watch the golden compass go to hell

[Superhobo]

There is so much that could be said about your statements, but with this one, you almost answer your own questions. You're getting closer. A supernatural transformation does occur. And perhaps an omnipotent God could have initiated that conversion for Adam and Eve the moment they chose to sin, so that we'd all be spared, and everything would be hunky-dory.

He didn't, obviously. So there must be a "why" to his methods. The following are the two most notable (and dividing) articulations of this "why":

Anselm's Cur Deus Homo makes the argument that Christ's death was the only possible way to atone mankind; that any other method, employed by God, would have been insufficient to "make satisfaction" for sin. Now, I realize this makes most people go "but nothing is impossible for God! he can do whatever he wants!" Yes and no. God, by nature, cannot be contradicted. As such, he cannot simply co-exist with a sinful creation, "forgetting" about their imperfections; only one thing can MAKE him forget (or more appropriately, see past these imperfections), and that is... Himself.

We get metaphysically weird here, and if I went into more detail about the hyper-personal nature of the trinity it might make this more understandable, but ultimately, the point is: if anything can move God, would it not be God Himself (in this case, in the form of His Son)? In a sense, only He could change Himself; thus Christ was the only one who had the capacity to change the whole relationship between God and man.

Now, this is one perspective. Abelard (Anselm's student, ironically enough) would say the opposite: that God could have atoned us some way other than by sending Christ, but he CHOSE to send Christ for several reasons: (1) God becoming a human being allowed him to undergo the same exact types of pain that we do in our daily lives, and more - no man has been tempted or has suffered to the level Christ has, and thus no man can say that God "doesn't know how I feel." As a pure expression of love, God came so that we might not only see how he empathizes with US, but that we might be able to empathize with HIM. And thus, become even closer to him. (2) Because God didn't have to send His Son to die (and because Jesus himself could have chosen NOT to die), the utterly voluntary nature of this act makes the love expressed through it unconditional, untied to our own actions. The freedom this choice was made in displays the abandon with which God loves mankind.

Thus, to Abelard's mind, what atones us is merely viewing this "supreme example of self-sacrifing love." Christ's life and death awakens in us a true love for God – which has several consequences. This love makes us aware of our sin, stays our desire for it, and resultantly makes us repentant; and it is the repentant heart that allows us to approach, and fellowship with, God.

You see, in both cases, the ultimate object of atonement is not just to RESTORE the broken relationship between man and God, but to establish a new one.

Why didn't God just establish this new relationship/covenant in the first place? That again is tied up in His nature, and his reasons for creating humanity at all. I'll bypass this particluar discussion for the moment - if you want me to delve into it by PM or somesuch, let me know.

I love how pretentious these last paragraphs are, particularly the highlighted one. Anshelm is a *****e.

He does. But sinning against God is different than wronging a fellow human being. The two things are incomparable (except at the most base level).

Besides, if any forgiveness is limited, it is ours. We fail to forgive in full over, and over again. And we would never forgive someone who had wronged us in a particularly horrifying way - a rapist, someone who murdered a loved one, to get quite extreme. If we have any hope of forgiving them, we must ask for God's help. Because God can, and does. If anything, people I talk to are more put off by this notion than by anything else in Christianity - that a "point of no return" doesn't exist, even for the lowest of the low. All can be saved. Even the wretches.



I believe God knows and judges the heart, and that he doesn't require textbook knowledge of Him and of Christ as a prerequisite for salvation. I am reminded of the scene in CS Lewis' The Last Battle:

"Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"

Hardwired in every human being is the truth. Someone who is truly striving to know and serve that truth, even if they do not know its name, is judged by their heart and intent, not their cognitive knowledge.

No. One of the tenets of Christianity is Jesus' ruling that HE is the only way to god. You can only get through to the father through HIM. People who don't believe in HIM burn in hell-fire. It's in the Bible, dude.

It is a choice. And like your illustration, it should be a simple one. A man should not want his brains blown out, correct? But yet, the amazing part is, some do. Some people truly want nothing to do with God. And that is the Biblical definition of hell - complete and total separation from God. So when people turn from Him, they're getting exactly what they want. A life without God.

