Kevin's Watch

iQuestor wrote:Cyberwheeze said:

iQuestor, I would say salvation is denied to no one either. But that doesn't mean everyone accepts it. Jesus never turned anyone away, but He allowed them to walk away.

perhaps. But it remains the biggest mystery to me of all with the idea of God:

Lets assume there is a God, and that there exists a religion on Earth that offers the true path to salvation.

If each major religion teaches that theirs is the only way to salvation, then only a small segment of humanity will actually get salvation. Is it the Catholics? The Christians? One of the various Protestant denominations? Islam? COTFSM? others?? We dont know. We only have faith.

Now, each religion requires Faith from the beleiver that they are on the true path. God also requires Faith. I know of no western exceptions to this rule.

I also assume people of each religion have their religous awakening when they truly beleive and dedicate their lives. Their beleif is no less ferverent or pure or honest than any other people of other religions. They have the same spiritual feelings. So its not as if they can tell if they are on the right path or not based on these feelings.

Now lets Assume Christians are right: Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. A devout Catholic shows up at the pearly gates. Lived his life to letter of Catholic Law. Obeyed the laws, kept confession, Kept the faith. did everything he was supposed to do. And God turns him away on a technicality.

He had all the requirements, except he had the bad luck to be born Catholic, or raised catholic, or turned to a priest when a Pastor wasnt available. No Matter. he is going to Hell. On a technicality.

If there is a God, and he loves us and wants to offer us Salvation, then how could he possibly allow this confusion to happen? Its not a matter of Faith, because ALL religions have faith. All religions teach theirs is the right way. So we as humans can't tell, and base our decision on birth or life circumstances. Salvation is a lottery. And I cannot believe in a God who loves us but would let this condition persist.

I consider this a fantastic post.

And would like to see it addressed.

Cail, how do you work at it?

I try (admittedly sometimes harder than others) to live my life by Christ's teachings.


Dromond, that is a good post, and I think I addressed it as it pertains to my beliefs. God manifests Himself to different people in different ways.

i actually have a question regarding all the most recent posts.

what exactly, according to anyone's religion or faith, is "salvation" ?

is that just the word that everyone is using to mean "going to heaven"? or does it have some connotation i'm not aware of.

as i've gotten older i've come to see "faith" and religions in the same way i understand ye old 12 step groups. i'm not equating them, just trying to figure out the best way to articulate this...

in the 12 step grps they say that the motivation (and anyone can correct me if i've got this wrong) to get sober or stop drinking or abusing drugs is that you (general you) has to "want what they've got."
in other words, you have to want to feel as the sober people feel.
so...you stop drinking and go to the meetings and do what the grp "doctrine" or the Big Book and your sponsor tells you do to.
you basically go throught the motions, even if you're not sure you believe
they will work. you stick to it until you "get what they have" which, i assume would be some sort of comfortable sobriety.
(belief in a higher power being a major component of that process)

i'm rambling but my point was, do you think this is the way to "salvation"?
go thru the motions until you believe or "have faith"?
and what is the end result? what is this "salvation" and what exactly are you saved from?

this is a real question. not a debate point.
i'm asking here because the word is being used over and over in the most recent posts and i don't understand what salvation exactly is.

edit: and while you're at it, can anyone explain this whole "died for our sins" thing to me too? i've NEVER gotten how that one works.
(and thus, can't imagine where i'd get the "faith" to believe it)

Pagans don't do the salvation thing -- we *all* go to the Summerlands -- so I can't answer that, Luci.

But I think I can address the "died for your sins" thing. Not that the Christians will like my definition much. But as I understand it, Jesus was sent here to be a blood sacrifice. Many ancient religions required that either animals or people be killed as a sacrifice to the gods, so that the gods would look kindly upon their believers and grant them boons -- a good harvest, relief from a plague, what-have-you. Christianity's big leap forward was that God sent Jesus to earth to be the one blood sacrifice for all time. In that way, Christians were relieved from having to die to propitiate their deity.

