rusmeister wrote:It's difficult to respond to you, Zar, because you don't seem to have read what cybrweez or I said or to share common definitions with us. It seems that you have certain concepts in your head of what Christianity teaches - what does 'saved' mean?; what does 'allowed into Heaven' mean? You seem to be speaking of some of the more primitive versions of fundamental or evangelical Christianity (and even there there are more educated understandings of these concepts) with a vengeful God out to get us if we make the wrong choice. I've already tried to get across to you that you may need to be saved from yourself, and that by your own choices you can damn yourself, rather than the false idea that God wants to punish us forever and ever and ever, but you don't seem to have picked up on this.
The name is "Xar", but I'll let that slide
As for what I am speaking about - the denominations I mentioned - it's not a matter of a vengeful God or not; if a Christian denomination believes that God arbitrarily chooses whether to save you or not, that's what one has to go by in order to think about whether they are right or not. That said, I acknowledged that there are many Christian denominations, and just as many differences in doctrine and faith. However:
rusmeister wrote:Therefore, if it IS true, then you wilfully choose damnation by rejecting the salvation that is offered to you, just as a person drowning at sea refuses a lifeline and thus condemns themselves to drown. It is NOT something God "does" to you.
I disagree with this statement of yours. Since there is no authority higher than God and therefore He is the one who makes the rules about salvation, Heaven and Hell, it follows that depending on how one interprets "rejecting the salvation that is offered to you", the implications change. Let's make an example. I'll admit that I've had little first-hand experience with fundamentalist Christians, but I've heard from friends who have had these experiences, and of course I've read about them a lot on the internet and elsewhere. Now, for the sake of argument, I'll assume that most of what I've read is true - bear with me. So here we have groups of Christians who apparently believe that if you do not accept the message of Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell. They actively try to save you, not because they want to be obnoxious, but because they genuinely believe they're doing you a favor. Some may go as far as claiming that yes, you may be a good person, but still you won't get into Heaven without this faith. Now, again for the sake of argument (and since you admit yourself that we cannot know for sure what awaits us on the other side), let's say they're right: if you do not accept the message of Jesus, you will burn into Hell no matter what you do. At best, a good and honest person may hope for purgatory (or Dante's limbo, maybe).
Now the question is - why should faith in this particular message, as opposed to any other, be the difference between this final destination and eternal Heaven? What I mean is - why should a good and honest man who lived his life trying to do good deeds be refused entry into Heaven just because he happened, for example, to be a Muslim or a Hindu?
Obviously this was an extreme example; but the fact is that whenever one says that faith is the important factor about the afterlife, he or she is implying that all other faiths, no matter how honest their adherents, are "inferior", "false", or ultimately flawed. But most of all, he or she is implying that faith is more important than good deeds and a good life. And while faith may be a way to admit who we are, to accept our shortcomings and possibly forgive ourselves for it by struggling to overcome them, this does not mean that only the Christian faith can do this. Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, and so many other faiths have adherents who are probably just as strong in their faith as you are in yours, and who are we to say they are wrong and we are right? You may say "because our book says so", but they too have their own books and holy texts (in the case of Islam, chronologically speaking one could even suggest that the Qu'ran, based on the Hebrew and Christian faith, could be considered an "updated version") which very likely say similar things, and the truth is that none of us knows enough about what lies beyond this life as to be able to formulate an objective statement as to which faith is right, if any. In fact, some of these faiths are quite strict in describing who goes to Heaven and who doesn't (usually those who belong to other faiths), but others are far more open (Zoroastrianism is a prime example - and interestingly enough, it predates all the Abrahamic religions and some believe it may have served as inspiration for them).
So, with this wealth of holy texts and scriptures, many of them contradicting each other, who are we to judge which one is the right one? A Muslim could easily say you, the Orthodox Christian, are wrong, and his word would have just as much validity as yours, since neither of you would know what happens after death.
And that's also why it's unrealistic to believe that belonging to a particular faith could be either essential or very helpful in increasing one's chances at Heaven after death; it is not adherence to doctrine as much as adherence to the spirit of the faith - the teachings, not the forms - that is important. And it is not a coincidence, in this case, that most religions share the same basic teachings and philosophies - something far more universal than dogmas and creeds.