The Great Divorce is an interesting depiction of this very dilemma. The people in hell want to be there, and given the option to leave refuse to leave, because their will has literally collapsed in upon itself. Apart from God, they experience an existence that is less than existence. They have become less human - incapable of even wanting what the human heart desires (reconciliation with its creator).

No again. You don't know this; your god would send people to hell for numerous trivial things that in some instances they simply have no way to repent for, like people who've never had the chance to be converted.
I like people who use the "they turn away from god" argument on people of other beliefs, because then it becomes obvious they're talking out of their ass.

God created hell - literally the trashbin of the universe - out of necessity, because he could not coexist with the evil that had been brought into the universe. Think of it as a cosmic rift created by the very introduction of evil. God didn't necessarily create it because he wanted to, but because it was the natural "effect" of this conflict. Like two magnets repelling each other. God literally repels Satan out of the realm of existence: outside of Himself. And what is anything without God? Hell.

Well, no. Satan was originally an angel, an accuser in god's court. He doesn't even take the role of the Devil until the NT. If what you said was true, how could god have dealt with the Devil involving Job? That's a big fallacy in that theory right there; the two talk to each other, face to face, numerous times during the course of that story.

And we were not "sinful, stupid creatures" from birth. We were created in God's image, after all. Eden was perfect. We made ourselves sinful and stupid.

Actually, what he means is that due to god, we're all born as 'sinful' creatures. We have to be baptised, and washed clean. But, we've done nothing. We don't make ourselves sinful; we're "inherently" sinful, and that's where the theory falls.

Yep. And he created all the people on Earth with the full knowledge that many of them would commit unspeakable evil, as well.

He must've thought the price was worth paying for the end result - a communion and relationship with his creation that is even closer than the one the angels have with him.



Or in my case, the more interesting and revealing they become. Believe me, I've asked all these questions before.



I have attempted to, but I'm sure I still won't change your mind. And let me make this clear: I have not posted with the intent of changing anybody's mind; I know that is impossible. I simply wanted to clear up many of the common misconceptions about my faith, and defend it against those who question its validity.



I'm glad to hear you are a Truth-seeker first and foremost. With that, at least, we are on the same page.

I have Christian friends that are also very intelligent and admit to having several problems with "this stuff" as well - but that's mostly because, despite being smart as hell, they simply haven't investigated these matters as thoroughly as possible. Heck, even I haven't exhausted all the information and argumentation and sheer thought available out there. I'm still digging and searching like anybody else. But what I've found has fascinated me, and I relish the opportunity to share it with others.

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." - CS Lewis

I like how all these arguments are trying to dictate how god acts. Very base and semi-ridiculous arguments, especially the first two you gave by Anshelm and the other dude.

I've got a lot of intelligent Christian friends as well, and I'm pretty sure they'd come to the same conclusion.

 

[Transcended]

I love how pretentious these last paragraphs are, particularly the highlighted one. Anshelm is a *****e.

I think you might be the one guilty of "being pretentious" if you think an ad hominem attack against a (dead) person instantly dissolves all of his arguments.

Feel free to disagree with him (heck, plenty of Christians disagree with the guy), but say why. Face his points head-on if you want to give your dismissal any weight.

My main purpose in bringing him (and Abelard) up at all was to present two of the oldest most influential theories of the atonement - that have had the most visible affect on our own modern understandings of the doctrine.

No. One of the tenets of Christianity is Jesus' ruling that HE is the only way to god. You can only get through to the father through HIM. People who don't believe in HIM burn in hell-fire. It's in the Bible, dude.

You entirely miss the point. Someone can never be told the name of Christ (remember, many people in the world still have never even heard of Christianity) and yet still seek and conceive of a God like Him. Many missionaries who go to Africa find that when they speak of the God who came to Earth and died as a sacrifice, the people recognize this God, though they have never named Him. It's much like Paul pointing to the statue of the "unknown God" on Mars Hill and saying "I know this guy. Let me tell you about him." It's merely defining intuitive knowledge.