I'll leave it to somebody else to explain how that got morphed in the dogma to "Jesus died for your sins".

Luci, I will take a crack at it:

The fundamental tenant of Christianity is that Man is born flawed -- born sinners. (Some think we are without sin until a certain age). We are flawed because of Adam and Eve disobeying God in the Garden of Eden. Apparently, God holds a grudge, and it doenst stop with you, but carries on down to your kids. And their kids.

Unfortunately, If you are a sinner, then you are damned to Hell. Which is bad.

Salvation means the act of being saved from something. For Christians, being saved means that you have been saved from damnation to Hell, from your own wretched nature through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You get absolved of your general tendancy toward wickedness and God will also forget that you are descendants of Adam and Eve, who screwed it up in the GOE.

You can receive this salvation by simply accepting that Jesus is the Son Of God, and that you are a sinner and cant save yourself, and that You accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior -- because through Him is the only way for a Christian to be saved. We are too messed up to deal with God directly. To be saved means after you die, you go to Heaven and be with Jesus and God and everything is perfect. If you aren't saved, you go to to Hell and burn forever. which, I mentioned before, is bad.

In the Old Testament, people sacrificed their best animals and harvest to God to show their alleigance, devotion and love of God, and he took care of them. His chosen people were the Jews, and he had a pact with them. I guess God saw the inefficiency of this and sent His Son to be first an example, then a Teacher, and finally a sacrifice to give Mankind a way to God's grace and eternal life.all of mankind, to both Jews and Gentiles (ie, The Good News) .

hope that helps.

Yeah, that's pretty much it IQ and Ali. There's nothing insulting about it, that's it in a nutshell.

The 12 steps (whether anyone wants to admit it or not) were patterned on Christian philosophy, and were originally written to mandate a belief in the Biblical God. The "fake it 'till you make it" thing though is completely antithetical to Christianity and every other religion I'm aware of. You have to actually believe in whatever you say you believe in. No faking.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the 12-step idea...(Which is fundamentally a christianity-derived thing.) I think admitting (or claiming) powerlessness is not the way to go. On the contrary, only you have power over your problem.

Sorry, off topic, I know.

--A

Cail wrote:Yeah, that's pretty much it IQ and Ali. There's nothing insulting about it, that's it in a nutshell.

The 12 steps (whether anyone wants to admit it or not) were patterned on Christian philosophy, and were originally written to mandate a belief in the Biblical God. The "fake it 'till you make it" thing though is completely antithetical to Christianity and every other religion I'm aware of. You have to actually believe in whatever you say you believe in. No faking.

Yea, I was going to say that. It's not enough to say "I believe in Jesus," to save yourself, you have to actually mean it.
The only thing that might not be completely clear: Accepting Christ does not mean you are no longer a sinner, it means only that you believe in God and Christ, do your best to act right, and Heaven will be yours in spite of the fact that, when alive, you were still a sinner. [not to be too flippant, but it's an eternal A for effort]
(is that ok explanation, for a non-believer?)
What isn't addressed, and was asked/implied: Why did God need obedience, and how, exactly, sacrifice makes up for the failure?
I've never understood the connection, nor why the sins and state of distant ancestors are also my sins and condition.

vraith said:

What isn't addressed, and was asked/implied: Why did God need obedience, and how, exactly, sacrifice makes up for the failure?

Me too!

Why would God create something, then damn it to hell for being imperfect? I mean, IAW Christianity -- they disobeyed a command to not eat of the Tree of Life. And everyone got screwed.

If he wanted us to be perfect, then He shouldn't have introduced the human propensity to be flawed. I'd say God had a QA problem.

Does Christianity not teach to forgive and forget? God obviously didnt forget, and you have to spend your life in devotion to him to get the forgiveness part.

