Figuring Out Religion

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

While your post certainly communicates your perspective, it being very self-referential (aka, it assumes certain conclusions that PS and I have trouble accepting as fact).

Further, you seem to be getting into a bit of a semantic debate with PS.

To PS's dad's church, the gift seems to be eternity in heaven no matter what.  To your church, the gift seems to be the Holy Spirit, which you can either accept or reject.

But let's focus on what it means to "accept" or "reject" this gift.  Unless we are to believe in everything you are asserting, "accepting" the gift means openly stating we believe something that we don't have a reason to believe.  This isn't "accepting" anything.  This is simply making an arbitrary assertion.  Unless perhaps you mean accepting it at the level of your soul, which is unlike "accepting" a physical gift, but we have to BELIEVE your assertions about the soul to even take us to a place where we can even envision "accepting" this gift.

And perhaps the semantics around our soul shouldn't be the same words we use for the physical world.  To "accept" most physical gifts, I simply have to lay out my hand to receive it.  If someone asks me to believe something I don't believe, 1) I can't automatically force myself to believe it, and 2) even if stating that I did would suffice, then it is not a "gift," but an exchange. 

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

While your post certainly communicates your perspective, it being very self-referential (aka, it assumes certain conclusions that PS and I have trouble accepting as fact).

Further, you seem to be getting into a bit of a semantic debate with PS.

To PS's dad's church, the gift seems to be eternity in heaven no matter what.  To your church, the gift seems to be the Holy Spirit, which you can either accept or reject.

But let's focus on what it means to "accept" or "reject" this gift.  Unless we are to believe in everything you are asserting, "accepting" the gift means openly stating we believe something that we don't have a reason to believe.  This isn't "accepting" anything.  This is simply making an arbitrary assertion.  Unless perhaps you mean accepting it at the level of your soul, which is unlike "accepting" a physical gift, but we have to BELIEVE your assertions about the soul to even take us to a place where we can even envision "accepting" this gift.

And perhaps the semantics around our soul shouldn't be the same words we use for the physical world.  To "accept" most physical gifts, I simply have to lay out my hand to receive it.  If someone asks me to believe something I don't believe, 1) I can't automatically force myself to believe it, and 2) even if stating that I did would suffice, then it is not a "gift," but an exchange.

Moda, perhaps I misunderstood PS's statement about his father's belief about the gift.  I think most LCMS folks would say the gift is "everything" - God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and everything material and otherwise we have.  The gift is given no matter what - I can say I'm giving everyone in the US a brand new iPhone.  Perhaps there will be people (loyal Android fans?) who reject my gift.  I've still offered the gift.  It is on that Android user that he does not end up with the gift, not me, or that he really does not believe that I would give everyone a new iPhone and refuses to go to where I have promised to deliver the gift.  Bad analogy, but perhaps helpful?  In a like way, the gifts from God come from a place/person external to me.  It seems to me you want to use your internal reason to understand things that God has not revealed to us rather than just accepting what He says as truth.  Truth is truth, no matter how unreasonable it may seem, or how little I'm able to understand it; and I'm talking about THE truth, not relative truth.  I get what you are saying and why it is so hard to come to grips with, I really do; I was in that sinking boat until I got tired of rowing and going no where; really glad that life preserver was available for the "not rejecting". 

Maybe semantics again, but you do not have to believe a single word I'm writing, it is not about me (yes, I've said that before and will probably say it many more times), it is only about God's revealed Word.  That is a reason I think, perhaps wrongly, it is imperative to go to where God has promised to give his gifts - get your butt in a church and hear the Word and receive the Sacraments.  The gift of the Holy Spirit does His work within us and will strengthen that "glimmer" of faith that exists in us. 

... Mountaineer

Edit:  I think God gave me the gift of finding this forum so I would really examine my beliefs as objectively as possible, and hopefully encourage one or two others to go to where you hear His Word preached and taught accurately and receive His Sacraments faithfully.  It is interesting to learn from everyone single person who has posted in this religion thread.  As Desert said, this forum is addicting.

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

We have to accept that the Bible is the 100% true Word of God to even establish "where God wants us to go to receive his gift."  If we see the Bible as one POSSIBLY true Word of God, then it has to compete with the Koran & all sorts of other potentially true texts.

In attempting to find the Truth, did you visit a mosque repeatedly?  Sinagogue?  Any other religious beliefs?  If not, why didn't you accept that their interpretation of God was at least worthy enough of a visit?