After all, why should God care if we eat pork, or drink wine, or if we cut our hair or our beards, and so on? Why should God deny someone paradise only because he was buried with a piece of pork? I submit that the form of your faith - or the lack thereof - is not so important as your adherence to these teachings, and that these teachings do not necessarily require a religious framework to be fulfilled. To do good, to love, to improve the world... An atheist could stumble onto this philosophy and follow it even without ever thinking of a divine being behind it; but as long as he follows it sincerely and not with hidden purposes, he is just as sincere as the next pious Christian, Muslim, and so on.
The Zoroastrians have a central tenet of their faith that says:
"Good thought, good word, good deed."
They have another one which says:
"Don't be lazy."
These are the tenets by which their religion judges those who are worthy of paradise. And are they not at the core of almost every religion, in one form or another? So as long as one follows them sincerely, and strives to improve himself and the world - after all, one can admit his own faults and strive to change himself even without adhering to any one faith - what does it matter if he is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist or agnostic?
rusmeister wrote:You say that God 'made us flawed'. This is NOT the Christian understanding, but a straw man invented to make Christianity easy to prove wrong (in some people's minds). If you honestly inquire into Christian teaching (I will speak from Orthodox Christianity, as the only Church that I can honestly defend) you will discover that God made us perfect and saw that "it was good", and that man fell by his own choice to turn away from God and reject God as the source of life, seeking that life instead in himself. We were never intended to die. It's a tragedy that was never supposed to happen, and lead to the Incarnation of God Himself, to sacrifice Himself, in order to save us from our own mistakes. But now the pride that keeps us from accepting the lifelines thrown to us and keeps us floating on our little planks leads us to our destruction. Again, as you pointed out, the theologies of varying denominations do have holes or points that are difficult to explain at various points - but FTR, Orthodoxy claims to be PRE-denominational. It's always been around, and never broke off from anybody. Unlike Protestant denominations, there is no date of the founding of the Orthodox Church, other than roughly AD 33 (The only other Church that can make this claim is the Roman Catholic Church, so that would narrow down your search really fast). I'd suggest you seek to understand Orthodox teaching before rejecting it, and you need to get your info from the horse's mouth.
As I said before, I was raised as a Catholic and I am still a believer, although my own experiences and my own interests in the study of other religions have changed my concepts quite a lot from mainstream Catholicism. I have had a Catholic education and I am quite aware of the points you raise. But I also try to think with my own head - simply because it is not good enough to me to accept what others tell me without questioning why. I'm a scientist, after all - curiosity comes with the name
Perhaps this is why I also disagree with you about the "flawed/not flawed" concept. But here we enter the arduous territory of the free will vs. determinism argument which detractors of the Christian faith use so happily, and I'd rather not go there in order to avoid derailing the thread.
rusmeister wrote:Esmer, your speculative question has a good point - we can't really know how things work on the other side, outside of things specifically given in revelation. CS Lewis said, "There will be surprises", so I think your point is good - but I doubt that we would be questioning where we are at that point.
I just want to point out something in the above quote which relates to what I said earlier about the validity of one faith over another. The part I highlighted in italics is what I want to call your attention on. Here, you speak from the assumption that the Christian revelation is true. It is understandable, given that you are Christian; however, anyone from a different faith or from no faith altogether could disagree with you with just the same validity. A Hindu could tell you that the revelations in the Bible are completely wrong - life is a cycle of reincarnations (interestingly, the ancient Jews had the concept of reincarnation). A Muslim could also tell you that his revelations of the afterlife don't quite match yours. And while you may think you are right, it does not negate the fact that they, too, think the same.
Honestly, that's why I prefer to question these things rather than to accept them without going deeper; and religion or not, I like to believe any parent would prefer his or her children to grow their own way, rather than to simply accept what they are told.
This is coming from my perspective that reads the torah and the other Old Testament prophetic writing as a literal spiritual history (though it's not limited to being ONLY that!) of things that really happened on this earth to the children of Jacob.
I swear, I've met my favourite Christians ever on this board. Xar I coulda made that same argument, with a few minor differences in emphasis.
