<p>Remember, the standard of righteousness is God Himself. We are talking utter perfection. No one can achieve it because by nature all are infected with sin. Therefore, all are condemned, even those who by our own flawed standards lead “good” lives. A good life by my standard is vile by God’s.</p>
<p>
According to this system, ALL are doomed, every single thing in the universe is doomed, including all infants, you and I. All are infected with sin and that means all are innately incompatible with a perfectly righteous God – even infants. God may choose to save some infants. But only He knows who He will save. All are doomed. And, you know, there is consistency here with this and with the way the God of the Hebrews completely eradicated the Amalekites, for example-- slaughtering men, women, infants, and even their cattle. If all is already in a state of being doomed, then this is simply no great issue at all.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion- most of you do not want me at your church, I could argue with the pope and offend most of you. With Catholic and Hindu raised parents our son got to think/ learn outside any mythology (look it up, the dictionary term fits Christian as well as nonchristian belief systems). I am just as strong in my non-dis-belief as any of you are in your beliefs. Of course I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s too bad the Europeans took the Jewish creation mythology along with all the good points Christ had. It was interesting to figure out my beliefs and what had bothered me about religion for so many years - after many years of marriage to the right guy for me it was nice to find logical reasons for my differences with typical American assumptions about religion. BTW you can quote the bible, any version, all you want, but it is NOT the word of God unless it fits your chosen belief system (remember you can’t use that which is to be proven to prove it). One nice thing about Hindus- they’re so tolerant of other beliefs they don’t try to convert anyone or argue religion; it makes it easier for them to live in towns different Christians would find difficult.</p>
<p>I have strong beliefs and just spent a long time composing this; I’m going to submit it “as is” , like a term paper that is due there has to be a stopping point and I wanted to throw in a differing viewpoint- the outsider’s.</p>
<p>PS- BTW did you know Christianity is not a religion? I heard this from a self professed Christian the other day, they said it wasn’t a religion because it didn’t end in “ism”, they were being perfectly serious! Pointing out that the terminology was a function of the language didn’t change their belief.</p>
Okay. You see this, and that is fine. But it seems to me perfection implies a degree of completeness that is so profound, it needs nothing at all, like God Himself. The body is by nature a needy thing. And ultimately, it is cursed with death, which is to say it is already dead. That does not sound like God to me. When Christ said “Let the dead bury their dead”, I think He was really pointing at the fact that all humans walking around the earth, have already perished in body.</p>
<p>
Well, that is quite good. But it seems to me the world is imperfect, even by my own standard. The system I have described tries to put this in perspective. It is imperfect for a reason, and it tries to explain that reason. For many, it reflects reality more than assuming that we are now in heaven. But hey, I say enjoy. </p>
[/quote]
Well, I don’t exactly think a gay Jesus is all that tenable from a historical perspective. But if one wishes to believe such a thing, I say enjoy.</p>
<p>fundingfather- Please do me a favor and don’t respond to my posts. You incorrectly and deliberately misconstrue what I say. Go have a drink.
Thanks.</p>
<p>So then there’s no way of knowing if you’re right or wrong by doing everything you say or nothing? </p>
<p>Since it’s a crap shoot, why wouldn’t he take a billion Chinese? You yourself say “only he knows”… </p>
<p>If “only he knows” why are people telling other people what they “need” to do to go to heaven, when you just wrote it is not garanteed? Could those people only seek to control other people by claiming to be the word of god?</p>
To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett – while death doesn’t matter in general, it matters a great deal in specific, or “lives were long and short, good and bad, and in the scheme of infinitiy it didn’t really matter. But long ones are better.”</p>
<p>So, enlighten me then. You apparently get your beliefs from the Bible or some other source and come to the conclusions about salvation, homosexuality and women in the priesthood that you adhere to. That’s fine, who am I or anyone to say that you are wrong. </p>
<p>However, you feel perfectly comfortable in claiming that those who don’t adhere to your beliefs in these matters are not only wrong but should effectively be shunned. Yet, you are the one who claims that they are not inclusive. So, tell me where I’m going wrong here in understanding your view. </p>
<p>BTW, thanks, I will be having a drink fairly soon.</p>
Coming from a Catholic perspective, there is a difference between being a homosexual and participating in homosexual sex. A priest accepts his natural sexual inclinations but does not act on them, which is the precise teaching of at least the Catholic Church. There is no reason why non-practicing homosexuals should not be able to be priests since, by abstaining, they are following doctrine. An adulturer or polygamist is presumably actively breaking the creeds of the religion of his free-will and is obviously unfit to preach. An abstaining homosexual who is not actively disobeying the Church’s teaching (and most people agree not a homosexual of his own free-will) is an entirely different matter.</p>