Can you see what PS and I mean when we say that much of Christian arguments are "self-referential?"  You have to already believe in Christian assumptions of Truth (mainly, the Truth of the Bible) to accept the rest.  Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.  Well, if I already belived the Bible was the 100% true Word of God, then we wouldn't be even having this debate.  It is about YOU in the sense that it is YOUR assertion that the Bible is the 100%-true Word of God.  The Bible of course asserts it as well, but so does the Koran. Books can assert anything.  It takes a subjective HUMAN claim to assert that these claims are true.  Your soul (or whatever part of your psyche) has made such a claim.  God hasn't made that claim anywhere publicly.  You state that He is making the claim through the Bible or through those who have spoken to him, but once again 1) tons of other religions use that same assertion, and 2) none of them are anywhere close to self-evident.

So I guess I'd ask you this, on top of my other questions.  Do you think the Bible's 100%-Truth is self-evident?  If so, can you, as we asked Ksharte to do when he kept asserting he could prove morality, lay out your simple reasoning as to why you think the Bible's truth is self-evident.

If you do NOT think the Bible's truth is self-evident (as it would seem you don't since it took you a long time to come to your current position on the matter), then why should anyone use it as a starting point for trying to decide how to interpret reality, while ignoring other religious texts?  If it is not self-evident, why do you use it as a reference-point for reality?  Why be so self-referential back to the Bible if it is obviously forming a circular argument?

[Pointedstick]

So I guess I'd ask you this, on top of my other questions.  Do you think the Bible's 100%-Truth is self-evident?  If so, can you, as we asked Ksharte to do when he kept asserting he could prove morality, lay out your simple reasoning as to why you think the Bible's truth is self-evident.

If you do NOT think the Bible's truth is self-evident (as it would seem you don't since it took you a long time to come to your current position on the matter), then why should anyone use it as a starting point for trying to decide how to interpret reality, while ignoring other religious texts?  If it is not self-evident, why do you use it as a reference-point for reality?  Why be so self-referential back to the Bible if it is obviously forming a circular argument?

Yes, exactly.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

We have to accept that the Bible is the 100% true Word of God to even establish "where God wants us to go to receive his gift."  If we see the Bible as one POSSIBLY true Word of God, then it has to compete with the Koran & all sorts of other potentially true texts.

In attempting to find the Truth, did you visit a mosque repeatedly?  Sinagogue?  Any other religious beliefs?  If not, why didn't you accept that their interpretation of God was at least worthy enough of a visit?


Can you see what PS and I mean when we say that much of Christian arguments are "self-referential?"  You have to already believe in Christian assumptions of Truth (mainly, the Truth of the Bible) to accept the rest.  Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.  Well, if I already belived the Bible was the 100% true Word of God, then we wouldn't be even having this debate.  It is about YOU in the sense that it is YOUR assertion that the Bible is the 100%-true Word of God.  The Bible of course asserts it as well, but so does the Koran. Books can assert anything.  It takes a subjective HUMAN claim to assert that these claims are true.  Your soul (or whatever part of your psyche) has made such a claim.  God hasn't made that claim anywhere publicly.  You state that He is making the claim through the Bible or through those who have spoken to him, but once again 1) tons of other religions use that same assertion, and 2) none of them are anywhere close to self-evident.

So I guess I'd ask you this, on top of my other questions.  Do you think the Bible's 100%-Truth is self-evident?  If so, can you, as we asked Ksharte to do when he kept asserting he could prove morality, lay out your simple reasoning as to why you think the Bible's truth is self-evident.

If you do NOT think the Bible's truth is self-evident (as it would seem you don't since it took you a long time to come to your current position on the matter), then why should anyone use it as a starting point for trying to decide how to interpret reality, while ignoring other religious texts?  If it is not self-evident, why do you use it as a reference-point for reality?  Why be so self-referential back to the Bible if it is obviously forming a circular argument?

Visits:  No, just a lot of reading, watching videos, and hearing various professors/teachers/mystics/preachers/imams spout their thing.  Had quite an interest in comparative religion stuff for a while.  In short, I came to the conclusion that only Chistianity has a living God, Jesus; I had no attraction to worship or pay homage or receive guidance from an inanimate thing or dead person.  Personally, I think there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus' resurection really did happen and He really does exist in time and space (as well as do many, many other events and places described in Scripture).

Self-referential: Of course!  Christian apologetics is a very interesting topic, but does not save.  Only the Gospel does that.

