How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Second Coming   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Second Coming

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
moondogz
Member
since 05-01-2007
Posts 396
Great White North


50 posted 08-20-2007 03:48 AM       View Profile for moondogz   Email moondogz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moondogz

If you're really curious about this I
suggest you have a look at "A course in
miracles" books...the only thing I've ever
read that doesn't have "holes."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


51 posted 08-20-2007 05:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
You mean it suggests that a belief in god is better than disbelief and, hopefully, armed with that a good man will eventually select the correct belief (presumably Christian in your view), but I think Iíve shown that Pascalís wager proves nothing of the sort.


Actually Pascal would agree with you that his wager is not "proof" ... And so would I.  His whole approach with the Wager, was in a different vein than traditional proofs.  In fact many see in Pascal an anti-rationalism that would never associate God with any kind of proof at all.  But that oversimplifies Pascal's thought, and ignores much that he said.  Still, the elements of love, will, and devotion would be undermined if we were forced to believe by sheer evidentialism.  Again, that's not to say that Pascal thought there were no good reasons to believe, or that the world of reality doesn't correspond with the truth of God.  He was not recommending a complete fideism OR an easy evidentialism.  Reality is not so simplistic as that.


quote:
Youíre on rocky ground with the Pascal in any case Stephen if we adhere to his betting analogy.


But I never offered Pascal's wager as a proof, but only as a highly suggestive thought ... especially in antithesis to Mike's assertion that the religious are no more than irrational gamblers, betting on a fool's errand.  Of course I added my own thoughts on the wagering nature of unbelief as well, reminding that we all have something at stake.  The thing is, no one is just a disinterested spectator.  No one is without an objective clue, OR without a subjective battle with the personal dynamics of will, love, and rebellion.  And Pascal understood this.  His Wager is not (in my opinion) to be taken in isolation from his other thoughts.  And if you've ever read much of his Pensees, you'll see that he apparantly didn't believe in any kind of "blind gamble" at all.  I'll give you some quotes to support this, in just a bit ...


quote:
It can hardly be put forward as evidence that god exists and as guidance of how to gain redemption from that god if thereís a 50% chance that itís simply a book of fiction and lies. Doesnít any reliance on its contents simply beg the question?



Not exactly.  The historical aspects of the Bible, (and particularly the New Testament) have little in common with the something like the purely philosophical texts of Hinduism, where history is completely detached.  They are grounded in a historical framework, and that history may be discussed like any other history.  The question for me is, do alternate versions, and historical revisionism, make good sense of the data we have.  But either way, you speak as if these texts were written outside of any historical framework whatsoever.  You should at least consider that Historians like N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas have demonstrated that the historical aspect of the gospels is as real as that of Abraham Lincoln.  Jesus "mythicism" is a fringe belief.

Therefore to view the Bible as historically honest is not "begging the question" any more than an atheist who tacitly (as a result of his philosophy) assumes miracles don't happen, and uses that as his criteria to prove that the Bible is unhistorical.  We all have presuppositions.  A kind of circle is unavoidable.  Which is the right one, is still the question.      

quote:
You donít believe thereís a 50% chance that the bible is wrong do you? Why not? Pascal did, thatís the reason he created the wager. His premise was that man cannot know by reason alone whether god exists, then he set out to suggest that even without knowing you were better off betting in favour of a god.



Pascal believed nothing of the sort.  Indeed man cannot "believe" by reason alone.  But neither is reason excluded, as in complete fideism.  Consider these quotes of Pascal:


"There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, and there is sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition."  (Pensees 149)


"... it is not true that everything reveals God, and it is not true that everything conceals God. But it is true at once that he hides from those who tempt Him and that He reveals Himself to those who seek Him." (Pensees 444)


"Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true." (Pensees 187)

"Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only." (Pensees 253)



Judging from the quotes above, it's safe to say that Pascal was not advocating a complete fideism, but was proposing that even the best evidence can be doubted, because there is no such thing as an innocent, neutral, and unfallen intellect.  Its also notable that in his "Pensees" Pasal appealed to history, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, miracles, psychological observances, moral law, and the explanatory cogency of Christianity on many levels.