Looking at the context in which the verse appears, I dont think any normal thinking person can honestly come away thinking Christ meant one has to have malevolence toward ones parents and toward ones own life. In context, I think it is unmistakable that Christ referred to nonattachment and that one would have to literally try to misunderstand the text to come up with anything else. When I read from Luke 14:7-30, I see the entire discussion, from beginning to end, is about rejecting that which is commonly prized for some greater purpose. But, I am not really interested in convincing anyone about this. It is what I sincerely see in the text. And I must be concerned only with that.</p>
It is really a matter of trust. Rather than trust someone else, and rather than trust yourself, you use your effort and apply your mind and body to trusting God as you know Him. I could be so amazingly wrong on everything. But I sense something inside declaring that I know what is right. I really cannot be concerned about whether you know what is right because I honestly haven’t a clue what you know. I know what is being declared within me, and I must follow that thing as God grants mercy to help me follow it. It is all a matter of trusting that He is not going to let me perish. You know, I never really considered myself an Evangelical, coming from a Reformed tradition. But yeah. I do somehow sense a perishing world, and that I cannot even trust myself to survive it. When I read the stuff I am talking about here, I see it actually tells me something about me that is very true. I do sense Perfection, somehow, and that I am not it. I am not even close to it. Shoot. I’m too far away from goodness even by my own standard, let alone yours. And I do sense a need to be perfectly good, with nary a single flaw, not even the need to eat or shower. Make fun, but it is clear to me I need God. I need Him. Maybe others don’t, but I do. And I need this particular God, too. The One Who is Perfect, and Who did something so that I could be made Perfect in Him.</p>
<p>So, I can’t just make fun of this stuff and be hostile toward it, as so many here seem to be.</p>
Aint it the truth! I do see a kind of futility in life, a worthlessness to it all. I mean, this place is like a stinking NFL game, where people spend a lot of effort and time, working so hard to win, and then when they win, they clean up, go home, and come back to do it all again. And what is the point, really? But I sure like watching those games!</p>
<p>fundingfather- I actually don’t believe that the Bible should be taken literally. If you have read anything by Bishop Spong, he summarizes my views more eloquently than I can.
If you are claiming Campus Crusade is an inclusive group, you are sadly wrong.
I am not claiming to have a “cult” where I exclude Catholics or anyone else. I have no cult or crusade at all. I am an Episcopalian. I have great respect for the Jewish faith, Catholic faith and most others. I do not respect fundamentalism and people who hide behind the Bible as as excuse to treat certain segments of our population as inferior beings. This has been done over the years to blacks, women and now gays.
As an Episcopalian, I am a believer in wine at the communion rail and wine and it’s alcohol based cousins at most other occasions! As they say, “Wherever 2 or more are gathered, there is a Fifth.”<br>
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?</p>
<p>Nor do I respect those who hide behind any belief that treats others as inferior beings - whether it is a fundamentalist that deviates from what is truly taught in the Bible about “hating the sin but loving the sinner” or an Episcopalian that groups a whole category of people with a certain belief system as an inferior group. </p>
<p>Of course there are probably fundamentalists that do as you say they do - just as there are people of all religions that aren’t perfect adherents to the core principle of that religion. But it seems that you are painting all fundamentalists with a pretty broad brush. Yet, there are other religions that hold similar views as the fundamentalists that you seem to tolerate. Why?</p>
<p>“A good life by my standard is vile by Gods.”</p>
<p>I guess I don’t see God as so righteous if He creates Shinto babies just to cast them into the lake of fire to suffer…without even giving them an opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness for whatever sins they committed in their 6-month lives. What kind of standard of perfection is that? Frankly, I hope to do a lot better than that for any children I create.</p>
<p>In my book, love DOES require you to give all your children a chance to do right. If you had two children, and you loved them both, would you teach one right from wrong and just let the other one fester in ignorance? If a human parent did that, I’d conclude that he didn’t love the neglected child. If God really does let the souls of Hindu children burn, then IMHO my mom, who taught all four of her daughters and gave all four of us a chance to follow her, is more perfect than God.</p>
<p>Fundamentalists are so called because of their belief in five fundamentals of their faith: </p>
<p>(1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book);
(2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ;
(3) the substitutionary view of the atonement (ie, Christ died for their sins):
(4) the bodily resurrection of Christ;
(5) The imminent return of Christ.</p>
<p>These beliefs do lead Fundamentalists to make certain judgements about who is condemned as well as the value of life on earth as opposed to eternal life in heaven.</p>
<p>“When I read from Luke 14:7-30, I see the entire discussion, from beginning to end, is about rejecting that which is commonly prized for some greater purpose.”</p>
<p>As I said, construe away. It seems to me clear from everything I read in Acts that the disciples in the main DID leave their wives, children, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, and that this was expected of them. I think it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion. And unlike all of the lines before it and after it, 14:26 is NOT a parable. It is a direct, clear, and unambiguous utterance. This is what Jesus told the multitude, when he turned to them, and gave off from the parables, and spoke to them directly.</p>
