Differences in the Comprehension of Religious Tenets

[Prebe]

Worshipping God is obeying Him.

So if you don't slay you neighbour for working on the Sabbath or if you eat crustaceans you are disobedient to God, hence not worshiping, hence not a good person?

[High Lord Tolkien]

Prebe, picking one crazy person out of the whole history of Mankind that worshiped God doesn't really help the discussion.

I'm not calling all believers fruitcakes. In fact I am just trying to reject the opposite assumption: that every believer is good. Allow me to repeat Cybrweez’ absolute generalisation:

If you worship God, you WILL live a good life.

Not!

Come on, you're better than that to waste time disputing generalisations.

I think a better question to ask or think about is what different people's definition of "good" is.

[Kinslaughterer]

Defining good is an excellent example. God with a capital "G" is Hebrew/Semitic and originated in the Middle East sometime around 4000 years ago. Good, or rather its definition has changed quite a bit since then. Obviously, there are some important fundamentals that have been maintained but these same fundamentals have been observed by virtually every other culture that has ever existed regardless of their belief or, since I'm posting on Kevinswatch, unbelief in god, God, or gods.

I would definitely say yes. The opposite answer would suggest that God would care more about whether you worship Him than whether you are a good person: and this is most definitely not the way of a loving and compassionate Deity. Therefore, forbidding access to Heaven according to one's religious tenets is inconsistent: besides, consider not just those who lived before Jesus's time, but also those who, even nowadays, live either in places where the word of God hasn't reached yet, or have an entirely different, and equally ancient faith. What of them?

This is a vital question in the statement of belief, faith, etc. Most Christians feel this way, right? Yet that is not how the Bible represents Jesus or salvation. This is just a rationalization to make God good per today's more rational less instinctual standards. Jesus (maybe not ), Paul, and the gospel writers state that only through him can one be saved. They go out of their way to make it clear there is only one exclusive path to paradise. In other words, many have changed the fundamental aspects of belief system to coordinate with their own ideas of goodness.

It seems the desire to be "right" outweighs the desire to be genuinely good in many cases. I've found the most genuinely good people have reached that point through lots of self-reflection while often being minimally religious. That's not to say their aren't numerous indivduals who strive to be good people who are religious but there isn't a direct correlation between them.

[Avatar]

I would definitely say yes. The opposite answer would suggest that God would care more about whether you worship Him than whether you are a good person: and this is most definitely not the way of a loving and compassionate Deity. Therefore, forbidding access to Heaven according to one's religious tenets is inconsistent: besides, consider not just those who lived before Jesus's time, but also those who, even nowadays, live either in places where the word of God hasn't reached yet, or have an entirely different, and equally ancient faith. What of them?

I knew you would say yes Xar. What I'm interested in is the opinion of CybrWeez and Prom_Star, (and any other believers here.)

I'm not even as generous as Kinslaughterer in this case. I think that most Christians don't feel that way. I think that they take the Bible's representation, (which is fairly clear as Kins points out), more literally than you do.

And as for those "good" souls who are ignorant of Jesus, IIRC, (and you're free to correct me on this), isn't it the Churches official position that if you're good, but have never heard Jesus' message, then it's ok. You'll be granted entrance. But if you have ever heard it and rejected his "salvation," then you're outta luck? (That decision based on the very dilemma you mentioned, of "what about the souls of those who had died before him?")

It is inconsistant with a loving god. But then, I don't really see your god as all that loving perhaps.

--A

[sgt.null]

Av: it is believed that if a person has never heard the message and is good, then they are afforded salvation. since it takes a conscience decision to reject God.

[Avatar]

That's what I thought. So if I'm good, and have consciously rejected god?

--A

[sgt.null]

no salvation, your rejection states that. knowing and rejecting is the problem. and since you claim not to believe why do you care? (not sarcastic, real question)

[Prebe]

Come on, you're better than that to waste time disputing generalisations.

That would mean completely ignoring Cybrweez, which would be rude don't you think?

[Avatar]

no salvation, your rejection states that. knowing and rejecting is the problem. and since you claim not to believe why do you care? (not sarcastic, real question)

I don't really Sgt, but I enjoy discussing it. What I'm pointing out is that by this standard, the implication that Xar dislikes is in fact the "reality" of the situation.