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.  I think if one wants to have their faith strengthened, one must routinely go to where that faith can be fed and nourished, just like if you want to continue living on this earth, you better go to where the food is and eat.  As I've said before, I did not master engineering by attending English literature classes.  I do not satisfy my need for rest by watching YouTube all night. 

You did not ask this directly, but I might take a moment to discuss "uncertainty".  Martin Luther, for example, was plagued thoughout his life by doubt, uncertainty, and the like.  Just like us.  We are human.  We are sinners.  We do wrong and wonder why.  We do right and wonder why.  We hurt others either intentionally or unintentionally.  Neighbors are kind to us.  Neighbors hurt us in thought word, and deed just as we do to them.  We are subject to evil temptations.  Whenever we doubt, we just need to keep Jesus front and center, understand our sins are forgiven because of what Jesus did, pray for insight, pray for mercy, pray for discernment - go to the source of all understanding, strengh, love, mercy, and justice and receive the gifts of Jesus.  So my fellow sinner, go to a Confessional  Christian church that is true to the Word of God and hear the Gospel. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

[Mountaineer]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

While I'm pondering the question you asked, and one of my own (do I really understand the definitions of self-evident and unconvincing in the same way you do? -- I'm probably being influenced by a book I just read - What Does This Mean, by James Voelz), perhaps you can offer an answer to these questions (and, no, I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would value your response):

1. How can you and I simultaneously be a saint and sinner?
2. How can Christ be simultaneously fully human and fully God?
3. How can God be simultaneously three persons but one essence, nature, or substance?

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

While I'm pondering the question you asked, and one of my own (do I really understand the definitions of self-evident and unconvincing in the same way you do? -- I'm probably being influenced by a book I just read - What Does This Mean, by James Voelz), perhaps you can offer an answer to these questions (and, no, I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would value your response):

1. How can you and I simultaneously be a saint and sinner?
2. How can Christ be simultaneously fully human and fully God?
3. How can God be simultaneously three persons but one essence, nature, or substance?

The questions concern things I don't believe and terms I have no real definition for ("saint" and "sinner"), or that are nonsensical to me (that Christ would be both man and God), or that I'm not sure are even fully answerable for believers (#3). I have no answers for your questions, as they concern theological details of a religion in which I do not believe.

[Mountaineer]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

The answer is because of this:

On the contrary, in many ways, I wish I was religious. I sometimes feel a spiritual hole in my life, even when everything is going great.

The reason why I stick around in this thread is not to mock Christianity or Christians, but to try to understand it.

You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda. 

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Personally I see the "self-referential" parts as less of a circle and more of a spiral.  It converges on something that makes sense.  I don't believe in Jesus because the Bible is true; I believe the Bible is true because it accurately describes Jesus (as well as the Godhead, Creation, and humanity).  I learn about Jesus from the Bible, but not ONLY from the Bible; there's the entire Christian Church which has existed for 2000 years, and endorses the Christian worldview and the Bible.

You might say that's all circular, and you're right in a sense.  But added together, the pieces assemble to make a complete puzzle.

The worldview of logic and reason and not believing in anything that's not scientifically proven is ALSO circular.  In order to prove that logic and reason are correct, you must prove logic and reason, but you can't do that without assuming (you guessed it) logic and reason.

Logic and reason are also a spiral/circle.  And it is an extremely useful circle.  I don't reject that circle, but I reject it as The Fundamental Circle.

So become a Christian is adding a more fundamental, more base circle underneath the one that you currently have as your base.  But both are circles, make no mistake.

[Mountaineer]

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

While I'm pondering the question you asked, and one of my own (do I really understand the definitions of self-evident and unconvincing in the same way you do? -- I'm probably being influenced by a book I just read - What Does This Mean, by James Voelz), perhaps you can offer an answer to these questions (and, no, I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would value your response):

1. How can you and I simultaneously be a saint and sinner?
2. How can Christ be simultaneously fully human and fully God?
3. How can God be simultaneously three persons but one essence, nature, or substance?

The questions concern things I don't believe and terms I have no real definition for ("saint" and "sinner"), or that are nonsensical to me (that Christ would be both man and God), or that I'm not sure are even fully answerable for believers (#3). I have no answers for your questions, as they concern theological details of a religion in which I do not believe.