To take his "wager" in isolation from these observances is to misjudge the intentions of Pascal, who was jousting with the extremes of empiricism and rationalism of his day.  To say what you said of Pascal would be making a mistake of extremes; a mistake on the same level as that of assuming his Wager means that saving faith amounts to nothing more than self preservation.  His writings, as a whole, don't support either of those mistakes.            

  

More later,


Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


52 posted 08-21-2007 12:27 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Stephen: As far as other religions go, the Bible clearly says that redemption comes only through the person of Christ. But much less clear is any proposition that all people of other religious persuasions will perish without opportunity to be saved, to keep what sincere truth they've known, and to reject what was erroneous.

Balladeer: From what I understand, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without accepting Jesus as his Savior. Do you mean to say there may be different heavens for people of other religious persuasions? They may be like a variety of heavens up there to accomodate all faiths, like subdivisions in the sky?  Interesting thought...



Interesting thought.  But it is not my thought.  I simply mentioned that the exclusivity of salvation through Christ doesn't necessarily rule out people of other religions being saved through him.  The idea is that when perfection comes, both Pagan errors and Christian heresies will be understood for what they are, and rejected.  There will only be one "Faith".      


quote:
I guess all I am saying is that I personally believe that you are both referring to something, but trying to treat "appearances" or lackings thereof as evidence and indeed they are partial evidence, but then you try to project them on to the whole universe and treat them as absolutes!


Essorant, I wonder if Grinch might agree with me here ... but it seems you're having your cake and trying to eat it too.  Of course I'm not saying that every particular thing in the universe is incontrovertible proof of God.  What I am saying is that there is enough evidence, and that God is God everywhere and ultimately to everyone.  If it is simply universality that you are disagreeing with, that is unavoidable.  Try to describe God in the Biblical sense without stating something universal.  Was God only a local deity, stuck in Jerusalem, or a transcendent one?  


There are really only three possibilities with the God of the Bible.  1) He is God in a universal and non-derivative sense.  2)  He is God in the sense of artifice only or 3) There is no God.  You seem to suggest the possibility of some kind of synthesis of these possibilities.  But you haven't begun to explain how.  You seem to be bothered by nothing more than the fact that both Grinch and myself are talking like we believe what we say.  I can find fault with Grinch's arguments well enough; But I can't find any fault with his categories.


Stephen.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


53 posted 08-21-2007 04:39 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Stephen?

A question:

Do you consider the conversion of others to Christianity your duty?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 08-21-2007 08:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I simply mentioned that the exclusivity of salvation through Christ doesn't necessarily rule out people of other religions being saved through him.  

Ok, then I'm confused. According to my super-religious girlfriend, the preacher at the church and the church group that meets at my house every week to discuss the Bible, the only way to enter heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior. Are you stating the reverse?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


55 posted 08-21-2007 11:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Balladeer:  
quote:
Ok, then I'm confused. According to my super-religious girlfriend, the preacher at the church and the church group that meets at my house every week to discuss the Bible, the only way to enter heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior. Are you stating the reverse?

I wouldn't say that I'm stating the reverse.  I'm simply asking whether or not we know that salvation through Christ can only happen through the path of human evangelism.  There are many questions involved, concerning those who never got to hear the gospel, etc ...  Of course this is not a denial of the need of evangelism.  Nor is it a statement of universalism that says all will be saved.  I'm just saying that the knowledge that God is just and merciful, can lead one to hope that his mercy is also at work outside of our perceived paths.  Its kind of like believing in an "age of accountability" for children.  There is no elaboration about such things in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't deny these possibilities.  We're only given the assurance that God is good, and therefore will do no wrong.