As far as civilizations that have had pretty horrific gods that they performed pretty horrific deeds for (human sacrifice, etc), Lewis puts it this way (I'm sorry to be quoting him so much, but he has a knack for phrasing things straightforwardly):

While in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself (things like microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man's self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred - like the Moon seen through a dirty telescope. That is why horrible nations have horrible religions: they have been looking at God through a dirty lens.

Yes, Christ said he was the only way to the Father. (He didn't "rule" this; he was simply stating a truth.) But there are many ways people over the centuries have encountered Christ, though they cannot put a name or a face to Him. This is what is meant by the verse "Seek and ye will find." Anyone who seeks long and truly will find what the human heart longs for. Whether or not you live in the middle of the desert and have never encountered a Christian or the Bible before.

Well, no. Satan was originally an angel, an accuser in god's court. He doesn't even take the role of the Devil until the NT. If what you said was true, how could god have dealt with the Devil involving Job? That's a big fallacy in that theory right there; the two talk to each other, face to face, numerous times during the course of that story.

Technically, Satan hasn't been sent to the "Lake of Fire" yet. His days are numbered but he still has license to roam for now. Like and yet unlike people do; it's hard to say, since angels are certainly nothing like people, and God never mentions in the Bible what his plan for any beings other than humanity is.

Some people even say that, at this point, if Satan wanted to repent, he'd be able to. But he's become so entrenched in his own will it's nigh-on impossible for him to make such a choice, now. As the age-old saying goes, your choices determine who you are. And the more you keep choosing down a certain path, the harder it becomes to choose otherwise.

Actually, what he means is that due to god, we're all born as 'sinful' creatures. We have to be baptised, and washed clean. But, we've done nothing. We don't make ourselves sinful; we're "inherently" sinful, and that's where the theory falls.

I know what he meant. And I'm saying while we may be born sinful now, that wasn't the case originally. Adam and Eve were created sinless in a perfect world. Their actions introduced sin into the world, making everyone after them inherently sinful. But the concept of original sin is a whole 'nuther can of worms that I won't open right now... unless someone wants me to.

I like how all these arguments are trying to dictate how god acts. Very base and semi-ridiculous arguments, especially the first two you gave by Anshelm and the other dude.

It's Anselm, FYI. And thanks for your dismissive generalizations and assumptions. They're quite edifying. :P

I'm not trying to dictate how God acts. As I stated before, I am merely sharing conclusions about God (as described by Christian doctrine) that I have come to through my own research and experience.

Ultimately, this is all speculation. Talk of God always is; like you said, we can't assume we're capable of knowing exactly how and why God acts, much less the full width and breadth of his nature. Which is yet another reason I believe God found it necessary to send Christ. The cross is God's final, definite word to the world: everything he could possibly say to us was said through Christ's life and actions while on Earth, and through his sacrifice. The rest is all filler. But pretty damn fascinating filler.

 

[Addendum]

How does the human heart, that muscle which resides in the chest and pumps blood throughout the body, "long" for anything?

 

[Transcended]

That's a great post Transcended, very thorough and thought provoking. I've read much on the Bible, more from a philosophical/anthropological perspective. I'd be interested in some of these sources in which you've come to your conclusions though. Maybe you could suggest some books or essays?

Thanks - glad to know someone found it interesting. Makes typing all that up worthwhile.

And sure, here's the stuff that's most heavily influenced me:

The great bulk of C.S. Lewis's (non-fiction) works - any of which are an excellent (and no-nonsense) introduction to theology... my favorites being The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock (a collection of different essays on Christianity and ethics), and Mere Christianity.

I'd also recommend N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God and Simply Christianity (the latter gives a more historical view than Lewis's).

Older works: St Augustine's Confessions and City of God, Thomas Aquinas - Selected Writings.

And if you're interested in more factual investigation, less philosophical argumentation: Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ is worth a look (though I've heard a lot of varying opinions on this one).

 

[Transcended]

How does the human heart, that muscle which resides in the chest and pumps blood throughout the body, "long" for anything?

Oh, fine, do away with metaphor and call it the soul.

 

[Addendum]

When my grandpa died when I was 6, I asked my mom why did grandpa die. She said that god wanted him, so his soul is with god. I thought, why does god want my grandpa's feet?

