navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Second Coming
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Second Coming Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan

0 posted 2007-08-14 07:38 PM


.


So where us He?
2,000 years is one long coffee break . . .

Where, in fact, in the New Testament,
is it written He will show up again at all?

Face it, after what happened the first time
would you sign up for another tour?


.

© Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
1 posted 2007-08-14 09:22 PM


Hey,

you only get a 3 month visitor's passport via Condoleezza's standards.

Maybe he was deported?


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
2 posted 2007-08-14 10:43 PM


From what I have read, heard, believe,
His time is not Our time...

So maybe His ten minutes is about to come up.
However,
if it is?

I would ask for another 5, go ahead,
give Him a break.

What's your rush?


TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
3 posted 2007-08-15 12:58 PM


Jack:"I know nothing."---Wilde

"Where, in fact, in the New Testament,
is it written He will show up again at all?"

Matthew 24:27
Matthew 25:31
Mark 13:26
Luke 21:27

"I try to allow what I write
not to be only about myself"

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
4 posted 2007-08-15 10:27 AM




I agree with Sunshine about the time issue, since we are also told in 2 Peter 3:8 that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day".  And in Psalm 90:4 the writer muses to God "a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night."  These, to me, are poetic ways of saying that God sees time very differently than I do.  However I don't think that should lead anyone to the conclusion that God is so wholly other, that his "soon" is our "never".


Time and again in the New Testament we are warned not to imagine God's delay as slackness (2 Peter 3:3-13).  And we are reminded that the return of Christ will be in the literal and historical sense, not only in some metaphorical and metaphsysical sense (Acts 1:11).


We are also told that his second coming will be of a very different occasion, and countenance, than his first coming.  If he came at first to enter into our humanity, to suffer and die for our sins, his second return will be in unmitigated glory to judge the living and the dead.  And the respective passages of scripture about these "comings" are very different in mood and description.  One was like a lamb, the other will be like a Lion.    


Of course any attentive reader of scripture will note that even the "lamb" had lion-like characteristics, with the Jesus of palestine acting as Chesterton noted "often like an angry god- and always like a god".  Likewise the picture of a triumphant Christ returning to judge the earth, should not be totally devoid of what is like a lamb, namely mercy and grace toward those who put their faith in him.  If this were not so, then our imaginations would be overwhelmed, finding no grounds for approaching or relating to this "terrible" figure.  


It is a fearful enough (and awe-inspiring) image in my soul, to make me want to be right with him on that day ... whether that day for me will be the universal return of Christ, or merely his return for me in death.  Both are painted (in my mind) with the same apocalyptic terrors and joys.  


Stephen.  
  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

5 posted 2007-08-15 11:22 AM


http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
6 posted 2007-08-15 01:31 PM


Sorry.  I deleted my comment.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
7 posted 2007-08-15 06:19 PM


Karen,

I'm just curious, did you post that web-link as an example of possible credibility, or as a lampoon?  I'm not offended either way.  There is much about "end times" out there that is actually worthy of satire (I could join you in that).  But the caricatures, or the poorly presented, shouldn't be confused with (or negate) the real.  I actually propose the novel idea that people should garner their end-time ideas from a careful reading of the Bible, rather than from current popular representations of dispensationalism.  

Stephen.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

8 posted 2007-08-15 07:09 PM


Stephan,

I hope you didn't take that as mockery.

I just heard the website mentioned on a thought-provoking documentary I'd seen, and I thought it was interesting.

I confess I am curious as to what you think of that too...

The documentary (I'll go find the name for you soon) proposes some disturbing thought regarding people termed as "End-Timers"--and the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy in their genuinely earnest desire and belief that events will unfold as interpreted (and sometimes falsely) in the book of Revelations.

I'm sorry for the playful appearance of my post--I was in a hurry and on my way out the door.

But let me know what you think.

I am interested.

OH.

Here it is--The Doomsday Code

Stay sweet and be well.

Ta for now.

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
9 posted 2007-08-16 12:29 PM



   Matthew 13:34,35     All these things spake Jesus unto the
multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke He not unto them:
35- That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,saying
I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been
kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 13:13    Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they
SEEING see not; and HEARING they hear not, neither do they understand.

Many look for the return of our Lord.
Many wait for the Kingdom of God to come.
The carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of God.  Spiritual things
are as parables to them.  Seeing...they see not   Hearing...they hear
not    Neither do they understand

It is written  Acts 1: 11   ....why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come
in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

How did they see Him go?

Acts 1:9 ..... He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their
sight.
He returns in the SAME manner.  If He comes...DOWN  and  OUT of a
cloud...that would be opposite of how He was taken.

He left their sight by being...RECEIVED in a cloud...and TAKEN UP
into Heaven.
He Comes...by being RECEIVED in a cloud...and TAKEN UP into Heaven.

WE are the CLOUD which receives HIM.
And He...in us  And We...in Him...are TAKEN UP...into Heaven

Christ rises within you.  Christ rises up from the grave in which he has
been buried.   The joyful cry..."He is risen"  is not an echo from the past.
It is a glorious and continuing occurrence.

Did He say He would be with us alway, even unto the end of the world?
Matthew 28:20
Did He say that He would never leave us or forsake us?
Heb. 13:5
Then...either He is HERE...NOW     or   We must join so many others...
and...wait.

Interesting...In the passages that speak of HIS...COMING...
The original Greek word here is...Erchomai...and is ONLY used in the
PRESENT tense.
A few other passages that speak of His...COMING...The original Greek
word is...Parousia...and means...PRESENCE and AT HAND

So...HIS...PRESENCE....is....NOW      In the PRESENT tense
Not...Past....nor Future
HE COMES!!!!  continually   He has been coming....IS coming NOW...
and continues to come.
He Comes...to each individual...at different levels...at different
times.   You know not...Who or When.   Like a theif in the night.

John 16:7  Jesus says...It is expedient for you that I go away: for
if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart
I will send him unto you.
Now...Jesus is saying that it is  B E T T E R  for us, that He no
longer be here as He appeared at the time.

John 14:16-20    And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you
another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever;
17: even the Spirit of Truth; which the world cannot receive, because
it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you.
18: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you
19: Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me:
because I live, ye shall live also
20:At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me,
and I in you.

Look closely at what HE is saying...   He is telling them of THE
COMFORTER.   He tells them that...They know Him.
He tells them....He dwells with you.  They knew Jesus...He was dwelling
W I T H   them at the time.
Then He says....  He  S H A L L  be   I N     you.

While speaking of the COMFORTER....He says....I will not leave you
comfortless....  I WILL COME TO YOU

Jesus knew that it would be better for us for Him to no longer remain
in His physical form...OUTSIDE of us    He knew that those around Him
were already growing too attached to the  IMAGE
He knew that it would be far more profitable for us if He returned as
SPIRIT and dwelt WITHIN us    Glory to God

Let the world search the skies for His appearing.  Let them look for
a  GIANT Fleshly Jesus on a cloud.
Yes... He returns in the Flesh   WE are the flesh He returns in
Yes... He returns in a cloud...  We are the cloud He returns in

W E ... The assembly of His believers ... are HIS body

Heb 12:1  Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with a great
Cloud of Witnesses....

W E  are the Cloud that receives Him     WE are the Cloud He returns IN

Mk 13:26  And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
with great power and glory.

1 John 4:13  Hereby know ye that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because
He hath given us of His Spirit

2 Cor 3:17   Now the Lord is that Spirit....

Jude 14   Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints.

Glory to God    THATS   How He comes ... with His Saints

Youngs Literal Translation which uses the original Hebrew and Greek
meanings says...  Lo, the Lord is come  IN   His saintly myriads.

Let the world look to the skies for a sign of His coming.
Let them continue to worship the   I M A G E   of a    M A N    
Let them continue to focus on  Jesus  The Flesh that was crucified
and not be able to understand  Christ  The anointed in Spirit
Let them continue until the Father lifts the delusion they are under

Heb 9:28  So CHRIST was once offered to bear the sins of many; and
unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without
sin unto salvation

Lk 17:20,21   The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation - neither
shall they say, Lo, Here! or lo, There !  For Behold, The Kingdom of
God is within you

The Father is in His Kingdom   The Son has returned to His Father
It is from this Kingdom that Christ rules   HalleluYAH !!!!!  

