot be considered eyewitness testimony (your honour, here’s a bit of paper signed with an X that says the butler did it).Given this is the case I am under no compulsion to accept anything in the bible as evidence of anything except the existence of a religious document. Even if we could get good evidence that, say, Moses existed, it's still a case of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, just like my Martian breakfast scenario (which, I promise you faithfully actually happened). Why is this? Because anyone can make something up.That said, you may still assert that the bibles account is true, & I am open to persuasion. But you can’t persuade me because you have no evidence, & a book full of easily digested moral platitudes played out by as good as fictional characters doesn’t qualify. In the Mahabharata text, the sage Markandeya spoke to Vishnu, that’s eyewitness evidence that the bible is fundamentally false because Yahweh isn't the one true god, right?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Thank you.I also would like to comment on the main gist of your post to Percy in which you show basic Catholic agreement with at least the universalist aspect of his Unitarianism: Seems to me that this is a bald-faced contradiction, but in any case the Catholic Church has utterly left the arena of Christianity with such statements. Many from all over the world may yet come to know Christ, and uncountable missionaries and mission supporters are working to that end, but that's the ONLY way they are included in God's plan of salvation. Those who NEVER come to know Him are NOT included, and the Catholic Church used to hold to this belief. How can this be true in one century but not another?Also, the claim that followers of other religions have the Holy Spirit has no foundation. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to His followers, not to anyone else -- He was promised to everyone who believes and He testifies of Jesus -- ONLY of Jesus. That being the case, anyone who does not follow the testimony of Jesus does not have the Holy Spirit. Scripture is clear that many who think they are Christians nevertheless are not and do not possess the Holy Spirit, so how much less those who do not call on the Name of Christ?Other religions certainly have many truths and much wisdom and their followers have a God-given conscience and the imprint of the image of God in them, but to attribute qualities to them that are given ONLY by Jesus Christ is to oppose Christian teaching. This I agree with. Humanity started out knowing the one true and living God and there are still remnants of this belief in some cultures and religions, usually distorted, but overall we have degenerated into inability to detect His presence as a result of the Fall. Does the Catholic Church reject what seems to me to be the clear Biblical teaching that the "pantheon of divinities" are the servants of Satan? Isn't it the Biblically derived view that Satan and his demons earned permission to deceive humanity upon Satan's successful deception of Eve into disobeying God, and have taken human worship to themselves by the invention of multiple deities? Satan became the Prince of this world (Jhn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11;Eph 2:2) and as his aim is to put himself in the place of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28: 2,6,9) he and his servants have styled themselves gods and goddesses all over planet earth for the purpose of continuing the deception of humanity begun in Eden. Hard to see how, after so many thousands of years of deterioration since the Fall, whatever distorted remainders of belief in the true God continue to exist could lead BACK to the original knowledge.In fact this is why Jesus came. No way does humanity without God's special provision of sacrifice have any hope of getting back to God after the Fall.