 

[Transcended]

When my grandpa died when I was 6, I asked my mom why did grandpa die. She said that god wanted him, so his soul is with god. I thought, why does god want my grandpa's feet?

We need a drumset, stat. :P

 

[Mr Sparkle]

there must be a "why" to his methods.

with this small part of a rather long and interesting post we come to a rather difficult situation.
and perhaps the most important part of why I don't believe in Christianity as a whole.


the need to assign human motivation to an obviously unquantifiable entity.

there really doesn't need to be a "why" it's perhaps more like WE need a "why" to God's actions because otherwise it becomes monstrous in a second.
not to mention the fact that when clearly examined it kind of falls apart.
take the Idea of God "becoming" human to "understand" the trials and tribulations of man.
preposterous.
it would be like Steven Hawkins sitting in at kindergarten and then chastising the kids for not living up to their potential like he is.

not only that, but that all of these arguments about God's plan and purpose are predicated upon the fact that the infallible god would have to BE FALLIBLE since his perfect creation did something that God himself, who sees all and knows all ( to the end of time) could not anticipate.
the agnostic argument ( and to some extent the atheist) comes from the fact that God stacks the deck against his creation from the get go.

not only that, but then acts not unlike a child (a crazy, evil child) for thousands of years.

yesterday oddly enough, the lady that does the cleaning at the Office was arguing with the receptionist ( who apparently delights in torturing her) about the evils of homosexuality.
it got a little repetitive and I got up and said
"let me ask you this, Is god all powerful?"
she answered "yes"
"is there anything beyond his power?"
she answered quickly "no"
"does anything in this universe happen without his will?"
she thought about this for a bit and answered , but not as sure this time

"no"
"so"I said"consequently evil must be part of god's creation, Lucifer would not be allowed to exist were he not part of God's plan and therefore any action lucifer takes is by definition, part of god's plan"

she quickly said "no, that's not true"
but then she got really silent, and she began to quote scripture at me, but like a minute later she completely lost steam and went back to having lunch.

but the important part, to me is that regardless of anything, the Christian god is by definition responsible for both good and ill in the lives of his creation, responsible for everything, since afterall it was him that made the Serpent among the most clever of his creations and it was him the created the tree of knowledge and placed it in the middle of paradise, when he could have simply not created it at all.
since, no one was to eat of it and apparently those who did became "not unlike [him]"

dangerous stuff when you think about it, I mean really think about it.
I have a problem with one of the things you said.

you said that we were not created sinful, but we made ourselves sinful and stupid.
but that my friend is impossible, because you're implying that man has more power than god, that he can negate aspects of god's creation, but you forget that Man was made with the capability for sin, because he COULD sin, that by definition makes him imperfect from creation, since afterall no third party intervenes and whatever third party did would have be to be more powerful than god to negate his will.

we were made like this.
we were made to sin, a child doesn't get an erection because he is wicked,
his body responds to stimuli the way it was BUILT to respond.
pure and simple.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

There is so much that could be said about your statements, but with this one, you almost answer your own questions. You're getting closer. A supernatural transformation does occur. And perhaps an omnipotent God could have initiated that conversion for Adam and Eve the moment they chose to sin, so that we'd all be spared, and everything would be hunky-dory.

He didn't, obviously. So there must be a "why" to his methods.

Right there you're making the same mistake that all Christians make. You are PREsupposing his very existence.
"Well, if we see God doing something that seems irrational or cruel, he, said he's not irrational or cruel, so there HAS TO be a reason. He must have a good reason, that we just don't understand as of yet."

No. The reason I don't believe he exists is because of the discrepancy between his declarations about himself (which NEVER come directly from HIM, meaning that I have to trust, not "HIM", but the motives and accuracy and honesty of a bunch of xenophobic, misogynistic savages from thousands of years ago, who, in his name, slaughtered countless men, women, children and animals) and his "behavior".

My sin (a sin so egregious that I deserve to suffer W.I.T.H.O.U.T. C.E.A.S.I.N.G., or chance of repentance, for Eternity), is not that I "reject" God, but that he has given me NO reason to even believe that he even exists.
It's completely unfair.
If I got to have a supernatural confirmation, like Paul...if a shining light appeared, and BLINDED me, and TOLD me, AUDIBLY, exactly what to do, you better BELIEVE I'd believe it was real. Right there, Paul has a completely unfair advantage over me.