Heaven is not our goal.  CHRIST is our goal.  HE is our dwelling place
Our goal is to be in the bosom of God... To Live in His Spirit.

"... and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in
Heavenly places in Christ Jesus"  Eph 2:6

He Comes     Has been coming    Will continue to come    Until the time
" When He shall come to be glorified in His saints" 2 Th 1:10
When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels
(messengers) with Him,  T H E N   shall He sit upon the throne of
His glory   Matt 25:31

The Kingdom of Heaven is...within you    Christ dwells...within you
Satan is being cast OUT of Heaven...out of you    Christ now sits
where Satan once sat...within you   The serpent was sent out of the
Garden...to feed upon the DUST    We are the Dust upon which he has
been feeding   But now...through Christ...He will feed upon you no
more.

Do not rely upon your carnal perception and think that you will
ever SEE or understand the things of God.   Like the man, blind from
birth, whom Jesus healed...We also must...Wash away the  C L A Y
in order to gain our sight.   This vessel of CLAY that you call
S E L F   must decrease...That  HE may increase within you.
Jesus instructs us to...Pick up OUR cross...and follow Him
We also must...Lay down the Flesh...and follow Him   We must wash
away the Clay

HIS perfect peace...to you    May His presence continue to manifest
within us all.     The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you
always.   Amen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
10 posted 2007-08-16 04:36 PM


Actually, I don't have the will to debate it now, but a "now and not-yet" view of eschatology makes most sense of scripture.  What you are advocating is preterism.  But it's not accurate to say that Jesus' Kingdom and his "coming" are always spoken of the present tense in the texts of the Bible.  

The Kingdom is inaugurated but not yet consummated.  

Stephen.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

11 posted 2007-08-16 05:10 PM


quote:
...actually propose the novel idea that people should garner their end-time ideas from a careful reading of the Bible, rather than from current popular representations of dispensationalism.


Huh? Can I get a translation on that?

And sweetie, just trust I'm equally cautious of what I dismiss as ridiculous, and what I focus on, from day to day.

There's a fine line between paranoia and being aware, and right now, the facts of my reality are more than enough to keep me occupied without paralyzing myself with fear of the unknown.

Which reminds me of something my brother said about my husband once,

"He is oblivious out of self-defense."

(Um, my brother was deriding/chiding me, not my hubby. Hmmm. Maybe both of us, now that I think about it. I think sarcasm is genetic in my birth family. )

And he could be right.

Oblivion is downright heavenly sometimes.




Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
12 posted 2007-08-16 07:45 PM


.

“In an intriguing little book called When Prophecy Fails, a team
of American social scientists asks why, in religious sects that preach
a Second Coming, the level of devoutness and proselytizing often
increases when the Messiah does not appear at the predicted time.
Their answer is that it is precisely the threat of a shattered belief
system that gives the faithful a powerful new incentive to bond
more tightly with each other, and to recruit new believers. Together,
they can then convince each other of the necessary rationalizations
(the Second Coming occurred, but in Heaven and not on earth:
the delay is a part of a divine plan to test our faith; and so on).”

Adam Hochschild
The Unquiet Ghost


What accounts I’ve read all say that those that knew Jesus expected him back
fairly soon, ( on an earlier post I even cited a passage:
MATTHEW 16:28 "..There are some standing here which shall not taste death before they see the son of man come in his kingdom..."---).

.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
13 posted 2007-08-16 10:22 PM


Karen,

A translation of my statement?  Read the Bible before you read "Left Behind", and then hopefully you'll never feel the need to.    


I feel that a grasp of end-time Theology (though not necessarily in dates, details, and mystery-removing-minutia) can actually be a good antidote to overwhelming fear.  It's the half-grasp that tends to increase it, in my experience.


And John,

I think it would do you well to remember that whenever Jesus spoke of the "Kingdom" he wasn't always speaking of his consummate return at the end of the age (though sometimes he was).  His first announcement was "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven IS at hand".  Remember Inaugurated Kingdom versus Consummated Kingdom.  Now and Not Yet.

Some may call that an easy out, to avoid the conclusion that prophecy was plainly mistaken.  But it's not like this concept wasn't with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry ... so invoking this principle cannot be said to be merely a gloss or cover-up.  It is quite original and essential to the whole, not an after-thought.
  

Stephen.    

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

14 posted 2007-08-16 10:35 PM


I never felt the need to read "Left Behind" Stephan.

Don't assume you know more about me than you do. Tsk.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
15 posted 2007-08-16 10:37 PM


Karen,

Not being a fan of that series myself, I thought you could see a bit of tongue in my cheek when I said "need".  

Stephen.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

16 posted 2007-08-16 10:54 PM


*laughing*

The only "need" I felt was to clear that little matter up.

(I never felt a "need" to read The DaVinci Code either, btw.)

But I know, I know--all us pagans look alike!

So it's okay, Stephan. I'm in a "take no prisoners" kinda mood these days.

(Menopause? Yeah, sure, today I'll blame it on menopause.)

Proceed.

With Caution. *laughing*


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
17 posted 2007-08-16 10:57 PM


  (is there an icon for a nervous smile?)
blister
Junior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 18
here, elsewhere
18 posted 2007-08-17 01:15 AM


Actually, Jesus has already returned.
see: Charles Manson

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2007-08-17 09:34 AM


As a rule, people need to believe. Religion fulfills that need, mostly with things they will never have to be held accountable for, such as Heaven or the Second Coming. They offer up Heaven, the second coming, or 75 virgins and all for the same reason. Since our imminent death is factual, people need to believe in something non-factual to offset reality.

It is  a lottery ticket for the soul. People plunk down their dollar, grasp their ticket tightly and think "Wouldn't it be great...?" and, when their 12 million to 1 odds don't go in their favor, they wait until next week so they can hope once more....the only difference being someone actually does win the lottery.

The only way to believe in the Second Coming is to have believed in the first and to believe that, when it comes, they will be lost if they are not true believers at the time. (another velvet-lined threat in the religious arsenal) Better keep buying that lottery ticket, just in case because one day your number will indeed be up.  

blister
Junior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 18
here, elsewhere
20 posted 2007-08-17 01:19 PM


Well, it's not too hard to get that religion was created as a form of control, even the christion religions (catholicism). A bunch of rich white men wrote the book on it, and they're damn notorious for manipulating people. The hope of the second coming, like Balladeer said, just adds onto the fear of non-belief.

-mr blister

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
21 posted 2007-08-17 07:51 PM


Stephanos,
quote:
I agree with Sunshine about the time issue, since we are also told in 2 Peter 3:8 that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day".  And in Psalm 90:4 the writer muses to God "a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night."  

Thanks, m’friend. I didn’t even think my thoughts had ever been read in Phil.

Balladeer,
quote:
As a rule, people need to believe.

Sometimes, I have seen people’s belief come about as naturally as instinct to an ant. And at times, that is a very sad fact. No one seems to be able to think outside the box.

and blister? There have been several others outside of Manson who lead a “cult” leadership.

From my readings, and they have been scant next to most of you, it is my humble belief that both Jesus and His Father gave us one of our best abilities in the manners of choice, will power, and conscience.

Some of us will be our own best [and worst] master. Some of us have no fear. And some, fear too much.

As for the “tours”, Huan, if I could take with me what I’ve learned into another lifetime here on earth, I would most certainly know to not make again my past mistakes, and most assuredly, being that I would only be human, I would most likely fall into other mistakes for those things that I haven’t gone through yet [if ever] and would hope that I might possibly make a better life for others and myself in that extra time given me.

I’ll let you know if it happens.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
22 posted 2007-08-17 08:35 PM


.


People in prior centuries were much
more devotional; many gave their lives,
and yet nobody much less He showed up.

So if He doesn't, what's the big deal?