Because you're looking at "all gods". I specifically said primitive sky gods.repeat: primitive...sky...gods...Wilhelm Schmidt, a Jesuit professor at the University of Vienna, spent over 40 years (1912-1955) documenting and compiling evidence for what he called "primitive monotheism." In 1931 he published his findings as The Origin and Growth of Religion. It was a book that revolutionized the study of religious anthropology.Schmidt thought that such beliefs were the residue of a "primal revelation" of God to man. He felt that they were surviving forms of a once common knowledge of the one God (which through human fallenness and error has been overlaid by magic, animism, ancestor worship, spiritism, polytheism, and other forms of spiritual subjectivism). Schmidt continued to validate his thesis with continual research over the years. By 1955 he had published over 4000 pages of evidence in 12 large volumes.G. K. Chesterton summed up the import of Schmidt's ground-breaking studies: Primitive theologies of the one God always seemed to include some explanation of why He is no longer present. His departure is routinely regarded as a cosmic disastrous rupture in the natural fabric of things brought on by some fault or failure on the part of human beings. In some myths, the fault seems almost trivial, involving a technical error in the performance of some (now) obscure ritual, thus causing the universe to unravel and leave man spiritually marooned. In other forms of primitive monotheism, the failure is more morally serious, involving man's betrayal of his duty to his creator, thus causing God to depart in sorrow and judgment.The details differ, but all the myths tell a common story, and the story seems to be clearly a part of our common heritage. Ironically, the evidence of anthropology indicates that ancient man was more in agreement concerning the nature of our spiritual problem than we have agreed about anything since that time. The reason is seems (to me) doubtless that their consensus was one of memory and not of opinion.Schmidt's work actually uncovered one momentous fact for all to see -- namely, that humanity's most ancient and universal assessment of its own condition is simply this: "God is not with us." For whatever reason, God's personal presence has been withdrawn from us. God's absence is our problem.Bascially what I see is a diaspora of some original form of primitive monotheism. The reason why I say this is because massive evidence has been collected among many peoples since the discovery in the 19th century of an unsuspected belief in "one supreme being, All-Father".As just one example, consider the Kurnai in Australia. These kinds of discoveries, among many, revolutionized modern scholarly understanding of primitive religion in two ways:First, many of the peoples which had been thought to have no concept of religion at all were discovered instead to embrace belief in a single, all powerful deity. In fact, such peoples actually had a sophisticated religion, but it simply lacked public rituals. The theology in such cases was esoteric and in general it was something that was not to be spoken of to outsiders. Many reports, therefore, of primitive religions, had been limited to the observation of the external details of cult practice, but the existence of the High God challenged the adequacy of such reports and suggested that, in many cases, if the observer himself had not been "initiated" his report was not to be trusted.Secondly, and of even greater significance, the discovery of the High God concept among primitive peoples challenged the popular 19th century theory of the evolution of religion from animism (belief in souls in humans and other aspects of nature) to polytheism to monotheism. Instead, a devolutionary approach seemed to be the more reasonable.To clarify what I am trying to convey, consider the following: Consequently, there are actually at least two books within the Scriptures which seem to indicate the Hebrews encounters with the "primitive sky god".For example: Also, within the definitive Hebrew Scriptures we see a "pagan" worshipping the Most High God? Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt actually set out in the 1920's to compile every "alias of the Almighty" discovered by explorers around the world. A minimum of a thousand more examples have come to light since then.In short, an approximate 90 percent or more of the folk religions on this planet contain clear acknowledgment of the existence of one Supreme God.Schmidt's classic "Der Ursprung der Gottesidee" (The Origin of the Concept of God) was actually published back in 1934.I would advise you to check it out sometime when you have a chance.

YOu give no evidence here that it ever means anything but false or not based on reality, you simply assert it. No, it was the event of the Red Sea parting that was in question, and the written testimony to it is witness evidence of it. You are right I should not have used the term "corroborating" however, as the ONLY evidence is witness evidence. Of course not, though normally you will be taken at your word on minor points of information unless you've proved yourself to be untrustworthy, and if it's very important information you are giving someone, they are going to have to figure out just how trustworthy you are and if others find you trustworthy and all that. That's how we judge witness evidence. Not that often, though we may certainly make allowances for a human tendency to embellish. But that is why the Bible is hedged about with so many extra securities, so MANY witnesses, so many witnesses TO the witnesses, so many ways to compare the testimonies, so many checks on accurate transmission and translation over the centuries, contrary to ignorant suppositions. You offer none of the securities that your word is true in this case that the Bible offers, the securities that even normally attend everyday information. You are simply making a stupid mockery of the idea and refusing to think. Millions of witnesses is extraordinary evidence, and the internal consistency of the reports is extraordinary evidence, and the reverence which is character witness at the very least is extraordianry evidence, and the results of the teachings of Christ in extraordinary benefits to the world is extraordinary evidence. If you have no ability to judge such things you are up a creek. Can, but some of us have the sense to tell the difference. And this is PRESENTED as fact? Or as instructive story? And these characters are placed in a historical context or just in the city of the imagination? Do you ask such questions? Apparently not. You jump to the silliest superficial comparisons and call it proof.Are you familiar with the liar-truthteller puzzle? The solution to it requires very careful thinking, and should get something across about the thinking required in establishing the validity of witness testimony as evidence. It takes intelligence and careful thought, not snap judgments and silly sloppy thinking such as you are offering.If you don't know it, be honest and don't look it up, and try to solve it yourself: {edited to insert important part of puzzle}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 08:24 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 08:29 PM