Anselm's Cur Deus Homo makes the argument that Christ's death was the only possible way to atone mankind; that any other method, employed by God, would have been insufficient to "make satisfaction" for sin.

Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for my sins. If it did, then once he died, everyone would be Born Again and forgiven and would therefore enjoy an Eternity with God.
It's MY decision to

• Hear the Gospel
• Believe it
• Repent of my sins
• Confess faith in Christ
• Be baptized
• and
• Remain faithful

that saves me. If I don't do X,Y,Z, I won't be saved. Therefore I am the only one that can save myself, by deciding to shut off my brain, believe and obey. If I can't do that, or won't, I am not saved. So his sacrifice doesn't atone for anything, it's my belief and behavior that does.

A "Free Gift" is set on your door step, no strings attached, and you SEE it, and KNOW that it's there for the taking, and then, you can decide to take it or not.
If you say, "Here, take this Free Gift. All you have to do to enjoy it is: X,Y,Z, AND, you have to take it within MY preordained Time Window. If you haven't decided to take it by that time, you will not have the option to take it again later. Also, you can not see or hear it. It is not on your door step, you have to trust me that I have it stored in an undisclosed area, so, do X,Y,Z, alter your entire lifestyle, devote yourself entirely to me, and trust that you will recieve the gift at some point, which, I can't disclose either."

LOL

That AIN'T a Free Gift. Srry. Condo Time-Share promoters have more scruples.

Now, I realize this makes most people go "but nothing is impossible for God! he can do whatever he wants!" Yes and no. God, by nature, cannot be contradicted.

Yes. I am not one of these stupid contrarians that say "If God can do anything then he can sin, right?"
I understand that omnipotence doesn't negate his nature.
What I'm saying is that we learn that his nature is, to crave the existence of Evil, and sadism, because, without contradicting his nature...he COULD have created a happy world for us, where we retain Free Will but are sinless, as we are supposed to be in Heaven, where a wiser Satan was not allowed to FOOL Adam and Eve, OR, where he, like a dutiful parent, Would've at least had the DECENCY to STEP.IN. at that point and counter his lies, instead of stand by watching his "children" burn themselves on the stove top.
In fact, rather than contradicting his "good" nature, this would've confirmed it!
But, he KNEW that unspeakable suffering would result from his negligence, and allowed it anyway. So, we KNOW that he WANTED unspeakable suffering to take place. That's evil.

As such, he cannot simply co-exist with a sinful creation, "forgetting" about their imperfections; only one thing can MAKE him forget (or more appropriately, see past these imperfections), and that is... Himself.

1. He is CURRENTLY co-existing with evil.
2. Again, No. "His Self" is not what makes him forget. It's our belief and obedience that makes him forget. If I don't believe the story, or obey him, he can't forget my sin.

(1) God becoming a human being allowed him to undergo the same exact types of pain that we do in our daily lives, and more - no man has been tempted or has suffered to the level Christ has, and thus no man can say that God "doesn't know how I feel." As a pure expression of love, God came so that we might not only see how he empathizes with US, but that we might be able to empathize with HIM. And thus, become even closer to him.

This one is the craziest of all. If I have both my legs broken, and I was thrown into a pit of spikes, the way to help me is not to break both of your legs, and jump into the pit next to me. Just because you now know what my pain is like, it doesn't absolve you if YOU WERE THE ONE that initially broke my legs and threw me into the pit. LOL
Christians always seem to ignore the very big important point.
I WASN'T OFFERED THE CHOICE TO EAT THE FRUIT OR TO OBEY AND AVOID IT.
ADAM and EVE made that mistake, and it was not a passive "fall" after that. God actively CURSED all of subsequent mankind....why?....because of the mistake of TWO people.

And, No, Jesus could not have succumbed to temptation. He couldn't've chosen to sin...so he has no conception of real temptation, and, being the ONLY sinless human ever born, had NO idea what it's like to be a sinful one, BORN to sin and succumb.