.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
23 posted 2007-08-18 01:55 AM


Balladeer:
quote:
As a rule, people need to believe. Religion fulfills that need


Why do you think that is?  Is such a need basic and proper, or is it only a form of neurosis?  You've said in past threads that you are convinced that there's a God, and that this present life isn't all there is.  And though your beliefs are less specific, and deistic, what makes your answer more respectable in regard to your "need"?  Does your criticism apply to your own beliefs?


quote:
They offer up Heaven, the second coming, or 75 virgins and all for the same reason. Since our imminent death is factual, people need to believe in something non-factual to offset reality.


Does that category (fact / non-fact) really explain this?  You say that religious people accept what is non-factual as an answer to that which is factual.  But why would mere facts need something to offset them?  You seem to assert that religious belief is unreal without exploring the nature of the "facts".  Its the nature of human death, psychology, and spirituality which invites belief ... not naked "facts".  The only question is whether such belief is warranted by the nature of things as a whole.        


Why has humanity always sought that which is spiritual?  Why has humanity (including yourself I'll bet) viewed death more like a question demanding an answer than just a bland and unremarkable fact?  Why have the ideas of justice, "putting things right", and judgement day run like an intractable thread through the history of thought (even the less religious Greeks)?  Why have the existential thinkers (who took atheism seriously) been obsessed with either the search or loss of meaning and purpose?  Why did the most notable Nihilists associate such a loss with the loss of God?  Why do even the anti-religious decry deplorable behavior and motives (as if it were somehow transcendental and more than just opinion) in their own arguments?      

quote:
It is  a lottery ticket for the soul. People plunk down their dollar, grasp their ticket tightly and think "Wouldn't it be great...?


Blaise Pascal did suggest that things might be a gamble ... but aptly pointed out that the gamble runs in both directions.  

If you imagine that believing in Christ may be a form of wish-fulfillment, I have to imagine same possibility is involved in unbelief.  At least its reasonable to think that human sin, conscience, and the haunting thought of standing before God as we are, could lead to a kind of desperate gamble as well, in the direction of denial.  

The "Wager" of course is no complete answer either way, to justify belief or unbelief.  But it is highly suggestive ... since you brought it up as a less sophisticated reversal of Pascal.  As the book of Romans describes, we've all been given no small amount of evidence.  But if it were just a kind of blind gamble, as Blaise pointed out, belief would be the better and safer bet.        
      

quote:
The only way to believe in the Second Coming is to have believed in the first


Right.


quote:
and to believe that, when it comes, they will be lost if they are not true believers at the time. (another velvet-lined threat in the religious arsenal)


What is wrong with even a "threat" if it is based upon something true and just?  Remember though, perdition can be thought of in many ways, not all of which involve threatening retribution ... Another angle (that Ron has mentioned before) is that of self-induced consequences through cause and effect.  Our condition being simply relational to God's nature.  Someone once said that the Fire of God only burns at the periphery.  Personally, I think all the angles of looking at perdition or punishment are valid in their own way.  Surely you don't reject law (in principle) simply because it involves threats?

quote:
Better keep buying that lottery ticket, just in case because one day your number will indeed be up.


You've got a point.  And though there's more than just death as a motivation to believe, it is universally binding.  


Blister:

quote:
Well, it's not too hard to get that religion was created as a form of control, even the christion religions (catholicism). A bunch of rich white men wrote the book on it, and they're damn notorious for manipulating people.


White Europeans wrote the Bible?  When it becomes fashionable to look down upon a certain population (whose ancestors doubtlessly did some terrible things), its all too easy to skew history during the campaign.  


BTW, often religious movements emerged as a means to challenge control, later being misused (contrary to original ideals) to inflict the same kind of oppressive control.    


Stephen  

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
24 posted 2007-08-18 03:51 AM


All interesting discourse here.

John, I believe the Christ energy is here now and has been for the past two thousand or so years.  I also believe that a change is already in the works.  

It would be interesting to see how people answer the question I posed to my husband tonight.  It was:  "If UFOs actually came down to Earth and ETs explained that Jesus was one of theirs who had come here to try and get us a little more humane, how would that change your belief system?"  "Would you still believe in God?  Would you still believe Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior?"

Interestingly enough, he said he would be tempted to believe there was no God -- a real shocker to me.  I told him, it would not change my beliefs that much.  

I agree with Uriah that none of us can understand the depth of the One Source from which all else sprang, and most of us don't understand all the riddles that Jesus left us within the parables -- afterall, we have only what we are told, what we read, and our own consciousness, albeit with the potential of being Christ-filled, to interpret the true meaning of the sayings of the Master Teacher.  None among us can truely claim we understand it all -- we have to go on what feels true to each of us individually.  

The issue that all this Second Coming Doom's Day stuff markets is fear -- whether or not you're ready for it.  The real emphasis should not be put on the Second Coming, but rather, whether or not you are ready.  Period.  As my husband puts it, you could get hit with a Katrina tomorrow or get run over by a bus while crossing the street.  Rather than putting mass fear into the populus about the end of the world, the clergy should be trying to help people be prepared for learning the lessons they are here to learn now, for living the Golden Rule, loving one another, being a good steward of the Earth -- because you just never know when your number is up.  (I guess preachers have to start somewhere though and some people only get interested when they're afraid enough to do so.)       

As for coming back a second time myself, that would depend on whether that was my assignment or not and how obedient I am....lol.  


[This message has been edited by iliana (08-18-2007 04:31 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

25 posted 2007-08-18 04:20 AM


quote:
As my husband puts it, you could get hit with a Katrina tomorrow or get run over by a bus while crossing the street.


Tell him I would druther the bus.

It's faster, and being more expedient, I would hope it is more humane.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
26 posted 2007-08-18 04:49 AM


To XOx Uriah xOX

there is

God
holy spirit
Jesus
dead Jesus
Resurrected Jesus
back to heaven Jesus
God's kindom
Heaven
hell

how do they work on human or how are they related to human?

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
27 posted 2007-08-18 05:06 AM


Huan,

"So if He doesn't, what's the big deal?"

If you are asked what if the Budda did not tell the truth?

So, if there is no second coming, then the Bible will be dropped. then gone all the Christains, the Vatican, then the middle east, what a big deal!!!  Think about all the Saints.  Then still, people will countinue to look for creator and the purpose of human life, the soul and other things too.

we can live and die
we can live and think and die
we can live and think and think and die
though without solutions but with a faith. (that there is a God)

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
28 posted 2007-08-18 08:05 AM



Stephanos,

quote:
The "Wager" of course is no complete answer either way, to justify belief or unbelief.  But it is highly suggestive ... since you brought it up as a less sophisticated reversal of Pascal.  As the book of Romans describes, we've all been given no small amount of evidence.  But if it were just a kind of blind gamble, as Blaise pointed out, belief would be the better and safer bet. .


I’m convinced; I’m converting to Islam tomorrow!

What’s that? I lose because I’ve chosen the wrong god but Pascal never mentioned that there was a penalty for believing in the wrong god. So how many possible gods are there? Hundreds! Do they all punish anyone who doesn’t believe in them? Ah, so most of them only punish people who believe in false gods, I see, and some of them offer rewards based on how good you’ve been regardless of whether you believed in gods or not. So what you’re saying is that I’d be better off edging my bets.

I’m convinced: I’m sticking to atheism.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
29 posted 2007-08-18 12:34 PM


Grinch,

Again, the wager can only be a kind of beginning, not the destination.  Biblically, there's a distinction between faith (the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) and mere hope.  Its the kind of difference that can be known only from within that experience.  As with love, felt invitation rather than logical demonstration is the most persuasive path to faith.  Though that might sound dangerously emotive, the mind in not left out of the invitation:  "Love the Lord your God with all your heart ... soul .. mind ... and strength."


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.  


I see two threads working in all religons (including Christian religions):  truth and error.  And so while Satan is certainly involved in other belief-systems, God is involved as well.  The Athenian "Altar to the unknown god" was not accidental, and neither was the recurring theme of ressurection in ancient nature-religions.  In my opinion such religions present something different enough from the truth to risk perdition on the part of the hearers, but similar enough to lead to a kind of awakening ... to set the groundwork for something much greater.  I feel sure that those who seek will ultimately find.  (Though don't confuse what I'm saying with the popular idea that all paths lead to salvation)


Stephen    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
30 posted 2007-08-18 01:07 PM


"As far as other religions go, the Bible clearly says that redemption comes only through the person of Christ."