I think there is an answer to those three questions, and I'll bet when I tell you what it is you will agree with me that it is an answer.  The necessary precondition is you have to be open to external influences without them first having to be confirmed by the flawed human brain; in this specific case, you have to be open to hearing the Word of God (an external source) and accepting there are things you will not understand (an internal source).  The answer to the three "How" questions is: "It is a mystery."  That is an answer, right?  Maybe it does not seem like a "correct" answer to you, but that is the very point.  It is an answer that you may not have been open sufficiently to think of or hear, or you thought of it and immediately discarded it, i.e. you just discarded some stuff that you think is silly or preposterous and no human in their right mind could possibly say that and be serious.  And, I'm not trying to be cute ... please ponder for and look for deeper meaning in what I've very in-eloquently said.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Personally I see the "self-referential" parts as less of a circle and more of a spiral.  It converges on something that makes sense.  I don't believe in Jesus because the Bible is true; I believe the Bible is true because it accurately describes Jesus (as well as the Godhead, Creation, and humanity).  I learn about Jesus from the Bible, but not ONLY from the Bible; there's the entire Christian Church which has existed for 2000 years, and endorses the Christian worldview and the Bible.

You might say that's all circular, and you're right in a sense.  But added together, the pieces assemble to make a complete puzzle.

The worldview of logic and reason and not believing in anything that's not scientifically proven is ALSO circular.  In order to prove that logic and reason are correct, you must prove logic and reason, but you can't do that without assuming (you guessed it) logic and reason.

Logic and reason are also a spiral/circle.  And it is an extremely useful circle.  I don't reject that circle, but I reject it as The Fundamental Circle.

So become a Christian is adding a more fundamental, more base circle underneath the one that you currently have as your base.  But both are circles, make no mistake.

Xan, that is one of the best explanations I've ever seen.  That resonated with me in a way that no other theologian (yes, I'm saying you are too a theologian) ever has and it was short and sweet.  Thanks for sharing.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

The answer is because of this:

On the contrary, in many ways, I wish I was religious. I sometimes feel a spiritual hole in my life, even when everything is going great.

The reason why I stick around in this thread is not to mock Christianity or Christians, but to try to understand it.

You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda.

I totally understand what you're saying, but how do either of us know that I am internally yearning for Jesus and not God himself in the Jewish old testament tradition, or Zeus, Mohammed, or Buddhist enlightenment, or to commune with my ancestors? Why am I to conclude that my intermittent spiritual yearning is necessarily expressing both a desire for your faith and illustrating its truth, but not for one of the tens of thousands of other faiths that humans have believed throughout the millennia?

[Mountaineer]

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

The answer is because of this:

On the contrary, in many ways, I wish I was religious. I sometimes feel a spiritual hole in my life, even when everything is going great.

The reason why I stick around in this thread is not to mock Christianity or Christians, but to try to understand it.

You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda.

I totally understand what you're saying, but how do either of us know that I am internally yearning for Jesus and not God himself in the Jewish old testament tradition, or Zeus, Mohammed, or Buddhist enlightenment, or to commune with my ancestors? Why am I to conclude that my intermittent spiritual yearning is necessarily expressing both a desire for your faith and illustrating its truth, but not for one of the tens of thousands of other faiths that humans have believed throughout the millennia?

Trust the Christian Triune God. You will know.  Pray  to Him for discernment. 

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

The answer is because of this:

On the contrary, in many ways, I wish I was religious. I sometimes feel a spiritual hole in my life, even when everything is going great.

The reason why I stick around in this thread is not to mock Christianity or Christians, but to try to understand it.

You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda.

I totally understand what you're saying, but how do either of us know that I am internally yearning for Jesus and not God himself in the Jewish old testament tradition, or Zeus, Mohammed, or Buddhist enlightenment, or to commune with my ancestors? Why am I to conclude that my intermittent spiritual yearning is necessarily expressing both a desire for your faith and illustrating its truth, but not for one of the tens of thousands of other faiths that humans have believed throughout the millennia?

The only possible answer is because his is the REAL god; all the others are impostors.
Of course, the adherents of every other religion say the same thing.
As Heinlein pointed out, since every religion contradicts every other religion, they can't all be right... but they can all be wrong.

i know its a bit off the main topic, but i will mention again.. that if you dispense with the surface view of religion held by the majority if practitioners from all religions, and take a more mystic or gnostic look at what the scriptures, teachings, rituals and practices from any religion are pointing towards, the contradictions dissolve and disappear..

i made a couple posts further back in the thread

" My God in favor of other gods " the idea that there are other gods is a confusion caused by being stuck in the realm of "ideas in my head" there is no conflict between religions among those who seek or achieve enlightenment or sainthood or what ever name you give direct understanding regardless of the religion used to attain it.
an interesting documentary on the subject "With One Voice 2009" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlnQ1Z-Fzw trailer.*

*(full movie available on netflix)
it has leaders from a wide variety of faiths (some more eloquent than others) all trying to explain the common thread that runs through all religions..