I probably wouldn't even go as far as Lewis did in his views about the grace of God in other religions, but his thoughts on the matter are very close to my own.  Here are a couple of quotes:


"The world does not consist of 100 percent Christians and 100 percent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by Godís secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christís birth may have been in this position." (from Mere Christianity)


"Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is that God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him." (from Mere Christianity)


It's simply an acknowledgment that there's a lot of hidden space wherein God may work, that I don't know about ... without disbelieving the absolutes and parameters that he has given us by his word.


I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.


Karen:
quote:
Do you consider the conversion of others to Christianity your duty?


Karen,

How long have you known me?

  

There are aspects of "conversion" that can never be my responsibility.  But do I want to see others know the love of Christ?  Yes.  Do I think that evangelism is more than just a duty?  Yes.  Do I think it is less than a duty?  No.  


Stephen.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


56 posted 08-21-2007 11:33 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

so your answer is "yes"---

hmmm....

Might I tactfully ask what you surmise your success rate to be?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


57 posted 08-21-2007 11:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen,

Than really depends upon what is meant by "success rate".  Do you mean success in causing the conversion of others, or in being faithful to God in what I'm supposed to be doing from day to day?  If it is the first, that doesn't belong to me.  If it is the second, then I must admit I don't feel I'm always on cue.  Sometimes I speak when I shouldn't.  Other times I'm painfully silent when I should speak.  I struggle with myself ... with sin, with producing the "fruit of the Spirit" like many others.  Having said all of that God has been good and gracious to me nonetheless.    


I guess I'm thankful for the following scripture:


"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."  (1 Corinthians 4:3-5)

I didn't realize when I first pasted it, but it is a very appropriate scripture in a thread about the coming of the Lord.

Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-22-2007 12:02 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


58 posted 08-22-2007 12:09 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

That's a lovely answer, and what I expected.

My problem is, that whenever conversation strays outside of the tome--for example, your refusal to acknowledge the legend of Gilgamesh, or the Egyptian trinity of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, you come back with chapter and verse of what is strictly considered canon....

For you?

No other belief system is considered valid.

It seems to me that this is pride in knowledge of what you know and not an exploration of belief and the need that births such.

Why must every conversation be held to the confines of your expertise?

I admire your acuity, but I could have the same had I focused on ONE.

I asked about your methodology because I believe that you could achieve more by being more ameniable to different thought systems, than just the one you know.

Condescension doesn't save souls--however condescending that statement might seem?

Still true.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


59 posted 08-22-2007 01:16 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
My problem is, that whenever conversation strays outside of the tome--for example, your refusal to acknowledge the legend of Gilgamesh, or the Egyptian trinity of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, you come back with chapter and verse of what is strickly consicered canon....

For you?

No other belief system is considered valid.

Karen,

I appreciate your critique (really) and your honesty.  Your passion is felt.     We're posting so close in time, that we could prob'ly just chat.  But maybe this way is best?


I've never felt I could satisfy and please all parties.  I've never tried.  Though you must understand that I just explained something to Mike that would put me way out of sorts with many evangelical minds ... the admission of God working in other belief-systems.  Not only so, but the admiration of much beauty, truth, and loveliness in Paganism itself.  At the same time, as a Christian, I have to recognize something about Christianity which was lacking in Paganism.  I must (to be true to my conscience) maintain the exclusivity of Christianity, and the liberality of it.  To let all things lovely be praised, and yet to point to what those things were really pointing to ... to remind that those things are not the reality.  And that may always be perceived as condescending.  But I assure its a lot further than much of evangelicalism is willing to go.


I've never felt the need to disparage the Epic of Gilgamesh, or any other ancient writing, on the account that it is not Christian.


Knowing what I believe, what would you have me do?  Do you really feel my position (or my explanations of it) is simply that "no other belief is valid"?  I've never said its so simple as that.  Keep your flowers.  Keep your Gold.  Much gold came from Egypt on the way to Caanan.  Share them with anyone you wish.  Share them with me.  


As Liberal as I could be, I don't think you'd be satisfied except with a statement of perfect equality.  But you judge ... Can I go that far and still call my belief "Christian"?


Just understand, I'm quite used to upsetting both the too-open-minded and the narrow-minded.  It's difficult to walk a middle road.  And I'm sure I've veered quite frequently.