How do you determine that that should be taken to heart and believed in, or wholly believed in?  

Do you believe everything written in the bible, Stephanos?  How do you "decide" how far to believe?



Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
31 posted 2007-08-18 03:39 PM



quote:
Again, the wager can only be a kind of beginning, not the destination.


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 I’ve shown that Pascal’s wager proves nothing of the sort. In fact if you expand the wager to encompass all religions, as I pointed out earlier, the odds are more in your favour if you abstain from subscribing to any religious group.

You’re on rocky ground with the Pascal in any case Stephen if we adhere to his betting analogy.

We can’t know if a god or gods exist so the odds are even money for belief versus disbelief, if you want to put your money on Christianity however and there are, lets say, nine other religious players in the running your odds start to look decidedly long. Betting on belief or disbelief is like picking the winner of a soccer match where you don’t know the teams, you’ve a 50% chance of getting it right. Betting on Christianity would be akin to betting that a particular player (jesus) would score the first goal.

quote:
As far as other religions go, the Bible clearly says that redemption comes only through the person of Christ.


That may be true but only if a Christian god actually exists, if one doesn’t then the bible is just a book of fairytales written by men. It can hardly be put forward as evidence that god exists and as guidance of how to gain redemption from that god if there’s a 50% chance that it’s simply a book of fiction and lies. Doesn’t any reliance on its contents simply beg the question?

You don’t believe there’s a 50% chance that the bible is wrong do you? Why not? Pascal did, that’s 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.

I’m still sticking to atheism; it’s the best bet.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
32 posted 2007-08-18 04:06 PM


Whether you refer to something as "god" or "not existant," something is still there.



Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
33 posted 2007-08-18 04:25 PM



Ess,

On a scale of obtuse sentences this:

quote:
Whether you refer to something as "god" or "not existant," something is still there.


Has to be close to the top.

If you give me a clue as to what you mean I’ll be happy to argue against it (just for the heck of it).

Craig



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
34 posted 2007-08-18 04:26 PM


.


Isn’t faith in the Second Coming  much like faith in
the Resurrection, ( I think Paul wrote about this in Corinthians 15);
if the former isn't going to happen, or the latter didn’t,  it’s all pretty pointless
and we might as well enjoy ourselves in the time we have.


.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
35 posted 2007-08-18 04:45 PM


Grinch,

Of course no one can make your decisions for you.

I would like to explain why I think you're misrepresenting Pascal ... but I'm going to be busy for a couple of days.  Be back as soon as I can.


Essorant,

How do you interpret Jesus' words when he said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to Father except through me"?

I know that the Bible relates some provisional and pro tempore "truths",  and prescriptions that change.  (I, as a Christian, no longer recognize animal sacrifice as "truth" though it was prescribed by God in the Old Testament)  But I also recognize that the Bible relates many universal and unchanging truths.  There are also some ambiguous things about the Bible.  I just happen to think that the exclusivity of salvation through Christ isn't one of them.  

To ask how one tells the difference, is a question of exegesis and valid interpretation ... asking whether the original teaching was provisional or universal in nature, and asking whether anything has changed it and why.  And that would get down to talking about specific doctrines and passages ... and details.    

I would ask you if you can exegetically support a temporary exclusivity of Christ as the sacrifice for human sinfulness ... or either a temporary sinfulness on the part of human beings.  Unless such can be supported with the data we have, I don't see how the statements of Jesus can be rightly understood in any other way.


And as far as your statement about everything "existing".  I don't think either Grinch or I, were talking about existence in that sense of the word.  There are different kinds of existence and being.  Micky mouse has a dependent and contigent existence upon its creator.  His creator has a personal existence that is on another level entirely.  To say that God exists, is not to say that he merely exists as an artifice.


We've gone over this before ... so I'm wondering why you always bring up that general point, whenever existence is spoken of in a very specific and particular way?  It's not even related to the kind of conversation we're having.


Peace,


Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
36 posted 2007-08-18 05:48 PM


Grinch,

What I was trying to imply is that you are both referring to something beyond so fully misty you both have the room to go to extremes of either broadening the imagination or bridling it as much as possible to make your interpretation.

Stephanos points at the sky and says "Lo, God is at the center of Universe.  It saith so in the bible!" And you point at the sky and say "There is no God at the center of the Universe!  It saith thus in Atheism!"

What's the difference, except that you seem to refer to the same thing, but in terms of an opposite extreme?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2007-08-18 06:09 PM


Stephanos,


How do you interpret Jesus' words when he said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to Father except through me"?"


It is easy enough to interpret as a literal statement.  I read it exactly as it is written.  But how do we decide to believe it?   And once that is figured out, how do we decide how far or fixedly to believe in such a statement?  



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
38 posted 2007-08-18 06:31 PM


.


It seems to me
to be about
death being oblivion
that drives faith.

The fear that
however bad it was,
life, consciousness,
will come to an absolute end.


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
39 posted 2007-08-18 08:42 PM


Ess,

quote:
Stephanos points at the sky and says "Lo, God is at the center of Universe.  It saith so in the bible!" And you point at the sky and say "There is no God at the center of the Universe!  It saith thus in Atheism!"


Ah, I see your point now.

You’re wrong but at least now I can understand enough to put you right, think of it like this:

Stephanos points at the sky and says "Lo, God is at the centre of Universe.  It saith so in the bible!" And I say, "I see no god or any evidence for a god” then everyone points at me and says, “Behold an atheist”.

Atheism isn’t built on a belief in anything in particular, rather it’s a label attached to anyone who disbelieves in one thing in particular – the existence of a god or gods. I don’t disbelieve because atheism says so, I’m labelled an atheist because I disbelieve.

quote:
What's the difference, except that you seem to refer to the same thing, but in terms of an opposite extreme?


The difference is that I’m not pointing at anything; the irony is that I don’t think Stephen is either.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
40 posted 2007-08-18 09:07 PM


Why do you think that is? Is such a need basic and proper, or is it only a form of neurosis? You've said in past threads that you are convinced that there's a God, and that this present life isn't all there is. And though your beliefs are less specific, and deistic, what makes your answer more respectable in regard to your "need"? Does your criticism apply to your own beliefs?
Good question. Yes, I think it is basic. I think it ia natural to not want to believe that our life here is all there is. Everyone wants to survive in some way and/or believe their life here counts in some way for something. Yes, I believe in a superior force or being or plan such as reincarnation or exchange of souls or some such avenue. I certainly have never said that my answers are "more respectable" than anyone else's. They are simply mine.

Why has humanity always sought that which is spiritual? Why has humanity (including yourself I'll bet) viewed death more like a question demanding an answer than just a bland and unremarkable fact?

and why not?  Death is indeed a fact. The question is what happens afterward. You ask why humanity (including me) would not explore that question? I can't imagine why anyone would not.

Why do even the anti-religious decry deplorable behavior and motives (as if it were somehow transcendental and more than just opinion) in their own arguments?

Well, how do you define anti-religious? Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ? Those who do not believe in any organized religion? As I mentioned above there may be many "life after death" possibilities, such as reincarnation of souls that could depend on our behavior and morals while here on earth.

What is wrong with even a "threat" if it is based upon something true and just?   Nothing. Prove it is true. If it is just, does it need threats? Surely you don't reject law (in principle) simply because it involves threats? No. Is belief in Jesus law?

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.

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.......


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
41 posted 2007-08-18 09:43 PM


"I see no god or any evidence for a god” then everyone points at me and says, “Behold an atheist”.


You find an absence of evidence, or so it seem.  Yet you cannot see the whole universe.  You are limited only to this extremly small point of the whole universe.  Your senses can't even cover the whole point of the earth, that is exceedingly small compared to the Universe, and yet, and yet you are willing to take this "absence" that you (and not everyone else) finds in this little space and try to project it into an absolute of the Universe?  Since you can't find any evidence, there is no evidence anywhere?  You are trying to make out an appearance of an absence of evidence as if it is an evidence for the whole universe that there is no God?