[invst65]

Self-evident:  Yes.  But I doubt I can lay it out any more effectively that I've tried to do in "beaucoup" previous posts - at least not in a way that would be convincing to unbelivers since belief only comes from going to where Jesus said He delivers his promises.

How can something be simultaneously self-evident and unconvincing to people who don't already believe it? Doesn't that negate its truth being self-evident?

The answer is because of this:

On the contrary, in many ways, I wish I was religious. I sometimes feel a spiritual hole in my life, even when everything is going great.

The reason why I stick around in this thread is not to mock Christianity or Christians, but to try to understand it.

You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda. 

... Mountaineer

I was so desperately searching for meaning at one point in my life that I just decided to hit the road and either find it or die trying. I had been reading a variety of religious books for some time, including the Bible my grandmother had given to me, but I had torn it up in a fit of rage and thrown it in the trash somewhere around the book of Leviticus, as best I can recall. Just what all those picayune laws had to do with anything that actually mattered in life, I had no idea and didn't care to find out.

I was on my way hitch-hiking to Mexico because I heard there was some guru up in the mountains that had the truth. Somewhere in Alabama, I think it was, I got picked up by a group of "Jesus People" who witnessed to me about Jesus and when they let me out of the car I remember the last thing they said was "Think about Jesus". I don't know how long it was but one or two more rides and several hours later, another group of Jesus Freaks stopped and picked me up and the first thing they said was "Hey Man, do you ever think about Jesus?" Thinking maybe God was trying to tell me something I joined in when they asked me to say the sinner's prayer with them. I remember one of them said after they prayed "He's got it" and I remember thinking "got what?" because I didn't feel any thing.

I stayed with them for a day or so but decided to continue on my quest but in San Antonio Texas, a baptist preacher saw me hitch-hiking along the freeway and he stopped way up ahead and I could see him calling back at me with a bullhorn so I ran ahead and got in his car. I told him I had said a prayer and asked Jesus into my heart the day before and he was excited as hell about it even though I still didn't feel any thing. We went to a service at an all black church and when it came time for people to stand up and give their testimonies he urged me to stand up so I stood up and confessed that I had said the prayer the night before and given my life to Jesus, even though I still didn't feel anything. All those black people were so happy for me, it was amazing. The preacher who picked me up wanted me to stay with him and help him with his church but I still wanted to just hit the road.

I was in Waco Texas late at night and nobody was picking me up. I was sitting under a freeway bridge and what I remember is that the grass got greener, or maybe I should say I had never noticed before that the grass was actually ALIVE because that's what I remember and it was an observation that I would make for several days to come. That everything was ALIVE. Sitting under that freeway bridge I started singing hymns that I had learned when my parents made me go to Sunday School when I was growing up. And eventually I had an experience with Jesus directly related to the Bible verse that Mountaineer includes in his signature - Matthew 11:25 - "I am meek and lowly in heart". I had never thought of Jesus that way and I remember laughing at him as a little child would laugh at a clown.

I returned home, got a job cleaning offices at night, and with the first paycheck bought a Bible. The book that was once sealed to me was now open. "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" and that was the center of my life for many years to come.

This testimony will probably surprise those of you who thought me an angry atheist but there you have it.

[Gosso]

Was C.S. Lewis a universalist?

The notion that Christianity is to be approached in the same manner as other mythologies would become the underlying principle of Lewis’s universalism, as well as providing an answer to the dilemma of the possible salvation of the Pagans. If the mythologies, rather than the doctrines, are what matters, then there is room to grow closer to God without necessarily accepting or understanding Christian doctrine.

Thus, the final understanding of Christian doctrine that allowed Lewis to convert with a clean conscience was fundamentally universalist. It considered the quest for God, not official doctrine, to be the supreme truth and reverenced mythology as one of God’s methods of revealing Himself to humanity. Just as important, Lewis’s final understanding of Christian doctrine was acceptable to both his imagination and his reason. He was not forced to surrender his love of mythology, nor was he forced to accept any doctrine that made no rational sense to him. Lewis’s conversion fell perfectly into the grand pattern in his life of attempting to bring reason and imagination into harmony—a pattern that would reappear as Lewis attempted to explore the literature of past ages, convert others through rational argument tinged with imagination, or convert them through rational fictions.