(2) Because God didn't have to send His Son to die (and because Jesus himself could have chosen NOT to die), the utterly voluntary nature of this act makes the love expressed through it unconditional, untied to our own actions. The freedom this choice was made in displays the abandon with which God loves mankind.

Again, presupposing that the 2nd hand account of the writers of the Bible was true. It does nothing to lend credence to their story. It only works if you start from a point of accepting the infallibility of the story-tellers.

Thus, to Abelard's mind, what atones us is merely viewing this "supreme example of self-sacrifing love."

Too bad we can't view it.
You see, again, it's all dependent on you...how gullible/trusting you are.
I have no reason to believe that any self sacrifice took place at all.

Besides, if any forgiveness is limited, it is ours. We fail to forgive in full over, and over again. And we would never forgive someone who had wronged us in a particularly horrifying way - a rapist, someone who murdered a loved one, to get quite extreme.

Wrong. Many people have.

If we have any hope of forgiving them, we must ask for God's help. Because God can, and does.

No. Atheists and Agnostics and COUNTLESS people of DIFFERENT faiths than Christianity are capable of forgiving atrocities and have done it.

Hardwired in every human being is the truth. Someone who is truly striving to know and serve that truth, even if they do not know its name, is judged by their heart and intent, not their cognitive knowledge.

If you believe this then you don't believe what the Bible teaches.
For the truth to be hardwired, everyone would have to be born knowing that God exists, Jesus died for their sins, sex outside of wedlock is wrong, etc.
The reason it's imperative that Christians spread the Gospel throughout the world is that without it, they are all going to Hell.

It is a choice. And like your illustration, it should be a simple one. A man should not want his brains blown out, correct? But yet, the amazing part is, some do. Some people truly want nothing to do with God. And that is the Biblical definition of hell - complete and total separation from God. So when people turn from Him, they're getting exactly what they want. A life without God.

Completely, completely, completely wrong. I'm sorry. AGAIN, you're presupposing that the religion is true.
If a man holds a gun to my head, I can FEEL it. I can HEAR his voice in my ear. Perceiving and being motivated by the threat is NO problem.
If I really had free choice, I could say, "No, I will NOT do what you say." and then I could run away from the guy that's threatening to kill me, or I could decide to feign submission, catch him off his guard and knock the gun out of his hand...or talk to him and try to reason with him.
Or, since I know he EVEN EXISTS, at least ask him why he's DOING this!

God created hell - literally the trashbin of the universe - out of necessity, because he could not coexist with the evil that had been brought into the universe.

Please don't cover up for him. It was not "brought into the universe"
HE BROUGHT IT into the universe. He was there, there was no Evil, he wanted Evil, so he created it. I will not worship such a creature, even if he did exist.
There would be NO child molestation, torture, murder, pain of any kind, without God. He is the author of Evil and Suffering.

And we were not "sinful, stupid creatures" from birth. We were created in God's image, after all. Eden was perfect. We made ourselves sinful and stupid.

No. No person can be born and decide to never sin. None of us had ANYTHING to do with Eden. Because of the mistake of 2 people, we ARE born fallen creatures, we are DESTINED to sin and suffer, in a fallen world, DESTINED to die, and we had NOTHING to do with it. It is all because of the actions of 2 people from thousands of years ago.

Yep. And he created all the people on Earth with the full knowledge that many of them would commit unspeakable evil, as well.

He must've thought the price was worth paying.

He isn't paying the price so he can't decide if it's worth paying.
Ask me, if it's worth my eternal suffering, just so some other strangers can enjoy eternal bliss.
I can think of much better systems in which one's pleasure is not dependent on the suffering of innocent people...and I'm not even a GOD!


I want to make it clear that the whole problem is that the whole thing depends upon whether or not you believe 2nd hand accounts. The worst sin in the universe is SKEPTICISM? Absurd.

Here is how we'd REALLY have a choice.
If God actually had a relationship with us, by COMMUNICATING.
If God came to us, as he did to Paul, and Moses, etc.
And said,
"Hello! I am God. I created you. Now, do you want to spend FOREVER, here?"

And then he transported us to Hell for 10 minutes, so we KNEW, exactly WHAT we were choosing.