It seems you should see the faultiness in that approach.  On the other hand, trying to make another appearance or lack thereof out as an whole evidence of God and trying to project that as an absolute of the universe is another extreme that I think is faulty.  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!  I find that an extremism and fault in both of your approaches.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
42 posted 2007-08-18 10:34 PM


Ess, if I am included in the "both" that you refer to, I have stated nothing as absolutes. I've done nothing but state my opinions, beliefs and thoughts and call them nothing more than that.

If I'm not included....disregard this message

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

43 posted 2007-08-18 10:48 PM


For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  Philippians 2:9-11

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men... for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.  I Tim. 2:1-6

I believe that one day all will come to believe, in God's own timing, and according to His purpose for each person individually.

I believe that all punishment is corrective and serves His purposes and will end when those purposes are accomplished, when disbelief and rebellion are burned away by the loving correction of God.

I believe that it is God's will that all be saved, and I believe that God has the power to change the hearts of all so that His desire is fulfilled. I don't believe that anyone, no matter how strong-willed, or self-willed, can resist forever the will of God.

And in keeping with the topic of the Thread ...

I believe in the Second Coming as prophesied, and believe that it too will come to pass, just as the birth, death, burial and resurrection were prophesied and came to pass.

And I don't believe that God predicts the future, I believe that God creates the future, and that what He has told us will happen will happen.

Of course no one can prove the existence of God, just like no one can prove that He speaks to mankind through the Bible, and I suspect that that is the way God has designed it.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
44 posted 2007-08-18 10:52 PM


Well said, Denise. You began your thoughts with "I believe" which is as it should be. I respect and salute your beliefs
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
45 posted 2007-08-19 12:02 PM


Balladeer

Will you respect and salute someone who believes in a cow, a tree, a mountain, a rock or a sculpture or a star just because he says "I believe"?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
46 posted 2007-08-19 12:08 PM


Balladeer

Well now that you mention it      

"state my opinions, beliefs and thoughts and call them nothing more than that."

I wouldn't say they aren't anything more than just opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, suggesting that they are truthless and factless.  For opinion, beliefs, and thoughts come along with more than just themselves and refer to more than just themselves.  They also participate as a part of the "whole" that everything else is part, including truths and facts. None of them works alone in void detached from reality.   It may be difficult to say how much they are "more", but I think it is belittling to say that they are only opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, as if they are detached from or void of reality and truths.  If our opinions, beliefs, and thoughts were just mental mist without any truth or fact, what would be the point of having them?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
47 posted 2007-08-19 08:03 AM


Tom, if a person says he believes that a cow is the most majestic creature on earth, or a sculpture I consider ugly to be the greatest work of art ever produced, I will respect his belief, whether or not I agree. If that same person says the same of a cow and that, whoever does NOT believe that are wrong, then i have a problem with that individual. I will never interfere with another's belief as long as I am not affected by them.

Essorant, I have never said that my beliefs are truthless or have no basis in fact. They are based on the truth and facts as I see them, just as all beliefs are based on the same things. I can look at the Bible and see a good piece of fiction and Stefan can see the word of God, for example. We all have our own pereceptions, which makes the world such an interesting place.  

The problem comes when people claim their beliefs (whether or not they claim to have factual evidence ) are the only true ones and anyone who doesn't believe the same way is wrong and, in some cases, the enemy (can you say terrorist?)

At times, life and our beliefs can be one big ink-blot test.....

If our opinions, beliefs, and thoughts were just mental mist without any truth or fact, what would be the point of having them?

Beats me...ask the Pope.





icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
48 posted 2007-08-19 11:28 AM


Why assume a return of this being would be only the "Second" time it has been manifest on this planet?  Why assume the last time was the first time?

On the other hand, why expect it to return at all?  The last time it was here, by most accounts, humans tortured its body and then nailed it to a tree; "Welcome to earth!"

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
49 posted 2007-08-19 11:33 AM



quote:
You find an absence of evidence, or so it seem.


It doesn’t just seem that way Ess it is that way, show me one piece of irrefutable evidence that a god or gods exist and I’ll convert tomorrow.


quote:
Yet you cannot see the whole universe.  You are limited only to this extremly small point of the whole universe. Your senses can't even cover the whole point of the earth, that is exceedingly small compared to the Universe, and yet, and yet you are willing to take this "absence" that you (and not everyone else) finds in this little space and try to project it into an absolute of the Universe?


It isn’t just me Ess, the absence of evidence is there for all to not see, show us some irrefutable evidence and we’ll all convert tomorrow.

God and gods fall into the same category as pixies and unicorns, you can believe in them if you like, you can even argue that a lack of evidence doesn’t preclude them existing somewhere in the universe. What you can’t do is use the lack of evidence to prove they do exist simply because you believe they exist.

If someone came up to you tomorrow and said they’d talked to a six foot tall pink rabbit with polka dot ears and he said you should give up work and start building him a hutch would you believe them simply because they believed? Remember the universe is a big place, using your argument the phantom rabbit might exist.

Michael seems to be suggesting that he wouldn’t start building the hutch but he doesn’t mind if someone wants to believe in pink rabbits.

Stephen would probably suggest that the rabbit was the devil in disguise trying to tempt people from the one true god.

I’m more likely to point out that the pink rabbit doesn’t exist and suggest that the person who talked to it seeks professional help.

As far as a second coming is concerned, I’m still waiting for evidence of the alleged first coming.

"There's a blaze of light in every word
it doesn't matter which you heard
the holy or the broken Hallelujah"
Leonard Cohen

moondogz
Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397
Great White North
50 posted 2007-08-20 03:48 AM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
51 posted 2007-08-20 05:45 PM


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 I’ve shown that Pascal’s 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:
You’re 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 there’s a 50% chance that it’s simply a book of fiction and lies. Doesn’t 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 don’t believe there’s a 50% chance that the bible is wrong do you? Why not? Pascal did, that’s 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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
52 posted 2007-08-21 12:27 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

53 posted 2007-08-21 04:39 PM


Stephen?

A question:

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

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2007-08-21 08:47 PM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
55 posted 2007-08-21 11:20 PM


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 God’s 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 Christ’s 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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

56 posted 2007-08-21 11:33 PM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
57 posted 2007-08-21 11:47 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

58 posted 2007-08-22 12:09 PM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
59 posted 2007-08-22 01:16 AM


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 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
60 posted 2007-08-22 01:52 AM


"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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

61 posted 2007-08-22 02:06 AM


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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
62 posted 2007-08-22 03:49 AM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
63 posted 2007-08-22 09:41 AM


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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
64 posted 2007-08-22 09:55 AM


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 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
65 posted 2007-08-22 12:30 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
66 posted 2007-08-22 01:00 PM


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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
67 posted 2007-08-22 02:41 PM


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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
68 posted 2007-08-22 03:04 PM




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 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
69 posted 2007-08-22 05:00 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
70 posted 2007-08-22 06:02 PM


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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
71 posted 2007-08-22 06:46 PM


.

"Namu Amida Butsu"

and you're in . . .

.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
72 posted 2007-08-22 06:48 PM


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 ....
/main/Ultimate.cgi?action=agree



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
73 posted 2007-08-22 08:07 PM


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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
74 posted 2007-08-22 10:17 PM


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.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
75 posted 2007-08-22 10:22 PM


Mike:
quote:
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.

You're right that the Bible is clear about the necessity of belief and confession for salvation.  That of course is only possible for those who hear the gospel and respond.  For those who don't get to hear, for those (for whatever reason) alienated from overt Christian teachings, there may yet be opportunity outside that vein.  You banter with Ron about accepting Christ after death, but I could entertain the idea of a post-mortem opportunity to believe ... if we are talking about those beyond the direct call of evangelism.  (and though at first glance it might seem absurd to think that anyone could choose to reject God at that point, the nature of sin and self is such that I don't think it would be impossible-  I've heard people say that if they saw God face to face, they would reject him ... And, for some, I believe they might).  That doesn't mean that second, third, and limitless opportunities are forever spilled for those who have heard, and still decide against.  I think Ron's question was a good one, as to when it might be too late to change one's mind.    