<p>As to why you should “hate” your relatives (as opposed to simply leaving them or not serving them) in order to be a Christian disciple is probably a good subject for psychotherapy.</p>
<p>At any rate, did he mean what he said? Was he just tired that day? Were the parables tailing off to the nonsensical? Is there a problem in the text? Had he just had a difficult time with a relative? Was he gay? Beats me. That’s what makes “construing” so much fun.</p>
<p>But no matter how you construe it, the admonition to hate your parents is a lot more direct and unambiguous than the non-existent condemnation of homosexuality. The latter text of Jesus talking can’t be construed, because it doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>“When I read from Luke 14:7-30, I see the entire discussion, from beginning to end, is about rejecting that which is commonly prized for some greater purpose.”</p>
<p>As I said, construe away. It seems to me clear from everything I read in Acts that the disciples in the main DID leave their wives, children, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, and that this was expected of them. I think it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion. And unlike all of the lines before it and after it, 14:26 is NOT a parable. It is a direct, clear, and unambiguous utterance. This is what Jesus told the multitude, when he turned to them, and gave off from the parables, and spoke to them directly.</p>
<p>As to why you should “hate” your relatives (as opposed to simply leaving them) in order to be a Christian disciple is probably a good subject for psychotherapy."</p>
<p>As to why he would say such a thing? I think he said it “for effect”. The key line is “He turned to the multitude, and said…” He was an itinerant preacher, not particularly well-versed in Jewish lore and unlikely a rabbi of any kind, and so he would take lines commonly known to his listeners, often from the teachings of Hillel, and turn them on their heads. He knew that Hillel preached charity, so, instead, he would say “sell all you have and give it to the poor”. He knew that Hillel would preach “Love your neighbor” and so he would counter it with “Love your enemy” (which I personally think is a ridiculous idea - the point is to try to figure out how not to have enemies, not to love them. Others will feel differently, and that’s fine with me.) Constantly, preachings will take the form of “It is said…but I say”. “It is written…but I say…” It was probably a form common to preaching itinerants who often say things for effect, as opposed to an attempt at some deep wisdom. </p>
<p>But are the original ms. “inerrant”. We’ll never know. They don’t exist.</p>
<p>“…The final problem, concerning people who have never heard of Christ, was solved very simply. When we consider the system described above, we see a perfect world that became imperfect and therefore condemned by nature. The whole world, all humans, are now born in a state of sin and are therefore incompatible with God. The question is, did the Fall of man somehow morally obligate God to save all humans? No. All humans were initially perfect. There was moral equilibrium. If we assume free will, then the moral imbalance resulting of the Fall cannot be ascribed to God and He therefore has no obligation to save everyone. They are already condemned. Does Love obligate Him? Certainly not! Love by definition cannot allow ultimate coercion, even when it comes to salvation. Such a thing would eliminate free will. Love would allow encouragement toward salvation – such as sending one’s only begotton Son to pay for sin and waiting until all who will accept Him choose to do so. Once all of those have made their choice, then Love would require God to cut bait and fish…”</p>
<p>Wow, there is no way I could believe that God is like that. First of all, it’s acknowledging that God got tricked by Satan. God had this perfect plan but Satan screwed it up. So that would mean God’s not very smart, since he got outsmarted by Satan and then had to scramble to come up with Plan B. Secondly, it would mean that all of humanity must pay for something that 2 people (Adam & Eve) did. So that would mean God’s not very fair. Thirdly, it would mean that God doesn’t love humanity enough to think of a better plan than the ‘Jesus saves’ plan since that plan depends on people being smart enough or lucky enough to choose the right religion…seems to me that God ought to be compassionate enough and smart enough to figure out some plan that might work for EVERYONE, even the foolish ones. Foolish people (the ones who don’t choose Jesus) don’t deserve to burn FOREVER, do they?? I don’t think they do, and surely God has more justice and more Love than I do!</p>
<p>The Free Will issue: I agree that God honors our free will. However, the whole system is tipped AWAY from us. It’s ridiculous, imo, that God would EXPECT people in other religions to become ‘Christians’ - say, for example, peaceful and loving Buddhists who see no need to change religions. I can’t imagine that God would sentence those people to ‘hell’ when they obviously are doing what they believe is good and right. Surely God would understand that they are seeking him too? And the Native Americans, who refer to God as ‘Great Spirit’ - so if some missionary tells them they must be Christian, and they see no reason at all to change, why would God blame them for that?</p>
<p>Why can Christians not consider the possibility that all of these people are in fact worshiping the SAME God, but just in different ways?</p>
<p>No disrespect intended, but the entire premise of the ‘only Christians are saved’ and ‘accept Jesus’ makes absolutely no sense to me.</p>