To Dan and Mammuthus:I guess in appealing to some outside source for designing Creation, I'd have to provide at least some examples of an outside force interacting with it -- or a raw basic force in itself.At the most basic level, I look at magnetism. This is a raw force. Although it is not sentient, it is capable of some amazing things. We can potentially see and/or feel its effects everywhere. We can even produce it on demand. Although electrical forces seem to be involved in magnetism's manifestation, we technically don't know what magnetism is. It is something which has "no substance" but routinely affects our lives on a daily basis.When I read about the various Big Bang and Quantum theories, I periodically come across the concept that time and space has more dimensions that we can perceive. Some suggest the Big Bang resulted from an influx of energy from a higher dimension. Some suggest that at the heart of Quantum mechanics lies the basis of String Theory -- which suggests both an influx and outflux of energy into higher dimensions.It's interesting to note that an electron (or other particle) can disappear in one location and simultaneously reappear at another location if the wave associated with the particle extends to the other location. This property of nature is so pervasive that even in totally empty space, particles pop in and out of existence. This is known as the vacuum polarization, apparently because they appear as equal and opposite charges, a dipole. Not found Bearing these things in mind, it seems highly likely that there are some dimensions that extend beyond what we can currently measure. Also, bearing the recent knowledge of the particles being observed waving "in and out" of existence, I would even postulate that this is a good indication that this universe was either a) formed out of, or b) is currently merged with something higher. Since, in theory, the higher seems to predate the lower, I would postulate that that the lesser came from the greater.I can't prove this. But the reason why I suspect that this "outside agent" is highly involved with the creation of our universe is due to the observation that what seems to be coming and going from a higher dimension resembles the basic building blocks of our universe.The subatomic particles that make up each atom and each element are colorless, tasteless, orderless and without texture. They are not hard, soft, dull, or shiny -- even though the naturally known occuring elements make up everything that exists on Earth (including us). The "firmness" and other characteristics of this "stuff" seems to result from the interelationship of electrical forces of (and between) these very same subatomic particles -- similar to particles which have been observed popping in and out of existence.What I'm getting at is that matter in its most fundamental form consists solely of these electrical charges. As a matter of opinion, this substance from "nothing" that results when electrical charges combine to from atoms (and when atoms combine to form elements and molecules), would probably qualify as the greatest illusion there is -- except it is reality. Technically speaking, everything is made ex nihilo (and it seems to be linked to outside forces).Coming back to the possibillity of higher dimensions, if this is so, then what's up there? Personally, I don't know the answer to this. But coming back to the creator needing a creator, etc., I guess I look at it this way:If all things indeed were created from an outside force, then what are the characteristics of the outside force? If that force has been around forever, then the things that were created by it would most likely share that same characteristics. However, since the created thing now resides in a lower state of being (or dimension), the created thing lacks the stability of its creator. If something goes wrong within the created thing -- its "eternal connection" becomes removed somehow -- it seems to me that the created thing would tend to break down and either a) return to its source, or b) degrade into its environment to the point that its "created form" becomes void.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:30 PM