After Lewis' quote that I gave you above, he went on to say:

"If you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself."

and in his essay "Man or Rabbit" he wrote:

"The question before each of us is not “Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?” The question is, “Can I?” We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn’t believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If there intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can’t read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, “Can’t I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn’t heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question."


These quotes only express something which I agree with, that knowledge increases accountablility.  We may be sure that God's mercy is wide enough to be truly mercifcul, and not so wide as to be brute force.  That puts my mind at ease about those who are unreached by human evangelism, without easing the responsibility of those who do hear the gospel.  


Again, while you may disagree, I hope you understand what I'm saying.  Exclusivity of salvation through Christ I do stand by, as well as evangelism, and the necessity of faith and profession for those who hear, and the mercy of God working in untold ways for those who don't.  I don't see how any of these are contradictory.

Peace,

Stephen    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
76 posted 2007-08-23 12:06 PM


Ok, Stefan...your first paragraph there makes it clear that facts (like what religious leaders actually say)mean little to those who wish to create their own scenarios and that's ok. I suppose that's what "blind faith" is all about.

I'm glad your mind is at ease....that's the bottom line. Best to ya...

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
77 posted 2007-08-23 12:20 PM


Of course it would defeat their purpose, Ron. A thousand years after you're dead you're not going to church praying for forgiveness, not slipping money into the collection plate and not going to war because your leaders claim it is your religious duty to spread the word and defend your faith. You and Stefan both conjecture on what you may do hundreds of years after you die....not what you must do now. This is not the Scopes trial and Darrow is not making the point that 7 days in Genesis might actually be 700 centuries. When I hear the preacher say, "You must accept Jesus as your Savior to enter the kingdom of Heaven - and you have thousands of years to do so", then I'll be more apt to agree with you.

When you start offering up possibilities like the ones you mention to give your position weight, it makes any reasonable debate or exchange fairly impossible.

I surrender and confess that I have no idea what choices men may have enturies after they die. I only know what religion preaches you must do....and they speak of NOW, while you are still alive. Events happening thousands of years from now are left to dreamers and poets

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
78 posted 2007-08-23 08:56 PM


Brad,

Can I at times
say once
in a thousand years or so
come over to your lotus
for a bowl of sake?


John

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
79 posted 2007-08-23 10:37 PM


Balladeer:
quote:
Ok, Stefan...your first paragraph there makes it clear that facts (like what religious leaders actually say)mean little to those who wish to create their own scenarios and that's ok. I suppose that's what "blind faith" is all about.


Mike, you can dismiss something by calling it unfactual.  But even our own human nature suggests that it wouldn't be unreasonable.  We treat others according to their unique circumstances.  So may God.  


The only thing I was suggesting is that anyone offended about what God might do to "those of other faiths", may be surprised about how much mercy is given, especially to those who never get the chance to hear.  I just have to believe that's just not a good excuse for anyone, if that's what's stumbling them, since they have to be far more dogmatic than scripture is to say with certainty that God's plan is simply to "damn all the heathen".

But to suggest mercy in the way I have, doesn't diminish, one iota, the urgency or responsibility to believe the Gospel.  If the window of repentence is a gift, then who can take it for granted?  The principle is being accountable for what you know, and the plan varying accordingly.  I think Ron's statements about 1000 years after death, were probably hyperbole, to make a point.  If a well-aquainted person had not been inclined to surrender long before then, perhaps they never would?  


There's a passage of scripture (Romans chapter 11) where Paul is speaking about how God dealt with the Jews and the Gentiles, respectively.  The Jews of course represented those who "had heard, and heard often".  The Gentiles, on the other hand, were always viewed (by Jews) as out of God's favor, ignorant, and apart from his blessings.  God dealt differently with them according to the knowledge they had, and how they had used it.  For the Jews the day of severe judgment had come (though not final rejection).  For the Gentiles, they were warmly brought into the fold.  In describing this phenomenon Paul wrote "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God".


I think what I've been trying to describe to you is simply that we can make the mistake of imagining God too kind where he is stern, and too stern where he is kind.  Our fallen minds can percieve him as curmudgeonly where he is precisely liberal and unfettering ... and as a sugar-daddy, precisely where he is more like a Captain or a resolute King.  


All I'm suggesting about God, is the likelihood of something you understand from your own human nature ... circumstantial discernment.  


Mike, I respect you.  You are intelligent, and a worthy discussion partner.  I'm not trying to attack your views so much as give you a different perspective to consider.  If you think it's time to stop the conversation (judging from your comments) than that's okay.  I only felt that I hadn't explained myself adequately.


Peace.          

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
80 posted 2007-08-24 08:29 AM



Thank you, Stefan. No, I don't take your words as an attack at all and I don't mean for mine to be, either. I just get a little frustrated by responses that leave me saying "huh?".

Mike, you can dismiss something by calling it unfactual.  But even our own human nature suggests that it wouldn't be unreasonable

Suggest tha what wouldn't be unreasonable? Resonable means "with reason". I made the statement that religious Christian leaders state the one must accept Jesus Christ to enter heaven. Now that is indeed a fact. I am responded to with comments like "We must believe that God is kind" and "Perhaps we can accept Jesus 1000 years after we are dead and that would count" as counterpoints, all of which do nothing to refute the fact that that is NOT what preachers preach. You also claim that people have told you that they would reject God if they met Him face to face in the afterlife. Not only do I find that to be incredible, I find it equally incredible that it would even come up in a conversation....especially multiple times.

Conversations like this remind me of the current Geico commercial where the caveman is talking to the shrink and she comes up with  some flowery, vague interpretation to make a point and, when asking him if he would care to respond, he sits there for a second and then says. "Yes, I have a response....WHAT?"

Perhaps that is why they say never argue politics or religion...

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
81 posted 2007-08-24 04:09 PM


.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294395,00.html


So where is she now?


PS

"If there be no God, there can be no soul."

is a conclusion I don't understand.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (08-24-2007 06:47 PM).]

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
82 posted 2007-08-24 04:56 PM


It was very nature and normal for  her to write those, esp living her kind of life.

it is her personal opinion and it is good to think and rethink and think again about the whole Bible.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (08-24-2007 07:07 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
83 posted 2007-08-24 07:08 PM


Sorry for the interruption, guys:

quote:
Can I at times
say once
in a thousand years or so
come over to your lotus
for a bowl of sake?


You bet, but if it's in the summer, make sure it's cold.

It's been a while, but I bet I can still make a decent bowl of green tea.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

84 posted 2007-08-24 07:11 PM


oooh.

Cold sake....

really?

hmmmmmm...

uh oh.

Somethin' I never tried.

(It's gonna be your fault, too, Brad!)


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
85 posted 2007-08-24 07:21 PM


quote:
Of course it would defeat their purpose, Ron. A thousand years after you're dead you're not going to church praying for forgiveness, not slipping money into the collection plate and not going to war because your leaders claim it is your religious duty to spread the word and defend your faith.

Okay. So explain to me, Mike, how accepting Christ on one's death bed (or on death row, which I believe you already mentioned as endemic) is greatly different? In my experience, the nearly-dead are only marginally more spry than the already-dead; witness the fact that the priests rush to the side of the dying rather than rushing the dying into the nearest church.

quote:
When you start offering up possibilities like the ones you mention to give your position weight, it makes any reasonable debate or exchange fairly impossible.

That's because we're talking about very different things, Mike. You're talking about organized religion, with a stark cynicism that is at least partially justified by human history. I'm not talking about what men might or might not do. I'm not exploring human motivations. I'm trying, rather, to reconcile how different passages of the Bible can all be true.

quote:
I think Ron's statements about 1000 years after death, were probably hyperbole, to make a point.

The number was picked at random, Stephen, but it wasn't necessarily intended as hyperbole. If the dead are to be resurrected en masse, it might come in five minutes or in five millennia. We're already faced with a pretty big "if," so the time frame seems largely unimportant to me. One random number seemed as good as any other.