Stephen
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


60 posted 08-22-2007 01:52 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

"As Liberal as I could be, I don't think you'd be satisfied except with a statement of perfect equality.  But you judge ... Can I go that far and still call my belief "Christian"?"....Stephanos

Stephanos, I can't help but interject that whether or not you call yourself a "Christian" is entirely based on your own definition of the word and your individual interpretation of the Bible.  

I recall a Sunday school class I attended having this very topic of discussion for several weeks.  In the end, the definition that was arrived at for being a "Christian" was one who followed the teachings of the Christed one.  *smile*

Now to expand my question to you a little further....and back to Icebox's response to this post....how do you know for a fact that the Christed One has not been here more than one time?  In fact, there is scripture which I am certain you are aware of that points to this very possibility -- but then there we are again.  You will have some interpretation of that scripture that is yours.  Like I said before, it is all about interpretation.  

Like Serenity, I appreciate your expansive knowledge on the subject of the Bible and hope I have not offended you.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


61 posted 08-22-2007 02:06 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Forgive the sloppiness of my typing (I'm still waiting for Ron to implement a screen option that would personalize the type to my prescription glasses) <--that was a joke Ron-- but I agree, Stephan, we are thisclose in understanding and love and yet? We are still worlds apart in our ways.

It pains me to have discussion with a gentleman of such obvious love and understanding who will refute what he has obviously left unread.

And I don't mean to stand in judgement of you, but your earlier remark to me regarding my knowledge of scripture (albeit explained as tongue-in-cheek) was still a condescension, not to me, but to the millions who actually bought, read, and love the "Left Behind" series. (You might want to reconsider that.)

Just bad form, my brother.

In other threads you have confessed a lack of knowledge regarding apocrypha, psuedipigraphia, which include all gnostic texts, and yet you insist on "intercepting the ball" and maintaining it in the play of the Canonized scriptures. You don't seem to understand what an assualt that is, to those who are playing on a different field (and the ball might be the Q'ran for all you know) and that is...just dangerous and totally egocentric.

The Buddhists have a practice--and I have said this before--that before they become initiated as enlightened practicing priests--they must forget all that they know.

Consider for a moment how difficult a task that is...then understand the wisdom of it.

And remember what I said regarding the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."  The very second I have to explain that, or defend that, it denigrates and depersonalizes it, so um, no--that information is not privy to you.

Joseph Campbell called himself a "maverick".

And yes, here I go again. He called himself that not because he ran ahead of the pack, but outside of the pack. As he explained, to embrace one religion is to deny all others, and they were all equally unique and beautiful to him, as though they were his children--and he would not/could not deny any single one.

I relate to that, very strongly.

I'm not a "simple" anything, much less a simple pagan. I am, a solitary eclectic, a term I feel defines my willingness to embrace others as they embrace their own definitions.

And I will argue my right to maintain that space, with dignity, another six years, if need be...and if Ron and circumstance allows.

Now...peace.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


62 posted 08-22-2007 03:49 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

I have friends who believes in Budda, Muslim god, Indian god, Breath Therapy teachers, communisum, capitalism, Atheism,
nature, and worn socks.

I have Christian friends who believes only  one pastor's teaching, who believes only certian theologians,  who does not go to church at all because that it is human organization.

I personaly know some pastors, church chairs who are unkind in general ways.

God made human. Human made religions. Religions have accumulated deep and wide human experience, poetic imaginations, knowledges and human wisdoms. One can have free choice to have any or all. And one can also be forced by parents or culture to get into a specific one.

As long as one feels something that one can cling on or to be grouped comfortably to chat within the same level.