If I reject god, any good I do counts for nothing in his eyes. Which implies that god is more concerned about whether or not I worship him, than his is by my conduct. Which casts doubt on gods motives.

Even if there is such a god, it's not a god I feel deserves worship.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Av, I think you're missing my point. Its not a question of how good you are or can be. The payment for sin is death, you can't escape payment by trying to be good. That's the point. We have all sinned, we can't bribe God, with money or w/good deeds. Besides, like I said, we think we can do enough good deeds to outweigh the bad, but our standard is lower than God's.

Prebe, you're talking about Jewish laws w/in the Jewish nation. But from your 2 posts, I see your intent, so I'll take HLT's advice.

HLT, I think people's definition of good is whatever they do. There are very few people who would say 'I do mostly bad things'.

Kins, I would think most Christians would believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. True, in this PC day and age, that percentage probably has shrunk. Hey, we don't want to "offend" anyone by saying they're not good enough. Feelings trump truth. It should be a healthy dose of both. Universalism is wrong, as is Fred Phelps.

As for people who may have never heard of Jesus, I always feel that is such a cop out. First off, I leave that up to God. The Bible does say our conscience and nature attests to God, but how He works that all out, I don't know. But, its irrelevant to me and anyone here, b/c that is not the case.

[Kinslaughterer]

Kins, I would think most Christians would believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. True, in this PC day and age, that percentage probably has shrunk. Hey, we don't want to "offend" anyone by saying they're not good enough. Feelings trump truth. It should be a healthy dose of both. Universalism is wrong, as is Fred Phelps.

As for people who may have never heard of Jesus, I always feel that is such a cop out. First off, I leave that up to God. The Bible does say our conscience and nature attests to God, but how He works that all out, I don't know. But, its irrelevant to me and anyone here, b/c that is not the case.

Its very interesting, during the days of polytheism, exclusionary religious ideas were rejected because most believed the gods were fickly anyway as they were portrayed as human then suddenly as monotheism emerges gods become incredibly exclusionary, rigid, but still retain their fickly human natures. Basically, you're rationalizing how that early model of a personified god would deal with the world today. And the truth you speak of is very subjective, do a little research and you might be terrified with what you uncover.

As is generally the case I agree with Av one this. I don't feel the god is worthy of worship. Of course I don't even no what "worship" really means.

[High Lord Tolkien]

HLT, I think people's definition of good is whatever they do. There are very few people who would say 'I do mostly bad things'.

I was expanding on your comment about "If you worship God, you WILL live a good life."

But each person views the good that they do in their own light.
Others might not agree that it's good.

Your good might be bad in my eyes.
It's subjective.

Like "happy".

[Prebe]

The payment for sin is death, you can't escape payment by trying to be good. That's the point.

But you can escape it by prostrating yourself in earnest before God. I Get it. Nice guy!

This also mean that you believe, that we are all born sinners according to the OT right? I though that was just for Jews and not for whatever church you attend?

Prebe, you're talking about Jewish laws w/in the Jewish nation.

If leviticus is so wrong who knows what parts of the OT we can count on? And do Jews not worship?

Hey, we don't want to "offend" anyone by saying they're not good enough.

You obviously don't have that inhibition.

[Prom_STar]

I still think you're missing my point.

It's a simple question:

If somebody lives a good life, treats others well, essentially obeys the teachings that make christianity what it is supposed to be, but still doesn't believe in god, would they be "saved"? Or redeemed, or accepted into heaven or whatever?

Unfortunately, it's not a simple question. The problem we have here is that we (beleives and non-believers) are approaching the situation from entirely different angles. While we both agree in the validity of reason and logic, we are coming from different foundations. Our definitions vary greatly.

I've said it before; I'll say it again. This question is not easy. That a loving God would send people to hell is not something easily understood--it's not supposed to be. I understand the arguments for universalism (even annihilationism) but at the same time, I am someone who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. He wrote it (Yes, He used human beigns to form the words, but He guided the process). And the Bible makes a pretty strong argument for hell. The Bible says "No one comes to the Father but through me [Jesus]" (John 14:6. The Bible says all have sinned and the just penalty for sin is death, hell (Romans 3:23 and 6:23).