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

86 posted 2007-08-24 07:50 PM


quote:
In my experience, the nearly-dead are only marginally more spry than the already-dead; witness the fact that the priests rush to the side of the dying rather than rushing the dying into the nearest church.


Oooh.

That's really good, Ron. Thank you! (I'll quote you when I borrow that.)

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
87 posted 2007-08-25 10:58 AM


Okay. So explain to me, Mike, how accepting Christ on one's death bed (or on death row, which I believe you already mentioned as endemic) is greatly different? .

Ron, I don't claim that they actually accept Jesus Christ on their death bed, or death row...but they say they do. Why? They are at the end, facing certain death at last. My guess is that many do it out of pure fear. They have got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. That's about the right time to grasp at any straw, just in case, wouldn't you say?

witness the fact that the priests rush to the side of the dying rather than rushing the dying into the nearest church.

You lose me there. First, if the dying could be rushed anywhere, it would be a hospital. Second, the church IS where the priest is. One doesn't have to be sitting in the church to be saved. The dying one is not "saved" by the altar, candles, statues or artifacts of the church, but by the priest trying to get him to accept Jesus before he goes. (he doesn't tell him he has thousands of years to make up his mind )

I DO agree with one thing you said, though. We are indeed talking about two different things and I AM talking about organized religion, which is different from one simply having personal beliefs. I speak against the "my way or the highway", believe in our guy or you're wrong, accept out faith or burn in hell for eternity type of banter types. I speak against the priests who preach the word of God while molesting children, the Pope preaching aid for the poor while living in a billion dollar hotel, the tv evangelists enticing the gullible to send those preayer requests in (with money), and all of these people saying that whoever does not believe in their brand of faith is doomed for eternity. None of these things have really anything to do with whatever God there happens to be. They are all human endeavors and they are what I attack. Religion is a product. Preachers are the salesmen. I abhor the tactics of those who try to sell by shame or threats or intimidation.

(haven't had my morning coffee yet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
88 posted 2007-08-25 11:24 AM


Mike,

And yet none of those observations (many of which I agree with) means that exclusivity of salvation through Christ, is merely an invention of man's greed, or just another expression of sectarianism.

Nor does it mean that there are not devoted and holy men of God even today, who preach salvation in Christ, for the glory of God and the benefit of the hearers.  

I would suggest that you keep your keen discernment, and radar for hypocrisy  (we really do need that), without becoming hardened against all.  The only difference between a reformer and a rebel, is that one knows there's a buried pearl worth digging for, the other is just slinging mud.  I'm actually convinced that you'll prove to be the former and not the latter.


Or ... you could just go to Starbuck's and slake that Caffeine Monster within.     


Stephen

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
89 posted 2007-08-25 01:13 PM


Balladeer
----My guess is that many do it out of pure fear. They have got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. That's about the right time to grasp at any straw, just in case, wouldn't you say? ---

Are you sure that they grasped their straw?
God listens to heart not words. If God runs His business as you said, no wonder you have your doubt, I'll surly run away from Him and ignore all morals and rules.

And to get into the organized religion? you might have to be able to  recite Psalms 119 and at least 500 huors Pre-Bath101 in Missionary school. (same as pre-natal class to get some knowledge about birth and delivery). Think about it!!! next year, they may ask for a Phd in Theology to get admitted.  


[This message has been edited by TomMark (08-25-2007 04:07 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
90 posted 2007-08-25 05:16 PM


No worries, Stephen. I know that there are many good people out there, also and that they outnumber the bad...they just don't get the publicity!

We have one such individual at the local church here...reverend Smiley (Yes, that's his real name). If you choose to attend church, he will speak of Jesus and the kingdom of Heaven. Outside of the church, you will not hear it and yet, after spending time with him, you will understand Christianity better than any sermon can teach. He leads by example and lets his  actions speak for him. Whether or not I agree with his beliefs, I have a tremendous respect for the man.  I'm sure there are many like him out there and they are a credit to what they represent.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
91 posted 2007-08-25 07:09 PM


.


Still, no one has even tried to answer
my question:


"So where is she now?"


Let's say there is
a life long atheist and God
like to the deeply doubting
Mother Theresa after death
reveals himself as a fact.
Does that atheist's then
acknowledgement get him in?


.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
92 posted 2007-08-25 07:22 PM


Huan, I'll ask God when I meet Him. and I am sure that there will be ways to get back to you.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
93 posted 2007-08-26 08:08 AM


John,

I would like to try.  But I can't just yet.  I'll explain why I think that Mother Teresa can't (or shouldn't) be compared to an atheist.  


Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

94 posted 2007-08-26 03:33 PM


When you ask "where is she now" what exactly do you mean?

Physically, or in the hearts and minds of those who loved and admired her?

And?

I've been waiting to see if someone would point out the obvious similarity and comparison to Mathew 27:46 ...

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
95 posted 2007-08-26 05:59 PM


Karen,

Why wait when you can do it yourself.



Stephen

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
96 posted 2007-08-26 06:20 PM


Stephanos, I'll still waiting for your response.  *smile*
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
97 posted 2007-08-26 06:27 PM


Points of Comparison
1.God
2.son of God
3.love
4.sin
5.death

Jesus
1. Knows absolutely there is a God
2. Knows clearly that he is son of God and his job in this world
3. is God's love
4. no sin
5. dead of no-sin..(death is the consequence of sin)
Jesus cried for the  no.5

Mother Teresa
1. Doubt if there is God
2. Doubt if there is Jesus, the son of God.
3. do not feel the love sometime
4. A Sinner
5. she died as average human being.

Mother Teresa cried for 1,2,3. every body(Christian) thinks like this...esp in a very difficlut time. Still she, within her limited ability either from God or from herself...she gave lot and lot to others...... Nonetheless,she is a gread human being.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (08-26-2007 07:16 PM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

98 posted 2007-08-26 07:07 PM


Since Huan Yi asked the question, I thought I'd wait for him to reply, Stephen, since I asked him to clarify it a little bit--if that's all right with you



I mean, if I wanted to have a conversation all by myself, I'd write a book.

OH.

heh, heh?

nevermind *cracking up*

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
99 posted 2007-08-26 10:15 PM


Iliana,

I'll get to it.  Let me get a day off or two first.


Karen,

Acutally to write book is a way to hold a conversation with thousands of people.  If you listen, they'll talk back.


And ... I don't know that it's like John to return and answer his own questions.  They're usually totally rhetorical.  (no offense John)  That's just his style.


Stephen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
100 posted 2007-08-27 06:23 PM


John:
quote:
So where is she now?"


Let's say there is
a life long atheist and God
like to the deeply doubting
Mother Theresa after death
reveals himself as a fact.
Does that atheist's then
acknowledgement get him in?


I'm not sure that I can answer everything you're trying to ask.  But I would like to suggest that there are different kinds of doubting ... or rather, different hearts behind the doubting.