No Faith, and this is where I sharply disagree with many of my Christian brothers. I strongly believe that the Lord judges in proportion to what has been revealed to the individual. The more He reveals to the individual, the more is expected of them.I have a couple of Baptist friends who have explained to me at length about the concept of an "age of accountability". It basically implies that those who are too young to understand will simply not be judged. Although there are some differences regarding the adminsitration of the sacrament of Baptism, personally, I agree with them to a great extent regarding the age of accountability concept. As a matter of fact, I'd extend this definition to include those who simply don't know -- an "awareness of accountability".I don't think this is blasphemous.For example: Let me put it another way. Many Christians are now trying to say that many paths lead to God. I would tend to disagree. I'd say many paths lead to Jesus, who I believe is true God and true man.Getting to the point, I do suspect that "some" Christians are probably not going to heaven. I also suspect that "more" non-Christians probably will go to heaven than many Christians are willing to admit.I guess I see it as James says, Peter gives a strong warning to Christians here (it is actually directed to unbeleivers too indirectly), As far as unbelief goes, Paul, who personally saw to the murder of many Christians, says, He also sums it up this way, Look, if athiests get married, I believe their marriage is a manifestation of Christ in their lives regardless of whether they acknowledge him or not.Why?Because it's God will that people get married.If an athiest gives birth to child, I believe that child is a manifestation of Christ in her life regardless of whether she acknowledges him or not.Why?Because, regardless of what she beleives, children are a gift from God.Taking this one step further, I believe this is also true regardless of whether she is married or not.Why?Because, regardless of what some ultra-conservitive Bible-Thumper thinks, children are a gift from God -- single mother or not (which is totally irrelevant as far as the love for her child is concerned).(I have more thoughts on this, but I'll hold it back for now)This is not to say that these people can earn their way into heaven via "good works". I'm stessing my belief that every good and perfect gift comes from God above (who doesn't change like shifting shadows). Doing God's will, even if you don't believe in him, is still a manifestation of His grace nonetheless.Some people take the Scriptures so literally and say that you have to confess Christ with your lips -- and that's it. Yet Jesus himself said, In short, I think that many people confess Christ by their thoughts, words and deeds, even the ones who don't know him. And I'm basing this on the Scriptures and Church tradition.For me, knowing that Christ is Lord is not the same thing as saying that only people who believe in Christ are going to heaven. Or, put in another way, believing that Christ is true God and true Man is not the same as saying that one's faith is a sure ticket out of hell. I don't usually bring up the subject of hell (and yes, I do believe in hell), but since people seem to be implying that this is being dangled over the head of non-believers, I thought I'd add my two cents worth. For the most part, at least when hell is mentioned, I think the non-believers are correct.The concept behind the Christian faith as I understand it is that of a revelation from God. Most people don't think of it in that way, and this is fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or convert anyone. However, in thinking about the meaning of a revelation, I've personally come to the conclusion that many people do not know what they are talking about concerning Christ's love. I think that many people who do not ackowledge Christ in word nonetheless believe in him by their actions. There's been many times where I've noticed a "non-believer" shows more compassion than the "believers" -- which is very disturbing to me.One quote that really expresses this for me is perhaps that of Ghandi: In trying to express this clearly, I will say the following from the context of my own Judeo-Christian faith.As far as I can determine, the very Early Church was not so much concerned with informing people that they were going to hell if they didn't believe in Christ. They were more concerned with the "revelation" that Christ was hidden within the Judaic Scriptures all along. This was the excitement that captured the central focus of the very Early Church.Likewise, whereas they acknowledged that Christ was indeed the only savior by which one could enter heaven, they did not (as far as I can determine) deny that Christ would save someone who didn't know him personally. The joy that they had was one of finally knowing "who done it" all this time and announcing this boldly to anyone willing to listen, not one of some esoteric secret society that carefully guarded it's "revelation" and revealed it only to those "who are worthy".Admittedly, persecution of the Early Church via many Roman Emporers probably hardened the hearts of many early believers. I'm also sure that some had a death-wish well before they became Christians -- and saw the persecution of the Church as a quick way out of their living hell of a life on earth. But, for the most part, if any secrecy or covert action was was engaged, it was because there were really people out their trying to kill them.I know that this is a touchy subject, so I'm going to explain this as carefully as I can.It just seems to me that a certain very smug sense of self-righteousness has crept into the Church over the last 2000 years. In fact, personally, I have no doubts at all about this. As a Catholic, I also believe that we are just as responsible for this self-righteousness as any other denomination (so I'm not trying to pick on any particular faith here).Very often I've noticed that some Christians use the concept of hell as a lure to catch unbelievers into believing in Christ. I think, personally, that this is akin to a spiritual form of terrorism: either believe in Jesus or go to hell -- it's your choce (which really isn't any choice at all). When people do this, I'm personally offended because it seems to me that it's like shoving a shot gun down someone's throat until their gag-reflex kicks in. Under this kind of "conversion", it leads to the newly converted vomiting their faith onto other non-believers -- their witness toward Christ's love is more like bile that has been trembled upward out of fear and loathing (in my honest opinion).This make me very sad.Even when the concept of prayer comes up, I'm sometimes left confused. People seem to think that prayer is about changing God's mind. While I've no doubt that God has changed his mind (at least, as far as I'm able to determine from the Scriptures), I don't think that we should be so smug as to think that we are changing it through prayer.I think of prayer as a silent and safe form of prophesying. I know people will snicker when hearing this word "prophesying", but I feel that I need to mention it. Within the Judaic Scriptures it seemed as though there were many guidelines made available to the Hebrews to determine when somone was a false-prophet of not. Prophesying is not the act of changing God's will. It is the experience of a direct connection with God's will whereby the person talking to God receives a revelation of what God's will is. I think the same thing holds true with prayer -- except, you won't be stoned to death if your prayers are not answered.For example, there's a passage in the Book of James which says the following: Many people (including Christians) that I speak with take this to mean that if you pray really, really, really, really hard -- then your prayers will come true. But I don't think this is what it's saying at all. As far as I'm able to determine, God was going to do or allow all these things anyway (regardless of the prayers involved) -- especially in the case of Elijah.The comfort from prayer, at least as far as my own experience is concerned, is not one of knowing that I've changed God's mind. It is more one of comfort that God is listenting and is interested in what I have to say -- which is pretty cool considering, y'know, he's Almighty God. It's also a comfort when one prays and notes that the prayer actually happened -- because one then knows that they were in tune with God's will (as far as I'm concerned). It's about love and forgiveness.The mentality of the message given by the person who witnesses their faith can directly impact how the receiver receives the Gospel message. If the message is broadcast with hatred, then the receivers will most likely reject it.In short, if we force our faith onto others harshly, and they reject it, the Lord's name is then blasphemed because of our actions -- not theirs. In these instances, I wouldn't hold accountable someone who rejected the Christian faith. I'd be more interested in what the "witness" did to the unbeliever to push them away from Christ.Unfortuantely, although I fully agree that the Church has a God-given mandate to forgive others and teach forgiveness, it does not have an immunity to error in their actions. Even though I fully agree that Catholocism has the best doctrine in regards to Christ, I don't think this makes us immune to human failure (except in the special case of infallibility and indefectibility).Too often I've noticed that the ability to forgive others means being without sin. I agree with this to the extent that if we fogive, then a multitude of sins are covered. But if this is pushed in the direction that being able to forgive sins make one immune to the ability to sin in the first place, then I'm not going with it.Christians are human too. If we push people away from Christ, then Christ will hold us accountable for their actions. Similarly, In his famous parable of the last judgment in Mathew 25, Christ clealy states that what do or fail to do to the poor and the sick, and more generally to those in need, we do or fail to do to him.This, in my veiw, is very similar to how Christ took on our sins -- albeit pefectly and without sin. He took accountability for our actions out of love. But, since he is true God and true man, his sinless, immortal, and divine soul utterly oblitterated any sin that held humanity away from God. I suppose one could say that he stretched out his arms on the cross -- with one arm pointing all the way towards humankind's past, and one arm pointing all the way to humankind's future.This here quotation from the book Distinctly Catholic (which was considered required reading for a Catholic course that I voluntarilly took part in at our church) fairly well sums up my thoughts on the matter: I've never said. "It doesn't matter if you're a good person, you'll go to Hell if you don't follow my religion." I've been saying the opposite of this as far as I can tell and this opinion, as I've expressed plainly within this thread, frankly disgusts me. In some ways, I've found people who hold this mentality are not much different from vaccuum cleaner salesmen or ambulance chasers. They try their hardest to get their foot in the door to prove to you that you need this -- or they cruise the streets on the look out for an accident so that they cash in on someone's misfortune.I also have defintely not said, "You'll only be a good person if you follow my religion." Again, this comes back to the above statements. I feel that this self-righteous mentality has deeply divided the Church on many levels. I'd tather look at the universal agreement of the various religions of the world which in one way of another seems to stress mankind's duty to their neighbor, brother, SO, etc. I suppose I'm looking more towards a natural theology or an invocation of natural Law when I express this opinion.You are coming closer to my personal view when you say, "It doesn't matter if you follow my religion, the important thing is to be a good person." My own convictions regarding this are simple: If someone is doing good in God's eyes, it's because they're being moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. I'd also go one step further and say that is almost irrelvant whether someone is aware of Christ's love in their life or not.If a Buddhist saves the life of a child, and this hasn't been done for selfish reasons, then it's an action of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If an atheist gives birth to a child, that child is still a gift from God.Not acknowledging Christ in their lives in no way changes the fact that their child is a gift from God either. If one sees a child starving and hungry, and they feed that child without any selfish motivations behind their actions, then God is at work in them.However, if one rejects what Christ has called one to do by the Holy Spirit, then I'd say there could be some trouble brewing.It's as simple as that as far as I'm concerned.At least, from my own Judeo-Christian view, Christ is fully aware of who is doing his will and who is not. Paying lip service to him and condeming others for not believing in him seems to be far removed from what his central message actually consisted of. And it is the "self-righteous, condemning" mentality within the Church (a mentality that I'd suggest is virtually anti-Christian) that I'm trying to express my frustration with.One can certainly give praise to Christ as Lord and Savior (and witness their faith to others) without condeming those who don't believe in him in the process.That's my thoughts on it anyway. This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:12 PM