In answer to your question, Avatar, let me offer this:

Faith without works is dead
but works without faith are also dead.

The basic question seems to be "How can God call Himself a loving God if He does not save everyone from Hell?"

1.) Hell is a choice. One of the many problems with Universalism is it requires God to vioalte free will. He must force someone to go to heaven; He must change him/her because there can be no sin in heaven--and without Jesus' sacrifice, they can never be cleansed.

2.) If anyone doubts love, he need only look to the cross. Some have said here that Christ's sacrifice was not really that bad--after all, He knew He would rise again. Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. What happened on the cross was more the curcifiction. Christ took on the full measure of our sin. God turned His face away from Christ. He poured His wrath on Jesus. Imagine what it would take--the utter and total despair--for the Son of God to cry out "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" None of us have ever--or can ever--experience anything remotely close to that.
And if that's not love, I don't know what love is.

[Avatar]

A good post Prom_Star, and interesting. You're certainly right that we appear to be approaching this from different angles.

'Weez, I'm not talking about bribing god. In a sense I could be talking about god bribing us.

So far though, despite it being implied, only the good Sgt has come right out and said it.

If I don't believe in god, I'm condemned to hell.

As far as christianity is concerned, going by Prom_Stars post there, it's not enough to just have faith, and it's not enough to just do good works.

Now the first, I don't have a problem with. I agree wholeheartedly in fact, and it addresses Prebe's stance about people who proclaim their faith but don't actually live by the "good rules."

The second is what I dislike about christianity. It doesn't matter how exemplary a life I live, if I don't believe in god.

So, as a direct corollary, as far as god is concerned, if I don't believe in him, I might as well be murdering and stealing, right? The result of my "good works" is going to be the same as if I did "evil works."

I wouldn't choose to go to hell (positing it exists ), but god would be sending me there because of my lack of faith, not for any other reason.

It was me, btw Prom_Star, who suggested that Jesus' sacrifice might not have been that much of one. Perhaps it was for him, but not for god. Afterall, he was deliberately sent for that very reason wasn't he?

You know, just to diverge a bit here, (because SgtNull had a good point when he asked me why I care), I think that the reason I'm so interested, (because I assure you I'm not worried about it), is because I want to understand what it is that makes people believe.

It's something I really struggle to understand. I mean, I was raised a christian, and like all children, I believed because people I trusted told me that something was true.

As I got a little older though, (and I do mean a little, I guess I was an athiest by 14 or so), and started to actually apply my own reasoning to the issue, I suddenly found it highly improbable at best.

Hence my eternal curiosity on the subject. Why are people so convinced?

--A

[Kinslaughterer]

Well Av, the answer you ask for won't be the answer they'll give.

People are convinced because they are afraid, lack control over their lives (as essentially we all do to a degree), and seek an appeal to authority. When you are told someone loves you (conditionally), you can gain infinite euphoria, and all the world's troubles are eliminated many jump at that wholly unrealistic opportunity for a direction and a feeling of belonging to a group, better yet one that claims to know the meaning of life. You also bring up a good point:

was raised a christian, and like all children, I believed because people I trusted told me that something was true.

Which I personally find reprehensible in terms of brainwashing children.

One reason people are so convinced is due to our (human) intelligence and consciousness. When seem to display characteristics above and beyond the rest of the animal kingdom. That is true to a great degree but the real key was the evolution of our creativity which is the fundamental difference between us and other primates. Gorillas can paint, sing sort of, and recognize more filial relationships than humans but we dream unlike everything else we know. We create things, technologies, worlds, and gods. Ironic that our creativity stems simply from genetic mutation that turned out beneficial to survival. Very simply, the most creative primate has access to or is capable of utilizing a wide variety of food others can't.

This intelligence and creativity makes us question, though not enough , our origins. We feel that fate or gods have brought us here but that only has meaning to us. From the very start we have striven to be masters of our domain (You'll be out before we get the check). As smart as we are our capabilities still fall short as disease, disaster, and accident take our lives. We need more control, a higher perfect control that dictates reason and is in place to prevent the "meaningless" death from happening, after all it is {fill in your god's name here} will.

