Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a threat

It certainly functions as one.

Then it's not a threat from me, if you prefer to see it as one.

it's not mine.

You've chosen to believe it,[/quote] Yes...

...and have gone on to wield against others,

No, I just report it. I "wield" nothing. I have no relevant power to do so. Would you prefer I lie to you?

It's an offer, and it's the Lord's.

Here you go:

"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

Oh? That doesn't look like the Lord's writing to me.

He is. It's for everyone. If that includes you, you're in.

[Harry Baird]

While I understand that this formula, the formula of recognition and confession, has been central to Christian apologetics and missionary work -- and indeed it really does function like a threat (either you see this, do this or you will be lost to absolute perdition which has always functioned as a type of psycho-spiritual terrorism), I think that this formula must be rejected. Let me put it this way. If becoming a Christian involves just this (this is presented as the core dimension of 'salvation' and without it no matter what a person does or thinks he will be *lost*), the formula must be rejected by a genuinely moral being. It is, seen from a moral angle, not only absurd but sick. No one can be nor should be psychologically terrorized in this way. Conversion should not be brought about in this way.

Yep. Well said.

The only caveat I'd add is that if God is not omnipotent, and dualism is (as I suspect) the case, then there might anyway be a hell (created by His opposite) which God lacks the power to destroy, at least at the moment. The hope then would be that eventually evil is conquered, and hell is not eternal.

I know, of course, that you disagree with this sort of dualism. It is perhaps a little too dark for you? As you know, I have had some dark spiritual experiences which have led my thinking in this direction.

A far better and much more moral posture toward any religious decision is one that involves freely giving one's assent to a spiritual principle, to a process of spiritual transformation (processes of growth and struggle), and as well to modifying how one lives so to contribute to growth (what other criteria should be referred to here?) in the people and the culture surrounding us. Therefore, the question, the issue and the problem, is to define what that is and what that should be and must be about.

Again, well said. If dualism is wrong and there indeed is a God who lacks nothing in the way of power, then this is obviously the path He'd prefer and choose for us friends whom He's created.

[Harry Baird]

It's not a threat

It certainly functions as one.

Then it's not a threat from me, if you prefer to see it as one.

You have adopted it, endorse it, and wield it against others, so, functionally, yes, you are enough a part of it to bear responsibility for it as a threat.

Would you prefer I lie to you?

I'd prefer you exercise some thought and work out that the whole Story you believe in is a load of bollocks.

You're still ignoring the video I shared, I see. It could be of help here.

It's an offer, and it's the Lord's.

Here you go:

"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

Oh? That doesn't look like the Lord's writing to me.

He is. It's for everyone. If that includes you, you're in.

Huh? I asked you to share with me the Lord's writing. This obviously isn't it. It's some other guy's.

[Walker]

Here's everything you could possibly want to know about that, in what has been called "the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere," by one of the pre-eminent Biblical scholars and theologians today. Let's see what you make of the evidence. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrectio ... 0825427886.

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

In any case, I think you misunderstand. I'm very open to the possibility that Jesus resurrected.

What I'm asking you to prove though is that Jesus actually, and truthfully, claimed that only those who believed that he resurrected would be saved from an eternity of fiery agony in hell. Moreover, I'd then expect a rationale for how this could be in the slightest bit reasonable on the part of a wholly good God.

I haven't read the link, however, regarding your request for a proof based on rationality ...

- To believe with all your being leaves no room for not believing.
- In other words, to believe with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, is not a choice.

- Eternity can only exist right now, in the present.

- Thus, one who believes so totally and completely leaves no room in consciousness for unbelief, and thus is perpetually saved from the feiry, burning, pain of hell of mental anguish, which is a physical pain felt in the noggin ... saved now, and now, and now … add a bunch more nows and you have eternity.


Is this consistent with Christian thought?

[Belinda]

I refer to the version of God where He is 1.wholly good, 2.wholly knowing, and 3..wholly powerful.

If you subtract 1. (wholly good) then He is 2. and 3. which are compatible.
God answers "I am evil and good by turns and I don't care if evil wins the day".

If you subtract 2.(wholly knowing) then He is 1.and 3. which are compatible ; with a stretch of the imagination.
God answers " I am good but never evil and I can make evil disappear, but I don't know which is which".

If you subtract 3.(wholly powerful) then He is 1. and 2.which are compatible.
God answers " I am wise and caring but I cannot dispel evil".

It's thinking of this sort that has led me to a conception of God different than the standard Abrahamic one. I tend towards taking the last option, and thus towards a type of dualism, in which God is constantly doing what He can to combat evil, with no guaranteed (but certainly hoped-for) final outcome.

I guess you think of God as a supernatural person. I don't.

[promethean75]

Edit: can't upload pic. Deleted post.