I'd say God has it made. If something good happens to a Christian, they are Blessed by God. Praise God, for He has <insert good thing that happened here>.

If something Bad happens, well then, It's Part Of Gods Plan.

God Can't lose! He always gets the credit or the benefit of the doubt. No Matter What.

Oh No! I got Cancer. But its ok, it's part of Gods Plan.

I was cured of Cancer! Praise God!

-- Hello? God Created Cancer. In essence, He Gave it to you.

Would you accept a Doctor Shooting you with a gun, then Praise him for removing the bullet and helping you heal?

No? Why not? Because the Dr. is not God. Only God has the right to treat people so poorly.

And Prayer: Why Pray at All?

If you pray for something, its either part of Gods Plan, or Not.
- If it is, its going to happen anyway, so your prayer had no effect.
-If it isnt, it won't happen, because, well, its not part of Gods Plan.
either way, its ineffective.

If God needs us to constantly pray to him and devote our lives to him in order to not Burn in Hell, that just doesn't sound like a very good deal for anyone. And it makes God sound needy.

Think for a moment. Lets assume I created artificial intelligence in the form of a humanoid robot and announced it to the world.

The first two screw up and then I make them devote their lives to me and I hand them down some rules to follow, or else -- eternity in the car crusher at Pete's junkyard.

What would society do? I think they's think I was a fruitcake and somebody would raise the quiestion that these robots got rights and Im violating them.

But, IMHO thats the same deal that God seems to have given us: I made you, you better worship me., realize you are worthless, wretched, flawed, and know every day of your life you will go to Hell and Burn forver unless you do what I say. All because the first two screwed up.

I really don't mean to offend anyone's beliefs. These are my beliefs and of course they dont invalidate anyone elses. Perhaps I am just mad at Him right now.

<is that Thunder and lightning I hear in the distance? its growing louder. >

What the?? Too many questions, are you people serious?? I have brain overload.

No really, I do.

I think I could agree w/the posts about what salvation is. I think we could define love w/in a relationship. W/o a relationship, there is no love. So God created man for a relationship, we have free will. He knew it would lead to sin, I can only believe Him displaying love by becoming one of us, dying perfect, is enough to counter what sin has done. I don't know how he creates something that has the choice to have a relationship or not, yet always chooses option A. I would imagine those people would complain that they seem never able to choose B. I don't wonder why God allowed us to choose a relationship w/Him, I wonder why He left Satan around.

And I believe the Bible teaches God desires blood to cover sin. The Jewish nation sacrificed in order to cover their sin, and the sacrificial system foreshadowed Christ's ultimate sacrifice (I started typing some notes about the 7 Jewish feasts just yesterday, good timing I guess, I'll start another thread). The Talmud has some statements about how things changed 40 years before destruction of temple in 70AD that are very interesting. But I believe Jesus being the perfect sacrifice, His blood covers the sin of all those who repent and trust that sacrifice. The repentance is the not faking part. Technically, you can't work for your salvation, it only comes thru Christ's sacrifice. But, Paul says that's not a license to sin, and James says faith w/o works is dead, so belief in Christ's sacrifice is a worldview. It should affect your life.

I've been thinking lately (when thinking about raising my son, who's only 18 months) about authority. Actually, I'll start a new thread on that as well. But I think it ties in to some of these questions.

I know, this probably all just leads to more questions.

vraith, I think God "needs" obedience b/c of His holiness. He's perfect and doesn't stand sin, period. I think it relates to authority. Why He decided blood covers sin? That I'm not sure. I wish my knowledge wasn't so lacking. And yes, accepting Christ does not make one sinless (I hope that's obvious), but again, it should cause you to sin less.

Cybrweez wrote: Why He decided blood covers sin? That I'm not sure. I wish my knowledge wasn't so lacking.

Not to dismiss/ignore the rest of your post, but there is something I want to say here: Historically/Anthropologically, there's an answer: The god of the Jews, hence Christians, was originally the Hittite God of War, and demanded blood. Obviously, this is insufficient at best for people of either of those faiths. [other, and nastier terms might be applied]. I would be interested in an answer...I suspect Rus would have something to say...but he'll be too busy politely bashing Cail's version of christianity to notice me.
[no offense to Cail or Rus...from what I've read though, it's impossible you'll agree with each other on recent posts]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care about agreeing with anyone when it comes to religion. It's a deeply personal thing, and everyone believes it a little differently. There have been too many wars fought over the minute differences in religious faith.....I won't engage in another one, because God commands us all not to.

Vraith, I don't know that God commands obedience so much as he expects it in the same way that we expect it from our kids.

thank you all, iQ and ali in particular, for clearing that up for me.
'preciate it.

yeah...belief. comes right down to that doesn't it.

if any of this stuff made any sense to me at all i'd probably be much more inclined toward belief.
if i believed, it'd be a helluva lot easier to make a choice.

looks like i'm in a pickle!

Boy, I go away for a week or so...

CHRIST IS RISEN!!! (whether you believe it or not)

News, which, if not true, is of no importance. If true, it is of absolute importance.
The one thing Christianity cannot be is moderately important.

There are so many posts and comments that I can't respond to them all. I'll say that it is impossible to lump Christianity - what is common to us - and then ask questions that touch on what is not common to us, and unfortunately, that "not common" is critically important, because it is a cause (if not the only one) for some of you for unbelief.

I think CS Lewis did about the best job that could be done in his book "Mere Christianity". However, gaping holes are left that can only be resolved by examining the differences.

A number of things Cail has said are very true. However, I don't think that his beliefs even perfectly represent Catholicism as I know it - it strikes me as far too universalist (the belief that all will eventually be saved regardless of actions and choices in this life); they take concepts about God's love and mercy, and statements by Christ and the Apostles about them, and leave out the other parts and statements (by the same) that do warn of a genuine possibility of eternal destruction, for example. And certainly, those beliefs (as stated) are far from Orthodoxy.

One thing I have objected to before as an example of the differences that cause unbelief is the western juridical view (that sin and damnation is crime and punishment). In Orthodoxy it is seen much more as terminal illness and healing, which makes God into a "big bad Daddy who will love you if you make the right choice and throw you into hell for eternity otherwise".This, even if not presented as such, ultimately comes across that away, and unbelievers rightly reject such a "loving" God. So I deny and reject iQuestor's summary of the western Christian view as being either true or the sum of Christianity. You, iQ, are right to reject it - fortunately, that is not Orthodoxy. (BTW, I think your post was well-formed in describing what you do know -

Salvation means the act of being saved from something.

that is the correct beginning of understanding. How different this is from the loving Father and Physician Who wants you to do what is necessary for Him to be able to save you! And damnation (Lewis effectively describes it as the state of having been a log) is something that is truly something one does to oneself.

Ideas that the Jewish God was originally another God are completely off - it is the ways in which that God radically differed from all of the other gods around that totally refutes this. But that's another deep subject requiring lots of genuine digging. (See Vraith - I noticed you! )

But seriously, the answers to many of these questions and objections are big, and can hardly adequately communicate what you need to understand in a few posts (although, of course, they can communicate something). But attempting to identify Christianity as one big thing and then understand theological questions about salvation and blood in one unified thread is hopeless.

Also, Andy in his last post is much closer to the Orthodox position...
And yes, I think having children enables some kinds of understanding about the necessity of authority and being able to understand ourselves in a similar relation to God - esp. when you try to get a child to do things for his or her own good and they fight back. That's the essence in a nutshell, really.

Oh, man! Lost my invisibility cloak.
But I was half right...I KNEW which point was most likely to get you to say something relating to Cail...
More seriously, though, if I were a believer, I'd probably be more like Cail in regards to others (whatever particular tradition I followed)...God is simply NOT going to send people to hell because they did their best but didn't (for whatever reason...the most extreme being "Jesus? I never even heard of Jesus") accept Christ as the Savior, while at the same time sending people to Heaven who were useless stacks of protoplasm who sincerely believed.

Vraith wrote:Oh, man! Lost my invisibility cloak.
But I was half right...I KNEW which point was most likely to get you to say something relating to Cail...
More seriously, though, if I were a believer, I'd probably be more like Cail in regards to others (whatever particular tradition I followed)...God is simply NOT going to send people to hell because they did their best but didn't (for whatever reason...the most extreme being "Jesus? I never even heard of Jesus") accept Christ as the Savior, while at the same time sending people to Heaven who were useless stacks of protoplasm who sincerely believed.

But you see, Vraith, beliefs like Cail's (not trying to pretend to specific knowledge of other posters' motivations) are necessitated by a theology that begins with a punishing God - and he does depart from the teachings of the Catholic Church to a significant degree in doing so. IOW, people like him are right, as you are, to reject the nonsensical position where the juridical God leaves you. In the case of western Christians (their theology developed along those lines with the gradual and then final break with eastern Christianity) there is a dissonance between the punishing God and the loving God. If not for the theology, you would not need to prefer a view like Cail's, except insofar as you wanted to reject it as truth in preference for the self (see below).

In Orthodoxy, we don't start from that premise - we see that the problem as more in the nature of disease - in line with the Greek amartia (missing the mark, not living as we should). It's close, but not the same as the Catholic concept of Original Sin. And that we really choose to perpetuate that condition. We really do prefer our self - the very thing that there is no life in; the result of which is death. Again, we do it to ourselves; we choose it. The natural tendencies, in a real sense, are what kills us.

One more thing - we can leave plenty of things - like people who never heard of Christ (which excludes you, unfortunately) - to God's mercy. In Orthodoxy, we say "we are being saved" in the temporal sense, not "we are already saved" the way a Baptist would say "I was saved on July 22nd...". It is a cooperative work, which we cannot do on our own, but which some choice, action and determination is required from us. (Kind of like the genie in Disney's Aladdin saying, "I can't save you unless you want to be saved.") God can save (from this final self-destruction) whom He wills, and St Paul indicates this in speaking of "the law written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15). But the only sure way to be pointed to salvation can be found in the Church - the only defense against individuals making up whatever they want or whatever seems good to them (thus, Church-less Christianity is out the window).

Rusmeister wrote:A number of things Cail has said are very true. However, I don't think that his beliefs even perfectly represent Catholicism as I know it - it strikes me as far too universalist (the belief that all will eventually be saved regardless of actions and choices in this life); they take concepts about God's love and mercy, and statements by Christ and the Apostles about them, and leave out the other parts and statements (by the same) that do warn of a genuine possibility of eternal destruction, for example

That's not what I said. What I said is that all can be saved regardless of their faith.

iQuestor wrote: Why would God create something, then damn it to hell for being imperfect? I mean, IAW Christianity -- they disobeyed a command to not eat of the Tree of Life. And everyone got screwed.

That one has always bugged me...it's like putting a toy in a room with a 5-yr old, telling him that under no circumstances may he touch it, then leaving the room for several hours.

What do you think is gonna happen?

Everybody knows the dice are loaded...

--A

Keep in mind that God is not holding you accountable for Adam and Eve's sin. Some see original sin as something that you inherit from birth. But I havent seen anything in the bible that would lead me to believe that a newborn child for instance will go to hell for Adam and Eve's sin. You are only accountable for your own sins, not the sins of others and not the sins of Adam and Eve.

The point that is lost in original sin discussion (many times) is that because of Adam and Eve's sin (Eating of the tree) it became 'possible' for us to sin. An infant is born sinless and until such time as he/she commits a sin, they are without sin. The problem is that sooner or later.. if that child lives long enough, they will sin. And at that point they are in need of salvation.