And then he brought us back and said, "...or HERE?"
And then showed us Heaven for 10 minutes.

Then said, "If you want to remain in the first place, do what ever you want, and you'll end up there. If you want to make it to the second place, you are welcome, but HERe is what I require of you if you want admittance."

And then, he told us what was required.

THEN, and only then, would we really be making a choice.
On "Let's Make A Deal", if Monty Hall says, "You can have this TV set, OR, you can have whatever's inside this unmarked box."

If you chose the box, hoping it had diamonds or cash inside it...but he opened it and it had cow dung inside....
YOU. DID. NOT. CHOOSE. COW. DUNG. OVER. A. TV.
You were kept in the dark about WHAT you were choosing, just as we are, by God.
Unfair, Injust, Nonsensical.

I'm glad to hear you are a Truth-seeker first and foremost. With that, at least, we are on the same page.

Cool.



I want to sincerely thank you though for taking the time to post and thoughtfully give me some of the answers that work for you. It's all really interesting stuff at the very least, and a more important topic than any other, so I'm glad you responded.
And I hope you understand that my frustration and disgust with Christianity is held for the belief, but not necessarily for those that believe.
Thanks a lot.

 

[Mr Jide]

What a miserable existence, the life of a Christian, built upon such a flimsy, delicate fantasy. How miserable.

God I wish the world could break free of this crap.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

1. - Wow, eloquent rebuttal!

2. - What I was saying is, I am obviously STRONGLY opposed to Christianity. I don't just think it's followers are just "mistaken". I think the belief has done incalculable harm to our world. I think it taught a lot of good things, and way more evil things.

BUT, if I had kids, I would totally want them to see "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston, or the really good "Jesus Of Nazareth" series, I would be saddened if they never enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia, or the Screwtape Letters.
Hell, I'd prefer that they study the Bible in it's entirety, as I did when I read it from cover-to-cover five times.

I would want them to gain knowledge, and experience, and enjoyment, and most importantly, to LEARN TO THINK FOR THEMSLEVES.

The way SOME Christians want to shut out anything that doesn't line up with their narrow view, the way they fear different ideas, and see Satan hiding under every rock, and don't trust for a SECOND that if their beliefs are even QUESTIONED, that anyone would STAY..............it's sad at best, pathetic and dangerous at worst.

 

[Mr Jide]

Fair enough but you have a disgusting habit of labeling all christians the same. In your above post, it's the first time I've actually seen you not refer to christians as a collective. Sure, there are christians who do good and bad things but the same can be said about any religion or those who don't follow one at all.

I agree, that we all should be able to think for ourselves and be exposed to various ideals and whatnot and thus, make a decision to what best suits you. This golden compass movie or any other movie that denounces the existence of God or christianity doesn't phase me in the slightest because to me, it's just entertainment. As you know, I'm a christian and nothing will change that but I'm not going to deprive myself of what may be an interesting experience even if it is at an entertainment value. Christians moaned about the last temptation of christ, I saw that, thought it was a good movie. I didn't agree with some of the things in it but to me it's entertainment. Does this mean as a christian I shouldn't be watching star wars or start trek or even some comics? Hell, no.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

1. - Wow, eloquent rebuttal!

2. - What I was saying is, I am obviously STRONGLY opposed to Christianity. I don't just think it's followers are just "mistaken". I think the belief has done incalculable harm to our world. I think it taught a lot of good things, and way more evil things.

BUT, if I had kids, I would totally want them to see "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston, or the really good "Jesus Of Nazareth" series, I would be saddened if they never enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia, or the Screwtape Letters.
Hell, I'd prefer that they study the Bible in it's entirety, as I did when I read it from cover-to-cover five times.

I would want them to gain knowledge, and experience, and enjoyment, and most importantly, to LEARN TO THINK FOR THEMSLEVES.

The way SOME Christians want to shut out anything that doesn't line up with their narrow view, the way they fear different ideas, and see Satan hiding under every rock, and don't trust for a SECOND that if their beliefs are even QUESTIONED, that anyone would STAY..............it's sad at best, pathetic and dangerous at worst.

in all fairness... Christianity doesn't teach evil things... people do. And there lame ass way they enterperate it

 

[S_H_F_4839]

I don't respect any group of people that takes themselves so seriously that they have to bash a movie because it threatens their religious views, We ran into this same crap with the da vinci code, and I think its a safe bet we will run into it again when angels and demons come out the prequel to that film, based on another of dan browns books.