[Harry Baird]

I guess you think of God as a supernatural person. I don't.

What do you think of God as, then?

[Harry Baird]

- Thus, one who believes so totally and completely leaves no room in consciousness for unbelief, and thus is perpetually saved from the feiry, burning, pain of hell of mental anguish, which is a physical pain felt in the noggin ... saved now, and now, and now … add a bunch more nows and you have eternity.

To the extent that I understand what you're saying, I don't think that I agree with it. It seems to amount to "Remain in the present, submitting entirely to belief, and you can (will) feel no pain, not even that of hell." I don't think that it works like that.

Is this consistent with Christian thought?

Maybe with some Christian thought. Probably not with the entirety of it. Some Christians are no doubt going to want to say, "There is always room in consciousness for physical pain, and that's exactly what you'll feel in hell."

[Immanuel Can]

You have adopted it, endorse it, and wield it against others, so, functionally, yes, you are enough a part of it to bear responsibility for it as a threat.

Nope. Not my words. Just God's truth. It existed long before I did, and will exist long after I'm gone.

You can deal with it, or try to dodge it. But you won't answer to me.

[Nick_A]

Nick: I only understand what I understand — about life really. That is the “understanding” you referred to. My understandings often coincide with what I have learned through old-school Catholic spiritual and ethical writings.

What I do understand — that’s the best I can do.

Maybe I wasn't clear but not being critical. But if we believe we know Christianity and profess to believe in Jesus with our mouth, why can't we practice what we preach and often do the opposite? Matthew 23 describes Christian hypocrisy:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it........................................

And Jesus continues but you get the picture. Even I C will admit that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Is he going to hell? People in philosophy forums like to argue Christianity but how many admit they cannot practice it so cannot be said to understand it since understanding is defined by what we do, not what we know. Does that mean we all go to hell? Contemplating why we don't understand Christianity IMO is real philosophy.

[Dubious]

Maybe there will come a day when we dispense with the old-fashioned gods created millenniums ago and recreate a more modernized version if gods are still required. As quantum computing becomes more powerful and artificial intelligence less artificial, perhaps we'll create a hologram we can interact with. That could actually be a truer version than all the excess BS in the bible which has mind-poisioned so many throughout the ages. It would be a way of turning erstwhile scripture into literature flattening its effect.

Strange and ironic to say both the Old and New Testament gods seem less intelligent than a lot of humans who have delivered something worthwhile and not merely godfather threats of damnation if you don't subscribe to their version of self-endorsed divinity. It takes a truly diseased mind to still believe that something so ungodly could come from a god.

I'd literally give the entire useless bible for more music by Mozart or Wagner. There's more of the sacred in that than all the words of which the bible is composed.

[henry quirk]

As quantum computing becomes more powerful and artificial intelligence less artificial, perhaps we'll create a hologram we can interact with.

already saw that movie...

EDBF3919-78B1-4991-9A55-70767DF6338F.jpeg

...pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

[Immanuel Can]

Even I C will admit that he doesn't practice what he preaches.

Yes, he will frankly admit he is just as flawed and failing as many, perhaps more than some. But that's the necessity of salvation. One doesn't "save" oneself. One is "saved" by Somebody Else. And one is not saved by one's own merits, but by His rescue.

Consider: why do you think Christianity has so many terms like, "forgiveness," "redemption," "salvation," and "regeneration"? Would you think these are terms that appeal to people who believe that they're "saving" themselves by being intrinsically perfect or behaviourally infallible? If you did, then you don't know what those terms mean, at all, obviously. They all refer to the action, not of being perfect oneself, but of being made into something by God.

People in philosophy forums like to argue Christianity but how many admit they cannot practice it

All true Christians know full well they cannot save themselves. Anybody who doesn't know that is definitionally not a Christian. (Eph. 2:8-9)

Contemplating why we don't understand Christianity IMO is real philosophy.

You're right: most people have not the foggiest idea what Christianity really is. That's because it's not a subject that God intends to allow you to dissect and study like it was a bacterial slide or a lab rat. He calls for commitment, choice, decision. And anybody who does not come to do that goes away confused. That's how it works. (1 Cor. 1:20-21)

[Dubious]

As quantum computing becomes more powerful and artificial intelligence less artificial, perhaps we'll create a hologram we can interact with.

already saw that movie...EDBF3919-78B1-4991-9A55-70767DF6338F.jpeg...pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

Movies aren't real.

[henry quirk]

As quantum computing becomes more powerful and artificial intelligence less artificial, perhaps we'll create a hologram we can interact with.

already saw that movie...EDBF3919-78B1-4991-9A55-70767DF6338F.jpeg...pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

Movies aren't real.

you missed the point
which is not surprisin' at all