Source: Page 21, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... ed/etd.pdf

I haven't finished reading the whole paper, but the first chapter is definitely worth a look.  Good food for thought.

[Mountaineer]

Regarding the idea that everyone is saved (Christian Universalism, some call it), seems to focus on grace in the absence of justice.  The result would be guys like you and me, sharing a table in heaven with Hitler and Stalin.  One area of morality where the ordinary person and the Bible are nearly perfectly aligned is the need for justice.  Even if this world's authorities make mistakes, justice will be served eventually. 

Then how do you resolve changing views on morality? e.g., in the Old West, it was acceptable for a pseudo-lawman to hang a horse thief, no trial. Or the people who burned witches at the stake. Would the 'law' be sitting at the table with you or Stalin? Maybe not the best examples, but you get the point.

From my perspective, this is where the Lutheran doctrine of "two kingdoms" (two realms) is helpful.  The two kingdoms, in my overly simplistic terms, are "God stuff" (heavenly kingdom) and "Civil stuff" (human kingdom on earth).  Those who are in God's heavenly kingdom "sitting at the table with God", after earthly death, are there because of one reason only - they believe in the promises of Jesus and since Jesus perfectly complied with God's law (i.e. requirements), justice is served by what Jesus did (our substitute) - it has nothing to do with morals - changing or otherwise, morality, or anything else that we do while on this earth.  For those who do not believe, they will be judged by God's perfect justice and be judged on the merits of their works; and since no one is able to achieve (in thought, word, and deed) God's requirements, they will have condemned themselves to "hell".  However, in the civil realm, behavior has consequences - those who violate the laws of those in charge, i.e. the law of the land (governments, parents, cattlemen's associations in the old west, those presiding over the Salem witch trials, etc.) will pay the consequences of their actions while on this earth.  Thus, for both kingdoms, justice is served. 

... Mountaineer

[Greg]

I think one can remain skeptical of something regardless of the amount of evidence. We have had actual footage of JFK being shot or landing on the moon yet we still have others that believe it was a conspiracy, etc.

In a more laughable point, I've even though at times did Abraham Lincoln ever exist. I never met him in person, and will never meet someone that new him. The only way I know about him is by reading texts from previous generations saying who he was and what he was like as a man. These could have been also modified over-time to make someone into a bigger person than they actually were (like that Abraham Lincoln thread we had a whiles ago). We have photos of him but I could still assume these were all part of a cover-up to make me think that Lincoln existed. I require some sort of faith to believe that Lincoln existed.

Things that happened in the past can not have first-hand experience again, I can't see it, or touch it myself. I just have to believe it and hope that there were multiple accounts that all lead to the same conclusion, that he existed and was who he said he was. If I can't believe those that came up with that consensus (for Lincoln existing), I'd have much more trouble with believing Jesus was resurrected.

https://ferlans.wordpress.com/2013/04/0 ... lly-exist/

On a similar note, if somehow you could have had someone with a videotape recorder tape everything during the crucifixion, and it took video evidence of Jesus dying, being put in the grave, keeping the camera on him the whole time, and then he just disappears (resurrection), do you think there would still be people that would call it fake (like in the US going to the moon, JFK, etc.)?

I'm sure I have logic fails somewhere in here, it's just more of my own way of rationalizing why I believe there is a God and that Jesus did die and rose again for us.

[Greg]

On an unrelated note, I like the idea of thinking that God exists naturally in either the 4th dimension or higher. Much the same reason that old-school Pac-man could only move in 2D (up, down, left, and right), it would be a mind-melter to think that a ghost could kill him from inside or outside the screen (3 dimensions). Same for us, we live in the 3rd dimension, but could have absolutely no idea that God is close to us. He in effect can be everywhere at all times, being that time (4th dimension) is of difficulty for him to walk through and live in.

From a spacial standpoint, I think it's just a really cool idea. Makes me want to live somewhere that is 4-Dimensional or higher (although I imagine the apartment prices would be quite high there).

[Mountaineer]

The Hound of Heaven
by Francis Thompson (1859 - 1907)

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
... But with unhurrying chase,
And unprturbed pace,
... Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat --
... 'Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee
Save Me, save only Me?
... Rise, clasp My hand, and come!'

Entire poem:  http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/poetry_hoh.htm

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

For the record, not all Christians hold the doctrine of eternal torment and it is being questioned a lot nowadays. Here is a link to one of the major contributors if you are interested .... http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hell_test.html

Back when I still believed in the inerrancy of the Bible I did a lot of study on the subject of the Christian doctrine of hell and I tend to agree with the case that tentmaker is making against it. Trust me, you will not find in the Bible the clear-cut case for this doctrine that Christian fundamentalists claim to be there (but this is probably also a product of my rebellious mind and means I'm going to hell for sure).

Here is some information with Scriptural references about the doctrine of the hereafter, a.k.a. "heaven" and "hell" you may find interesting, or not, since some do not believe in the authority of Scripture.  Either way, it is a good summary of the topic from a Christian perspective.

... Mountaineer

A. Heaven (Eternal Life).

1. Eternal, or everlasting, life, the gift of God through Christ* Jesus, is the end of faith, the ultimate object of a Christian's hope and striving (Ph 3:13–14; 2 Ti 4:6–8). The Bible describes eternal life as a kingdom (Lk 12:32), a paradise (Lk 23:43), an unfading inheritance (1 Ptr 1:4), a rest for the people of God (Heb 4:9), Abraham's bosom (Lk 16:22), a marriage supper (Rv 19:9), a crown of life (Rv 2:10), to picture under earthly symbols the ineffable joys and pleasures of heaven.

2. Scripture represents heaven as a place, a house with many mansions (Jn 14:2), everlasting habitations (Lk 16:9), a city (Heb 11:10), a new heaven and a new earth (2 Ptr 3:13; Rv 21:1). It makes no attempt to locate heaven. All human efforts to do so must fail.

3. Essentially eternal life is immediate, uninterrupted fellowship with God. To be with God is to be in heaven (Ps 16:11; Lk 23:43). The saints in light are with God and with His Son (Jn 17:24). They see God face to face, as He is, and know God even as they are known; their knowledge of God and His wonderful works will no longer be partial, but perfect and complete (1 Co 13:9–12; 1 Jn 3:2).

4. This blissful fellowship is unbroken by time, unmarred and undisturbed by sin or any of its disrupting consequences (Ps 16:11; Jn 3:16). Pain, sorrow, tears, tribulation, hunger, thirst, and death will be no more (Rv 7:16–17; 21:4). In heaven the elect will sing the praises of God and their exalted Redeemer (Rv 5:9–13). The divine image will be fully restored (Ps 17:15; Heb 12:23). The glory that will be revealed surpasses human understanding (2 Co 12:4) and far outweighs the suffering of this present time (Ro 8:19). It is a blessedness beyond compare (2 Co 4:17).

5. The body of believers will share in the glory of everlasting life. Transformed to resemble the glorified body of their Redeemer, the body will be free from weakness, dishonor, and corruption (Ph 3:21; 1 Co 15:42–54). The white robes mentioned Rv 7:9–14 are symbols of the sinlessness effected through the cleansing power of Christ's blood. The institution of marriage will be abolished (Mt 22:30). In glory the believers will be equal to the angels of God (Lk 20:36). Whether the redeemed will recognize each other in heaven is not stated explicitly but may be inferred from the story of the Transfiguration, which says that the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah (Mt 17:3–4).

6. Though Scripture ascribes full salvation to all believers (Jn 3:16), there will be degrees of glory in accord with the difference of the works that the believers performed on earth (1 Co 3:8; 2 Co 9:6). It is futile and needless to speculate in what this difference of glory consists. This we know, that a believer enjoying a greater measure of glory will not be envied by those who have less. It is inherent in eternal life with its absolute perfection that the difference in glory will not give rise to any evil thoughts.

B. Hell (Eternal Punishment).

1. The doctrine of eternal punishment, repugnant to natural man, has been repudiated by errorists (e.g., Origen,* Universalists*) but is clearly revealed in Scripture. To deny this doctrine is to reject the authority of Scripture.

2. Acc. to the Bible, the unbelievers will be damned (Mk 16:16). They will be punished with everlasting destruction (2 Th 1:9), the damnation of hell (Mt 23:33). This punishment is variously described as unquenchable fire (Mk 9:43–48), outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 8:12), a prison from which there is no escape (Mt 5:25–26).