I haven't seen this film yet, but its due to a lack of funds as opposed to some religious view.

 

[Danalys]

the bruhaha about the life of brian was so much better.

 

[S_H_F_4839]

the bruhaha about the life of brian was so much better.

I guess I missed that one.

 

[Alina]

I keep reading all this posts and I can't believe my eyes...I'm sure the movie is well made, I'll definitely watch it, mostly because of the actors (My God, what a cast!Breathtaking!). Now, what makes me really really sad is that most of the people seem to think nowadays that you're so cool and so smart to bash the christian religion and think you're the smartest think on two legs and those who believe in God are a bunch of morons. From my point of view, I prefer to be a "moron", I have very good reasons for that. But just one question: is this religion to blame for the bad things in this wolrd? I think not.

 

[S_H_F_4839]

9 out of 10 people on this board will say it is, that or religion in general is responsible for the way the middle east is today, I am noticing.

I respect others beliefs and don't much care if they respect mine, the way I was brought up you know the whole treat others the way you would like to be treated thing.

 

[Alina]

I don't think religion is to blame for the situation in the middle east, but the leaders. They manipulate the people. It has always been the same. Even among the christians. But God gave me a brain as well and I can use it, right?

 

[S_H_F_4839]

I don't think religion is to blame for the situation in the middle east, but the leaders. They manipulate the people. It has always been the same. Even among the christians. But God gave me a brain as well and I can use it, right?

I personally am a christian in my beliefs but I haven't quite determined a denomination yet, not a big fan of pentacostals they go to far in my opinion and baptists don't go far enough, whats the middle ground?

 

[Alina]

I personally am a christian in my beliefs but I haven't quite determined a denomination yet, not a big fan of pentacostals they go to far in my opinion and baptists don't go far enough, whats the middle ground?

I'm sure there is a confession for you to rely on. I'm orthodox, by the way. Two of my best friends are catholic and my best (male) friend is penticostal. And there's no problem.

 

[S_H_F_4839]

I'm sure there is a confession for you to rely on. I'm orthodox, by the way. Two of my best friends are catholic and my best (male) friend is penticostal. And there's no problem.

I don't know of any catholic churches anywhere around the area I live in the northeastern arkansas area.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Thanks - glad to know someone found it interesting. Makes typing all that up worthwhile.

And sure, here's the stuff that's most heavily influenced me:

The great bulk of C.S. Lewis's (non-fiction) works - any of which are an excellent (and no-nonsense) introduction to theology... my favorites being The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock (a collection of different essays on Christianity and ethics), and Mere Christianity.

I'd also recommend N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God and Simply Christianity (the latter gives a more historical view than Lewis's).

Older works: St Augustine's Confessions and City of God, Thomas Aquinas - Selected Writings.

And if you're interested in more factual investigation, less philosophical argumentation: Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ is worth a look (though I've heard a lot of varying opinions on this one).

Thanks. You're obviously well read. Moreso than most. I've not read read a thing by C.S.Lewis aside from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe when I was much younger, and my general distaste for fantasy caused me not to finish (ironically a Jewish friend of mine loaned me the book).

I've read Confessions I believe, and City of God. In fact I wrote a paper on the latter. Found a lot of comparisons between it and Plato's Socrates (a personal favorite). Now I feel I ought to go dig it up and reread it to see what it was I liked about it.

I don't agree with all that you say, but it's all very well backed up and researched. Honestly I think I'll need a little more time if I hope to dissect it...at least with something or more substance than sarcastic and dismissive remarks.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

From my point of view, I prefer to be a "moron",

Well good luck with that. It's going great so far!

 

[sinewave]

A supernatural transformation does occur. And perhaps an omnipotent God could have initiated that conversion for Adam and Eve the moment they chose to sin, so that we'd all be spared, and everything would be hunky-dory.

can i get a show of hands? how many practicing christians here believe we all descended from adam and eve?