In speaking of Jesus' disciple Thomas, who is most famous for his 'doubting', A.B. Bruce wrote:


"concerning the doubt of this disciple. It did not proceed from unwillingness to believe. It was the doubt of a sad man, whose sadness was due to this, that the event whereof he doubted was one of which he would most gladly be assured. Nothing could give Thomas greater delight than to be certified that his Master was indeed risen. This is evident from the joy he manifested when he was at length satisfied. 'My Lord and my God!' that is not the exclamation of one who is forced reluctantly to admit a fact he would rather deny. It is common for men who never had any doubts themselves to trace all doubt to bad motives, and denounce it indiscriminately as a crime. Now, unquestionably, too many doubt from bad motives, because they do not wish and cannot afford to believe. Many deny the resurrection of the dead, because it would be to them a resurrection to shame and everlasting contempt. But this is by no means true of all. Some doubt who desire to believe; nay, their doubt is due to their excessive anxiety to believe. They are so eager to know the very truth, and feel so keenly the immense importance of the interests at stake, that they cannot take things for granted, and for a time their hand so trembles that they cannot seize firm hold of the great objects of faith--a living God; an incarnate, crucified, risen Saviour; a glorious eternal future. Theirs is the doubt peculiar to earnest, thoughtful, pure-hearted men, wide as the poles asunder from the doubt of the frivolous, the worldly, the vicious: a holy, noble doubt, not a base and unholy; if not to be praised as positively meritorious, still less to be harshly condemned and excluded from the pale of Christian sympathy -a doubt which at worst is but an infirmity, and which ever ends in strong, unwavering faith."


also, in explaining Jesus' words "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe", Bruce wrote:


"little does He mean to say that all the felicity falls to the lot of those who have never, like Thomas, doubted. The fact is not so. Those who believe with facility do certainly enjoy a blessedness all their own. They escape the torment of uncertainty, and the current of their spiritual life flows on very smoothly. But the men who have doubted, and now at length believe, have also their peculiar joys, with which no stranger can intermeddle. Theirs is the joy experienced when that which was dead is alive again, and that which was lost is found. Theirs is the rapture of Thomas when he exclaimed, with reference to a Saviour thought to be gone for ever, 'My Lord and my God.' Theirs is the bliss of the man who, having dived into a deep sea, brings up a pearl of very great price."  (A.B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve)


"How long, O LORD ?
Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
" (Psalm 13:1)


St. John of the Cross, also wrote of the "Dark Night of the Soul", where a believer goes through and intense period of lonliness and abandonment and doubt.  When it comes to Sister Teresa, I will agree that the length of this 'dark night' is perplexing.  But personally, I see no reason why such a thing should color or define her whole Spiritual tenor.  She obviously said many other things which were contrary to the spirit of darkness and doubt, and faith-affirming.  Even in her darkness, she professed "such deep longing for God", which I find antithetical to true unbelief.  As Karen pointed out, the greatest believer of all (Jesus) went through such moments.  To put it simply, I doubt her doubts, perhaps as much as you may doubt her faith.  


Lastly, I don't see that such bereavement, longing, and lonliness for something that doesn't exist (among countless people) makes much sense.  On the other hand, it makes sense that such pining feelings flow from a once held knowledge of God's presence.  To try and explain such a phenomenon in mere Freudian or Evolutionary terms, gives rise to a doubt more profound even than Mother Teresa's.  


To answer your question about the atheist ... I'm not sure.  But I do think that even an atheist may hope that his doubts are the kind that will ulimately prove to be what I described above.  Such a hope would at least begin to suggest a kind of impregnation of faith.  Faith does not exclude intellectual questions, but since the question involves the whole person (heart motives as well as the mind), mere intellectual difficulties are not necessarily fatal to it ... anymore than intellectual difficulties are fatal to unbelief.        


Stephen

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
101 posted 2007-08-28 01:31 AM


Michael Vick announced today that this ordeal has caused him to find Jesus....hallaleujah!
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
102 posted 2007-08-28 11:25 AM


His statement may or may not be genuine.  Time will tell.  Still, I don't think he's saying it to escape public responsibility, or to get a cheap and quick respect, seeing that most of the media, like you, tend to scoff at such statements.  I do know that exposed sin and public humiliation is often a precondition for coming to Christ.  Those who think they're "okay" simply don't usually come.  Maybe that's why many of these confessions prove false.  When things are looking better, and the amenities of fame and fortune dull the sense of spiritual need, such well-meant words are forgotten.  Either way, the better response from us is to either hope its for real, or if you can't yet do that, to hope for the best without ridicule.


Stephen

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
103 posted 2007-08-28 10:29 PM


A very Christian thing for you to say, sir,however, if you think Vick really found Jesus based on his butt being in this sling, I'm sending you a brochure of all the swampland we have done here for sale.

Label me a doubting Thomas, I suppose...

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
104 posted 2007-08-29 09:40 AM


I'm only reminding you Mike, that in a sense, all our butts are "in a sling" at some point or another.  With Thomas, he wanted the thing he doubted to be true.  


Stephen  


XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
105 posted 2007-08-30 01:51 PM


Where is he?   Oh, where oh where can he be?
Where does one search for the omnipresent?
Where does one find that which is said to be...
ALL  in  ALL ?

::smiles::

Christ is Mind    Mind is Christ
Buddha is Mind    Mind is Buddha

Christ or Buddha will never be found...apart from Mind.

Apart from Mind...there isn't even a "you" to search for such.

I   will never leave you or forsake you

Enjoy !!!!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
106 posted 2007-08-30 04:08 PM


Absorbing Christian doctrine into Buddhism is too easy ... or maybe too hard.  There are too many texts which assert that Christ is not simply another term for universal mind.  "I will never leave or forsake you" is not the same as "there is no I or you".  Of coure a belief system which doubts that prepositional truth (and ultimately human individuality) exists, texts become totally elastic and irrelevant.  It would be more accurate to say that you don't adhere to Christian teaching (within its own world-view), than to say it really means Eastern Monism, if only you accept Eastern Monism first.


Stephen
    

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
107 posted 2007-08-30 04:48 PM


(((easy)))   (((hard)))   Fun thoughts

Monism...is a fun thought
Universal...  is a fun thought
text...is a fun thought     ::smiles::

When no thoughts arise...Does the universe appear?
When thoughts cease...What text is seen?

None of these things appear until the "I am" thought arises.  All other thoughts are rooted in the "I" thought.

As was stated in the "What is Truth?" thread...
Find that which is constant.
Does not appear and disappear
Exist prior to phenomena
Exist in the absence of phenomena.
That is Truth

Where will you look?

::smiles::   Enjoy !!!


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
108 posted 2007-08-30 05:23 PM


The Dinosaurs will probably return before Christ does.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
109 posted 2007-08-30 05:41 PM


Uriah,

I can't make much of your reply.  But I guess I'll respond by saying that I don't deny the eternal nature of God.  (eternity seems to be the gist of what you're trying to say)  That still doesn't make our minds the same thing as God's, only likenesses.  Nor does that rule out the fact that Eternal Word became man in historical incarnation.  And that God-man will return and judge the world.


Essorant,

Why do you think so?


Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
110 posted 2007-08-30 05:53 PM


.


"The Dinosaurs will probably return before Christ does."


Agree;
only much bigger and with a lot more teeth.
No sense in being eaten alive twice.


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
111 posted 2007-09-17 01:24 AM


The Holy Fossil saith so
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
112 posted 2007-09-17 01:30 AM


Ever read 2nd Peter chapter 3?


Stephen


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
113 posted 2007-09-17 02:03 AM


Yes.  How far should I believe in it?

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
114 posted 2007-09-17 05:23 PM


Re: Mother Teresa, I found the end of the article to be enlightening:

quote:
The late Pope John Paul II, a great admirer of Mother Teresa, began the process of beatification immediately after her death. This required proof of a miracle cure performed through her intercession, and in 2002 the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a stomach tumor in an Indian woman, Monica Besra, who laid a locket containing Mother Teresa’s picture on her abdomen. A second miracle is required for the nun to proceed to canonisation.


One could liken the early learning stages of religion to the early learning stages of marriage.  Then, as one ages, expands in knowledge, and purportedly becomes somewhat wiser, it seems then that one would ask more questions of what still seems so very elusive to them. Why is that?

Is it because expectations of "love" haven't been met? What are the limits? Where are the boundaries?  What turned the "hot" passion [zeal] off, or perhaps it was a "who" and not a "what".  Compare them, and one might see that Mother Teresa's marriage to her faith left her wondering where all the clowns had gone, for surely the circus of life is more than cotton candy and wild animals.  Isn't it?

I am not surprised, Huan, that you would bring in that link to this particular conversation. It makes sense that one would tire of seeing poverty, illness, dis-ease, and wonder, "Oh, where ARE you, Lord?"

To me, it is quite simple. Even for her questions which she wrote in privacy, she still acted and lived in His Word and in His Light.

We all question everything. I'm sure He does, too...



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
115 posted 2007-09-17 07:47 PM


quote:
Yes.  How far should I believe in it?


As far as you possibly can.

Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
116 posted 2007-09-18 05:17 PM


That seems a fair answer.
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Second Coming

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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