But Who tells me about the world, the physical rules, the nature, the soul, why human, why intelligence, why beauty, why poem,  why hurt, war, greedy, and why the wisdom in the universe, in cells, in DNA duplication etc?

where can i find some possible answers?
in Bible. Does the  Bible tell the truth? or tell all?  I have many unanswered questions and I will keep asking. But to say that Jesus is  savior of human from sin? No,  Myself doesn't want to say it. Only when holy spirit works on me.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


63 posted 08-22-2007 09:41 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen,


with all due respect, at your prompting, I just recently watched a documentary which doubtlessly categorized me and thousands of others as "end timers" who are out of balance, and inadvertently bringing about the very destruction they predict.  I can take it in stride, and even respond.

On a philosophy forum, I, unlike you, have no problem with cross examination, offering criticism, even occasional satire.  I DO however try to keep it respectful.


quote:
And I don't mean to stand in judgement of you, but your earlier remark to me regarding my knowledge of scripture (albeit explained as tongue-in-cheek) was still a condescension, not to me, but to the millions who actually bought, read, and love the "Left Behind" series. (You might want to reconsider that.)


Actually that was a general remark that end-time ideas are better found from their source, than from any popular expression of it ... and that was on the heels of the the documentary, the criticism of which was primarily about those popular expressions.  Not directed at you personally.


And as far as the "Left Behind" series goes, I was merely sharing my view that as source material for eschatology, it is doubtful.  And I'm quite sure that's what many people take it to be ... the guide to the "end".  

(and Yes I've read at least the first three books)


quote:
In other threads you have confessed a lack of knowledge regarding apocrypha, psuedipigraphia, which include all gnostic texts, and yet you insist on "intercepting the ball" and maintaining it in the play of the Canonized scriptures. You don't seem to understand what an assualt that is, to those who are playing on a different field (and the ball might be the Q'ran for all you know) and that is...just dangerous and totally egocentric.


Karen,

I probably have read more than you think.  In the past I have confessed that I haven't given the same kind of study to other religious texts, as I have to the Bible.  But that's different than criticizing something that one has no knowledge of.  Is that what you think I do?  My confession was merely that I don't put the same amount (or kind) of study into other religions, as I do the Bible (naturally) ... not that I am totally unfamiliar with other texts.  


And remember this is a Philosophy forum ... a place uniquely FOR cross examination of philosophically related texts and beliefs of ALL kinds.


I will thoughtfully consider all that you've said.  


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


64 posted 08-22-2007 09:55 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Iliana:
quote:
Stephanos, I can't help but interject that whether or not you call yourself a "Christian" is entirely based on your own definition of the word and your individual interpretation of the Bible.

The question is whether the Bible itself presents us with a definition of what a Christian is.  In that case, our interpretive job would be derivative not creative.  The definition of "Christian" is still dependent upon what Jesus, and the apostles taught with authority.  Interpretations themselves can be cross-examined, as to whether they can be upheld by good exegesis ... or by taking things quite out of context.  That's not to say there's no ambiguity in scripture, but that it's nothing like a free-for-all.  

At any rate, it's not all subjective.


I'll have to address your other question at a later point.


You've certainly not offended me.  Nor, I hope, I you.  


Stephen
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


65 posted 08-22-2007 12:30 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Stephanos, when you respond, please take into consideration that my beliefs of the definition of what a Christian is not based on what the disciples said, rather it is based upon what the Christ was reported to have said.  Jesus picked the disciples and tried to teach them, but you have to admit there were times that he  knew they were not getting the message entirely.  Even after his return, there is no proof of how much they got, only what was reported.  The safe bet for me is on what Jesus taught.  There was no ideology called "Christianity" when Jesus did his teaching.  It took about two hundred years or so to gain that label.  I will stick with my definition for my self ... Christians are followers of Christ's teachings.  That is not to say that the rest of the Book is not important reading, nor that it wasn't inspired even if you take into account it was all put together in a political move.  It's just that I had rather study the reported words of Jesus themselves rather than the personal words of the disciples.  Many religions have a source book and then derivative books -- when you get the derivative books, that's when things get watered down or spiced up and my guess, that is all about politics.  Jesus did not produce carbon copies of himself in the disciples.  Reportedly, they were filled with the Christ light/spirit, but had that been 100% true of all of them the rest of their lives, then we would have more than one Christ, wouldn't we?  Who determined what was inspired writing -- you already know that.  Were those people 100% Christ filled?  Again, my point is that there is much subjective input and one must use discretion when trying to make definitive statements regarding words from the Good Book.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 08-22-2007 01:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from