You've apparently hit the "general reply" button for these last two, instead of the button for replying to the post.

quote:

---

Some people take the Scriptures so literally and say that you have to confess Christ with your lips -- and that's it. Yet Jesus himself said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

​

In short, I think that many people confess Christ by their thoughts, words and deeds, even the ones who don't know him. And I'm basing this on the Scriptures and Church tradition.

---

Certainly there are many of the lip-service "Lord-Lord" Christians who are not Christians, but on the other hand there's no way to "confess Christ" without confessing His death in our place, that we belong to Him because He bought us at a price. No amount of the most excellent and even Christ-like thoughts, words and deeds will suffice in place of that.

'Course that's not what Jesus said. LOLBut that's for another thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith, my point is that I believe that Christ put them there in the first place. The general belief is that the Christian has the advantage over others in knowing who their savior really is -- they don't have to grope around in the dark trying to find out where their salvation is coming from anymore.This is why, in my opinion, the Scriptures come down harshly on those who should know better -- such as teachers within the Church itself. In other words, there's never been a time when Christ wasn't actively saving people.The difference between "us" and "them" is not that they're sinners and we're not. We know full well that we are sinners -- just like the rest of the world. The real difference, as far as I can tell, is that we know our redemeemer -- and we know our redeemer lives.This is what we need to share with others. We need to proclaim Christ as Lord.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:41 PM