Oh, and Av, not that I think you do but don't worry too much about hell, it doesn't even start until late in the New Testament. Before that hell was Gehenna or Sheol which originated from a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. In other words, if you were a bad person you wouldn't receive a proper burial.

Christ took on the full measure of our sin. God turned His face away from Christ. He poured His wrath on Jesus. Imagine what it would take--the utter and total despair--for the Son of God to cry out "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" None of us have ever--or can ever--experience anything remotely close to that.
And if that's not love, I don't know what love is.

This is such poor logic. All-knowing God created pitiful man which he knew would fail to mee his unbelievablely high standards yet to make up for it he sent his son, who miraculously is also a descendent of David, to Earth for punishment because he was mad at us and we had to pay his price.
It seems a bit silly doesn't it. Would you buy a car from this god?
As for love, maybe, just maybe he'd love us unconditionally without threats, eternal punishment, or extreme violence. That's what love is, not bloody sacrifice.

[Avatar]

Well, it almost goes without saying that I pretty much agree with you there Kins, and an excellent post if I may say so.

But as you point out yourself, that's not why Christians believe that they believe.

To get back to the "indoctrination" point though, I do suspect that it's a large part of the reason. I have no doubt that if Prom_Star or CybrWeez had been raised in Muslim homes, they would today be as devout Muslims as they are Christians.

We do brainwash our children. And not just into religion either, but into a huge array of socially serving attitudes, opinions and approaches.

That is why education is so vitally important. First, we have to get people to think for themselves.

(Oh, IIRC, wasn't Satan as "great adversary" also a fairly late addition?)


--A

[Prebe]

This is such poor logic. All-knowing God created pitiful man which he knew would fail to mee his unbelievablely high standards yet to make up for it he sent his son, who miraculously is also a descendent of David, to Earth for punishment because he was mad at us and we had to pay his price.
It seems a bit silly doesn't it. Would you buy a car from this god?

While funny, I'm afraid you are wrong: It's not God's fault. HE gave Adam and Eve free will, and Eve hat to chew the fruit, and we've all been in deep doo-doo ever since. Now if that's not love......

[Xar]

I think one of the great problems is still that of interpretation. While the Bible and the Gospels were divinely inspired, they had to be channeled through the minds of people - usually commoners from the first century A.D. to probably centuries, or millennia B.C.. However divinely inspired, these people put down to paper this inspiration using their own words and their own imagery, but above all, they did so using images and constructs they could understand, and by extension, their people could also understand. Suppose the Big Bang theory is correct, and it was God who put that into motion - how would a peasant from first century A.D. be able to accept or understand such a concept? Imagine the earliest preachers in a world which accepted polytheism much more readily than it accepted monotheism: conversion required the convert not just to accept God, but also to renounce and repudiate all other deities. In such a scenario, the idea that only through faith in God could salvation be achieved could also be a powerful means of persuading the common people: whereas telling them "as long as you do good deeds, it doesn't matter who you worship" would have been tantamount to suicide for the fledgling Church (most people would likely have said "cool, then I'll just keep worshiping my deities and even if I'm wrong, I'll go to heaven anyway").
And of course, the reason why it was important for the Church not to commit this suicide was not necessarily political: values in a polytheistic religion were different from those of Christianity, although not completely so, and in any case, some actions that the Greek-Roman religion would have considered perfectly acceptable, would have been unthinkable for a good Christian. Take for example the concept of vengeance, which is totally at odds with Jesus's teachings. So, it is possible that the earliest preachers used this tactic not to scare the common people and/or gain political power (although that came later, in the Dark Ages), but simply to try and lead the common people towards actions and lives more in line with Jesus's teachings.

[Avatar]

I like to agree with you on a lot of this Xar, because it ties neatly into my own idea that a great deal of Christianities message, and especially in it's early days, was effectively a marketing gimmick.

As you yourself say, they had to convince people to start following their religion. And I have no doubt that it started out at least as a genuine belief that people would be better off.

But regardless, as we already have a fair amount of evidence, at least a proportion, (and perhaps even a majority), of Christians interpret it as meaning exactly what it says.

--A