Unfortunately, Stefan, it doesn't, unless you are stating that those who make the statement (including the religious leaders) that one cannot enter Heaven without first acknowledging Jesus Christ as their Savior, is inaccurate or, at least, open to debate. If you are trying to make the claim that those who don't claim to believe in Jesus are actually believing in Jesus without knowing it, then that would be such a weak reply that I'm sure that's not your claim...so i'm still lost.

I wrote a poem and posted it here concerning religion and stated that I would simply live my life the best way I could and do as much good for others as possible and, if that was not good enough to get me into Heaven, then heaven was not for me. My girl (the deeply religious one and she who loves me a bunch, just read it, looked at me and said, "No, it's not good enough to get you in". Obviously, it is deeply ingrained that, without the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, Heaven will remain hidden beyond the mists. I think that, more than anything else, turns me against Christianity.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


67 posted 08-22-2007 02:41 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Obviously, it is deeply ingrained that, without the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, Heaven will remain hidden beyond the mists.

What I think you're missing, Mike, and what I think Stephen  is alluding to, is the element of time. Do you have to acknowledge Jesus when you turn twelve years old? By forty? Maybe by retirement? Does it necessarily even have to be before you die? I certainly don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know, until and unless a specific time is determined, the issue of salvation becomes an open-ended question.

Put another way, a way much more in keeping with the theme of this thread, when is it too late to change your mind?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


68 posted 08-22-2007 03:04 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi



Dante had a problem with good men
who lived before Christ.  For them
he created the First Circle of Hell.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


69 posted 08-22-2007 05:00 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John,

Dante's "light-Hell" is an offered solution to the mystery.  But it isn't exactly in keeping with the mercy of God.  If Christ preached to the dead (as the New Testament relates concerning the spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah) then there's no reason to doubt that everyone is allowed to respond, in some way or another, to God's salvation.  Admittedly, this is all conjectural.  But some conjectures are truer to the overall character of God than others.  


Stephen      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


70 posted 08-22-2007 06:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as a time limit is concerned, Ron, they say the greatest amount of converts occur on death row...no great surprise.

Does it necessarily even have to be before you die?

Well, that's an intriguing thought. You mean that it's possible that, after you die and come face to face with God or view heaven and hell or swim around in purgatory then, when asked if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you can say yes and get the pass? Just how many people do you think would say no!? I've never heard a preacher claim that you can make the acceptance speech after you die...nor do I ever expect to. After all, that defeats their purpose. Hopefully, that was just a tongue-in-cheek comment...
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


71 posted 08-22-2007 06:46 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"Namu Amida Butsu"

and you're in . . .

.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


72 posted 08-22-2007 06:48 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

who is Jesus Christ?
why He is such a big deal of heaven
and hell?

In the Bible
Jesus is God in human flesh..or the only son of God...God said it, He said it and devil said it. To get into God kindom, of couse one shall have a similar image of God. The example...what Jesus said and what Jesus did.  

But really, it is all the work of Holy spirit.

To make it easier to understand ....
http://piptalk.com/main/Ultimate.cgi?action=agree


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


73 posted 08-22-2007 08:07 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I've never heard a preacher claim that you can make the acceptance speech after you die...nor do I ever expect to. After all, that defeats their purpose. Hopefully, that was just a tongue-in-cheek comment...

Not at all, Mike. After all, what's the difference between being told you can accept Christ on your death bed or being told you can do it, perhaps, a thousand years after you've died? I don't think the latter would "defeat their purpose" any more than would the former?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


74 posted 08-22-2007 10:17 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
"Namu Amida Butsu"

and you're in . .


Ha!

The True Pure Land Sect.

Nam myoho Rengekiyo.

I know, I know, it's controversial but I couldn't resist.


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Second Coming   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors