Kevin's Watch

Cail, I believe rus's point is that Christ's sacrifice didn't happen in 30AD, but outside of time? So the question, what happened prior to Christ, only makes sense w/in time. But talking about an event outside of time.

I believe the difference is those who lived b4 Christ's sacrifice looked forward to Messiah, trusting in His salvation, tho not knowing its exact shape. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of salvation by faith as well.

Cybrweez wrote:Cail, I believe rus's point is that Christ's sacrifice didn't happen in 30AD, but outside of time? So the question, what happened prior to Christ, only makes sense w/in time. But talking about an event outside of time.

I believe the difference is those who lived b4 Christ's sacrifice looked forward to Messiah, trusting in His salvation, tho not knowing its exact shape. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of salvation by faith as well.

This is reminiscent of Milton's take in "Paradise Lost"...Christ was "present" before he was actually "born" IIRC...though not on earth.

Last I heard, the Jews were *still* waiting for the Messiah...

Cail wrote:Not at all. I am totally uninterested in what Lewis believes. I'm asking you what you believe. I've asked (I think) pretty straightforward questions, and you appear to be dodging them.

Holy cow, Cail,
As to what I believe, the huge thing that needs to be communicated is that I accept teachings that I didn't create, and those are from the Orthodox Church. Thus, it is not at all a matter of "my opinion", which may hardly be worth two kopecks, but of what has been revealed to and taught by the Church. Regarding details on the afterlife, the answer is, "Not much." Orthodoxy is largely agnostic on what exactly goes on after death. Thus, we don't go around saying so-and-so is burning (or going to burn) in hell, or whatever. The nature of the burning is mysterious, even as a detail. Many hold that it is the actual presence of God, which for those who reject Him would be a burning fire, eternal torment. But it's not Church doctrine.

I bring in Lewis because he does illustrate in an allegorical form the best picture you are ever going to get on it. As far as that goes, my beliefs coincide with Lewis's on an order of 98%, so what he believes IS what I believe. But he's a much better writer and storyteller. For your purposes, there is no difference between what he and I believe. That particular illustration deals with many aspects and questions regarding our interpersonal relations and attitudes; I couldn't possibly summarize in any detail in less than a dozen posts, something I am unwilling to do. I don't have the time, and am attempting to most efficiently utilize all of our time by directing you to the most efficient ways of coming to understand it. If you want to remain in the dark about it, fine - but that link gives you a short summary that would give you a sense of what it's about.

I've answered your question regarding time (what about those before, etc...) The direct answer to your direct question was that everybody has a shot at salvation in one form or another, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. What else don't you understand?

Cybrweez wrote:Cail, I believe rus's point is that Christ's sacrifice didn't happen in 30AD, but outside of time? So the question, what happened prior to Christ, only makes sense w/in time. But talking about an event outside of time.

I believe the difference is those who lived b4 Christ's sacrifice looked forward to Messiah, trusting in His salvation, tho not knowing its exact shape. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of salvation by faith as well.

The crucifixion happened in time and was a definite historical event - the descent into Hades is a trans-time event (an event not under the domination of time); I guess you could say that Christ's death (Who WAS/IS God) enabled the Him to "step outside of our temporal reality" in a sense, to destroy death; destroy Hades (as distinct from an eternal hell/destruction). Thus, Orthodox crosses frequently depict a skull and bones under the cross, symbolizing their defeat by Christ.

A lot of things here are mystical - they have been presented to us in terms that we can understand, so can not be pinned down as empirical facts in a scientific manner - you have to accept the authority that teaches it or not.

rusmeister wrote:A lot of things here are mystical - they have been presented to us in terms that we can understand, so can not be pinned down as empirical facts in a scientific manner.

That does not make sense. On the one hand you are saying that there are things that can be understood but then they cannot be understood. Science is a rational logical process; to say that there is a system that is beyond this means it is illogical and beyond rational thought.

How can something that is understood be beyond rational analysis?

you have to accept the authority that teaches it or not

UNCRITICAL THINKING

Dogmatic Thinking Characterized by the unwillingness to suspend belief and reflect on the sufficiency of the belief's premises, and ignoring the consequences of believing or acting on those beliefs. Refuses to recognize or acknowledge groundless assumptions.

Mystical Thinking Evidence used to reach conclusions is ephemeral, ineffable, intuitive, unverifiable, sporadic, and subjective.

Critical Thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge and values about the world.
Critical Thinking is reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it.

A person who practices Critical Thinking can achieve a productive, successful, ethical, happy, and, ultimately, a satisfying and fulfilling life. I believe it is impossible to achieve self-actualization without practicing critical thinking.

Wow, there's been some discussion that I think is REALLY valuable here. (though liberally mixed in with "nonsense") I've been itching to participate... I'm starting several pages back.

Luci- thanks for the comment. It helps to know someone is listening.

Cail- Your posts rock... though I surely don't agree with you about everyting, you say many things I don't currently quite have the guts to stand up and say.

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.

Who is ones faith in? When it comes down to it, I think I understand how many Jews in Jesus' time felt. If he isn't God, and there IS a God who made the world and all the beautiful things in it - then worshipping a mere man is a HORRIBLE thing.

Dromond wrote:

iQuestor wrote:
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.

But I wouldn't say it was on a technicality. When it comes down to it, most religions are based on BARGAINING with a deity. Something for something. Money to the temple of this deity for healing for my daughter.

It's hard to sincerely ASK for help, and say, "I have NOTHING I could give in exchange." - If you're counting up how often you've attended church and Bible Study, how much you've served the poor, and how many tracts you've given out.

Here's an example from a fictional character that I think illustrates it well:

Amy Tan, in The Joy Luck Club wrote:"I have always beluieved in youre blessings," she praised God in the same tone she used for exaggerated Chinese compliments. "We knew they would come. We did not question them. Your decisions were our decisions. You rewarded us for our faith. In return we have always tried to show our deepest respect. We went to your house. We brought you money. We sang your songs. You gave us more blessings."

A thing for a thing. I think that's often called manipulation when people do it. I think the idea that He has such a weak ego that he "needs" anything is LUDICROUS. Grace is free. Did Jesus charge money for His healings or His teaching? Yet Ali's really got the right idea. The only thing good enough for Him is a person's whole heart, given away out of love and thankfulness.

There are going to be many people who were raised in churches that I don't agree with the teachings of who will pick up the Bible and find Jesus and simply say, "I want IN - please help me!" and they'll get in. It's not ABOUT following the priest, pastor, pope, or human guide. It's about following God. I happen to believe that Jesus was more than a teacher - so much more that I put him in the "God spot." It's not JUST about getting it explained properly, but agreeing and saying, "Yes, that's what I want."

dromond wrote:

Iquestor wrote: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.

I agree it's a MASSIVELY imortant, and troubling issue. I should go now though...

Good posts, lina, I'll somewhat address the last one:

The question of why if a God wants salvation for all, how can he allow all this confusion of religion. My take on this is that it all depends on what purpose God would have for us to live this life. My personal opinion is that it is facilitate progression. If God wants each of us to progress (keeping in mind this would be an eternal progression and not necesarily a mortal progression), how is He going to accomplish this? Each one of us is different, so we're all going to have different needs. Having one ideal is not going to help everyone in much the same way that a Ford engine won't work in a Honda. God would then work with each person on an individual basis (I make no comment on how this would be done), resulting in a multitude of different dogmas. Part of human nature is that it is hard for us to see how something that is good for us personally can not possibly work for someone else (a mundane example: I can't see how anyone can remotely enjoy The Prestige) which leads to the religious debates that are present. God would not get rid of these debates since they may be necesary for some person's progression (if I was born and raised a Mormon, but it wasn't to my advantage as far as progression, these debates could help me leave what I was raised in and find what will help me). That's my own personal response to this question.

Damn good answer.

That's the best explanation I've heard. It actually makes sense.

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:A lot of things here are mystical - they have been presented to us in terms that we can understand, so can not be pinned down as empirical facts in a scientific manner.

That does not make sense. On the one hand you are saying that there are things that can be understood but then they cannot be understood. Science is a rational logical process; to say that there is a system that is beyond this means it is illogical and beyond rational thought.

How can something that is understood be beyond rational analysis?

you have to accept the authority that teaches it or not

UNCRITICAL THINKING

Dogmatic Thinking Characterized by the unwillingness to suspend belief and reflect on the sufficiency of the belief's premises, and ignoring the consequences of believing or acting on those beliefs. Refuses to recognize or acknowledge groundless assumptions.

Mystical Thinking Evidence used to reach conclusions is ephemeral, ineffable, intuitive, unverifiable, sporadic, and subjective.

Critical Thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge and values about the world.
Critical Thinking is reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it.

A person who practices Critical Thinking can achieve a productive, successful, ethical, happy, and, ultimately, a satisfying and fulfilling life. I believe it is impossible to achieve self-actualization without practicing critical thinking.

Hi, LM,
Sorry about the delay. I've just had a fourth child and am feeling very weary of responding to people who will read my words personally printed, but refuse to read anything I refer them to (that's obviously not directed at you - I know you've been checking out GKC). Truth is, I feel that I am beginning to drop out of forum life altogether. It feels like I have said what can be said, and when it becomes clear that people don't want to listen, then there is nothing else to say.

First, to answer your question

How can something that is understood be beyond rational analysis?

, if a being from outside this universe, that created this universe, and therefore is more complex than the universe expresses His being in terms of a Trinity, that He is both three and one - neither merely 3 separate beings nor one monolithic being, this is mystical. It doesn't make sense to our rational minds. Then this being tells us that part of the relationship within this Trinity is like that of a Father and Son, something we DO understand. So we understand it. But we can't analyze it. It's revelation from beyond anything that science, which is limited to the natural universe, can analyze.
We often depict beings like Star Trek's Q or the Organians as being in some ways beyond our understanding. But these multi-dimensional beings still take forms that we can understand to reveal themselves to us, and Captains Kirk or Picard can come to some rational conclusions about, and we don't seem to have any problem with that. (merely by way of illustration)

Secondly, if you read people like CS Lewis, or Thomas Aquinas (and not just soundbites) you'll find loads of critical thinking. Many people wrongly assume that faith denies critical thinking. But critical thinking can also be the cause of faith.

Orlion wrote: The question of why if a God wants salvation for all, how can he allow all this confusion of religion.

The Christian answer is the principle of free-will. God allows all of us, even the most miserable scum-bags, freedom to act according to our will, with the desire that we should learn to submit that will, voluntarily, to Him. Thus, all "why does God allow..." questions fall away. You must first consider the effects of denying free-will and creating automatons.

Orlion wrote: Each one of us is different, so we're all going to have different needs. Having one ideal is not going to help everyone in much the same way that a Ford engine won't work in a Honda. God would then work with each person on an individual basis (I make no comment on how this would be done), resulting in a multitude of different dogmas.

This takes a partial truth - that we do have different needs, leaves out the truth that we have common needs, and comes to a conclusion that ignores the common needs.
If there is an ideal - the ultimate, or perfected goal that we also see to be good, this ideal must be good for everybody. Otherwise it is not ideal. It is very likely that we would see the process of attaining this ideal to be uncomfortable, and to require certain actions on our part inconvenient to our perception, and many would choose to be flawed, even fatally so, than to accept the goal of perfection.

If we properly understand dogma as axiomatic teaching of confirmed truth (killing babies is bad, for example), then we will see discussion of different points of view on this to be mere nonsense, and we will rightly reject "a multitude of different dogmas" on the topic.

Orlion wrote:Part of human nature is that it is hard for us to see how something that is good for us personally can not possibly work for someone else (a mundane example: I can't see how anyone can remotely enjoy The Prestige) which leads to the religious debates that are present. God would not get rid of these debates since they may be necesary for some person's progression (if I was born and raised a Mormon, but it wasn't to my advantage as far as progression, these debates could help me leave what I was raised in and find what will help me). That's my own personal response to this question.

The bigger part of human nature is that it is hard for us to see that how what we want (desire) very often conflicts with what is good for us. In this sense, what one enjoys (The Prestige, for example) is very far from what is good.
Again, God leaves us free will and so, won't 'get rid of' things, at least, according to Christian teaching, until the Last Judgement.

rusmeister wrote:

Orlion wrote: Each one of us is different, so we're all going to have different needs. Having one ideal is not going to help everyone in much the same way that a Ford engine won't work in a Honda. God would then work with each person on an individual basis (I make no comment on how this would be done), resulting in a multitude of different dogmas.

This takes a partial truth - that we do have different needs, leaves out the truth that we have common needs, and comes to a conclusion that ignores the common needs.
If there is an ideal - the ultimate, or perfected goal that we also see to be good, this ideal must be good for everybody. Otherwise it is not ideal. It is very likely that we would see the process of attaining this ideal to be uncomfortable, and to require certain actions on our part inconvenient to our perception, and many would choose to be flawed, even fatally so, than to accept the goal of perfection.

If we properly understand dogma as axiomatic teaching of confirmed truth (killing babies is bad, for example), then we will see discussion of different points of view on this to be mere nonsense, and we will rightly reject "a multitude of different dogmas" on the topic.

Fair enough, however, I believe that even though we all have common needs as well as different needs (as you've pointed out) the means by which these common needs are met can be very different. One example: Let's assume that we both need to go to Moscow. Now, I'm going to assume for the sake of example that you live close enough to take a bus to Moscow. I, however, can not take a bus to Moscow, at least not until I have taken a plane or a boat to the point where I can use a bus. Different treatment for different cases to reach the same ideal. My ideal is progression which is a bit more relative then going to Moscow or to be saved from sin (not to say that neither of these cases can be helpful to some, merely that the (insert religious belief here) method may not be the best for all).

rusmeister wrote:

Orlion wrote: The question of why if a God wants salvation for all, how can he allow all this confusion of religion.

The Christian answer is the principle of free-will. God allows all of us, even the most miserable scum-bags, freedom to act according to our will, with the desire that we should learn to submit that will, voluntarily, to Him. Thus, all "why does God allow..." questions fall away. You must first consider the effects of denying free-will and creating automatons.

The common response to this question is free-will, and though it is an important concept, I do not think it is a cure-all for the concerns it is said to resolve.

Consider: to what extent do we have free-will? There are many forces, societal, legal, natural, that coerce us to do things we may not want to do otherwise, like the following:

A man shoots someone in the face and is manhandled into jail, the man did not want to go to jail, but he is coerced there because of legal forces.

A women is bed-ridden because it just so happened that her body did not transcript her DNA correctly and now she has terminal cancer. Now, because of natural forces, she has been coerced away from doing things she would have chosen otherwise to things that she 'must' do due to her cancer.

A man would be a raging alcoholic rascist, except his friends kinda look down on such behaviour. As a result, he forgoes doing what he would want to do because he is coerced by societal forces (his friends' disapporval).

How free are we to follow our own will? How much is what we do the direct result of some exterior force? Mark Twain argued in his essay, "What is Man?" that man is, in fact a machine(automaton, if you like). This is because like a machine, man will only do things in response to external forces. A car may be able to go left or go right, but it only goes in a specific direction if a driver wills it to be so. Same with man, just because options are available does not mean that man is free to choose which option he would have.

Reviving sort of "old" posts on this thread again...

sindatur wrote: However, I don't see how two lines of text translated from the same language to the same language can directly contradict each other? Regardless, I fail to see how my praying for guidance and understanding when reading the bible (and "feeling" a prescence and an understanding) is any less reliable than the Preists and others who preach, my personal relationship with God should be no weaker than any other man or woman, should it? Is that not what accepting Christ as your Saviour is all about?

sindatur- I agree with you that personal prayer for guidance, Wisdom, and understanding (from the "forgotten Person of the Trinity" - the Holy Spirit!) is valuable without price. There is no substitute for that. And I think it's very difficult (if not impossible) to maintain an active, life-changing relationship with Jesus WITHOUT that!

But when it comes to priests, pastors, and leaders in the church - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, bud! I think it's very useful to hear from someone who has read and studied the whole Bible in detail numerous times, whether they're somebody you read like Spurgeon, Packer, Piper, Bonhoffer, C.S. Lewis, the list goes on! Or whether it's a pastor you meet in person who is truly wise and loving, ("by their fruit, you shall know them") if still human... or whether it's a little ole widow lady who prays and loves to read the Bible too - and who has read it a hundred times and applied it to her own life more than you or I have yet...

Context is critical for interpreting anything written in a given culture, to a particular readership. We filter everything we interpret through it's surrounding context. A wise and well-studied theologian can interpret every individual VERSE of the Bible through the "filter" of the CONTEXT of the WHOLE rest of the Bible. (Does that statement make sense to you?)

Learning from a good theologian is like learning about history from an actual historian. People used different literary forms in different times, and in certain narrative contexts (say, diplomatic interactions, for example) speakers meant the exact opposite of what they said. But everyone reading that story at that time would know exactly what they meant. And we can know too if we study deeply, and learn to understand the surrounding culture and the whole Bible. But learning from someone who's already invested the time can give us an "edge." (What do you think about that?)

sindatur wrote:Most of the folks who go around acting morally superior and doing what some refer to as "Bible Thumping" seem to be getting it from their Church's preacher, not from their own reading. Matter of fact, with most of these folks that you find on the internet promoting their views in this manner, they have only a few passages backing up the view they are espousing, and then they get lost when you press them in a debate, because they don't seem to have any personal knowledge from reading, but, are only reacting to what is being taught in their church

HOWEVER, your point about how people often regurgitate SECONDHAND knowledge - knowledge they don't necessarily believe themselves - is VERY IMPORTANT. They bend to social pressure, try to convince everyone around them that they are good Christians, instead of relating their own personal experiences or discoveries of Christ. Maybe they don't HAVE that relationship. Remember what Jesus said about "losing ones reward"? (Matthew 6:1-5) www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ma ... ersion=47; Don't you think some of these people risk hearing from Jesus' own lips, "I never knew you"? That's worse than ANYTHING else!

It's not about taking every word from a merely human teacher as Gospel. It's about keeping your ears truly open, and when someone says something that perfectly connects different things you've heard or read in the Bible together, you go, "That just makes sense." (Like when people exegete the Chronicles on the dissection forums.) And you have owned the knowledge for yourself, even if you heard it from somebody else first.

Also, guys, sorry about the bad quoting on the previous post. It may have looked like some stuff that other people said was stuff that I said, Orlion. I like alot of the overall direction that your response takes.[/url]

Orlion wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Orlion wrote: The question of why if a God wants salvation for all, how can he allow all this confusion of religion.

The Christian answer is the principle of free-will. God allows all of us, even the most miserable scum-bags, freedom to act according to our will, with the desire that we should learn to submit that will, voluntarily, to Him. Thus, all "why does God allow..." questions fall away. You must first consider the effects of denying free-will and creating automatons.

The common response to this question is free-will, and though it is an important concept, I do not think it is a cure-all for the concerns it is said to resolve.

Consider: to what extent do we have free-will? There are many forces, societal, legal, natural, that coerce us to do things we may not want to do otherwise, like the following:

A man shoots someone in the face and is manhandled into jail, the man did not want to go to jail, but he is coerced there because of legal forces.

A women is bed-ridden because it just so happened that her body did not transcript her DNA correctly and now she has terminal cancer. Now, because of natural forces, she has been coerced away from doing things she would have chosen otherwise to things that she 'must' do due to her cancer.

A man would be a raging alcoholic rascist, except his friends kinda look down on such behaviour. As a result, he forgoes doing what he would want to do because he is coerced by societal forces (his friends' disapporval).

How free are we to follow our own will? How much is what we do the direct result of some exterior force? Mark Twain argued in his essay, "What is Man?" that man is, in fact a machine(automaton, if you like). This is because like a machine, man will only do things in response to external forces. A car may be able to go left or go right, but it only goes in a specific direction if a driver wills it to be so. Same with man, just because options are available does not mean that man is free to choose which option he would have.

When I speak of free-will, I speak of the collective effect of all free will - thus, I may suffer due to the exercise of free-will on the part of others. I may commit a crime (my free will) and be put into prison against my will - the exercising of free will on the part of others with the effect of limiting my will.

Free will does not mean "I can do whatever I want". It ought to be obvious that it means "I can do whatever I will within the limits of my abilities in a given situation. None of this denies free-will; it only underscores it.

With the alcoholic racist, he still CHOOSES to forgo what he would prefer. That IS the choice of his free will. He prefers the approval of his friends to the expression of his racism or alcoholism.

The falsehood of Mark Twain's argument is revealed by - for example - (genuine) martyrdom. In that case, all of the external forces push a person to choose life; to renounce his faith or the stand that he has taken, and his will triumphs over the external forces. A man is not a machine, precisely because he has free will, granted by God (God's humility in allowing us to choose to reject Him). Any example when a person sacrifices his life (or whatever) when the forces you mention are pressuring him to do otherwise illustrate the same principle.

One fundamental question that leaps to my mind about Christianity stems from the very beginning of the Bible. I'll try and lay it out in simple step by step logical phrasing...not out of condescension or sarcasm, but for maximum clarity.

1. In the Beginning was God.

2. God was/is perfect.

3. God created.

Why is there a #3? Perfection, by definition, cannot be improved upon....why would a perfect Being need to create?

I am not trying to say this should invalidate anyone's faith...it is simply one of the first and biggest reasons I don't share the Christian faith.

Of the Christians who I have discussed faith with, the answer has been (when they would answer), "We simply have to believe, we can't know why because He is so much greater than we are." Which isn't an answer at all.

That doesn't follow. Who says that God was attempting to improve upon anything?

Cail wrote:That doesn't follow. Who says that God was attempting to improve upon anything?

not saying there was necessarily any attempt to improve. simply asking why perfection would need to create in the first place.

'Cause it felt like it?

Seriously, I don't understand why or how you can take issue with that. An omniscient, omnipotent entity can pretty much do whatever it wants.