3. As regards the question whether the fire of hell (Mt 25:41 et al.) is a material fire or not, restraint is in order. Since other expressions are used to depict the suffering of the lost (e.g., “their worm does not die,”? Mk 9:48; they “shall be cast out into outer darkness,”? Mt 8:12), all of them may well be understood figuratively. The description that the Bible gives of hell is to express in terms taken from human experience the unspeakable torments of body and soul of the damned. Whatever has been said about the awful doom of the wicked is intended to call sinners to repentance and warn them of the wrath to come.

4. As the essence of heaven is fellowship with God, so the essence of hell is exclusion from this fellowship. Deprived of the blissful presence of God and the glory bestowed on the believers (2 Th 1:9; Mt 25:41), the unbelievers will languish in the company of the evil spirits to bemoan, in abject despair, their willful impenitence during the time of grace and their unalterable condemnation (Mt 8:12). This punishment, which is never alleviated, will be eternal in the 2-fold sense that it suffers no interruption (Lk 16:24–26) and has no end (Mk 9:48). Degrees of punishment are clearly taught Mt 11:22–24; Lk 12:47–48. Those who spurned the proffered grace and knew the Lord's will, will be punished more severely than those who never heard the Gospel. Hypocrites who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayer shall receive the greater damnation (Mt 23:14). Wherein this difference consists has not been revealed, and we should not presume to know.

5. To identify the destruction of the wicked with annihilation (see Annihilationism) has no warrant in Scripture. if the punishment of the wicked consisted in their outright annihilation, the Bible could not speak of it as everlasting destruction (2 Th 1:9). Acc. to Ro 2:8–9 tribulation and anguish await those who do not obey the truth; acc. to Jn 3:36 the wrath of God abides on those who do not believe the Son. Neither could be predicated of men who cease to have a conscious existence. Destruction or perdition, when contrasted with life, denote not cessation of existence, but eternal misery, the loss of everlasting blessedness (Ph. 1:28).

6. The meaning of “eternal”? has been called into question on the ground that the Gk. word aionios, tr. by “eternal”? or “everlasting,”? does not denote “endlessness.”? Aionios (from aion, “age”?) is a relative term and may mean “age-long,”? “enduring for a time only,”? but it can also mean “everlasting,”? “endless,”? and it clearly has this meaning in all passages that speak of the destiny of men in the hereafter. The temporal is contrasted with the eternal (aionios) 2 Co 4:18; 1 Ptr 1:23–25. When judgment is pronounced, the wicked will go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (Mt 25:46). The same Gk. word is used in both sentences. If aionios denotes endlessness in the one, it must have the same meaning in the other. The punishment of the wicked is unending misery and woe (Mk 3:29).

7. The same passages that unequivocally teach the eternity of punishment rule out as unscriptural the teaching of the ultimate salvation of all men. 1 Co 15:22, Eph 1:10, and Rv 21:5 cannot be adduced as proof for the final salvation of all, for when the Scriptures speak of the ultimate goal of the world's hist., they refer only to the blessed perfection of the faithful. 1 Co 15:28 and related passages teach the final victory of the kingdom of God, the subjugation of all the enemies of Christ; they do not state that all these enemies will be converted to God.

8. No physical location of hell is intended by what Scripture says of the habitation of the wicked. Hell is where God reveals Himself in His vindictive justice to the finally impenitent.

9. One of the objections raised to the doctrine of eternal punishment is that it is inconsistent with the love of God to condemn men to unending perdition. But it must be remembered that while God is a God of love, His love is only one of His attributes. Justice is also one of His attributes. Since God is a perfect being, we find in Him the perfect and harmonious expression of all His attributes. It is significant, too, that the most solemn and explicit declarations of eternal punishment recorded in Scripture were spoken by the forgiving and compassionate Savior (Mt 25:41, 46; Mk 9:43–48). Some hold that it is unworthy of a just God to punish men with everlasting condemnation. But how can man presume to determine the justice of the infinite God acc. to human conceptions of justice? (Ps. 19:9; Is 55:9; Ro 11:33).

C. Definition of Biblical Terms.

1. Heaven is (1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things in it (Heb 1:10), the aerial heavens or sky where clouds and tempests gather (Mt 16:2), the starry heavens (Heb 11:12); (2) the dwelling place of God (Mt 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49) and His holy angels (Mt 18:10; 24:36), to which Christ ascended (Acts 1:9–11), the eternal home of all believers (Mt 5:12; 1 Ptr 1:4).

2. Paradise. This word, perhaps of Persian origin, denotes (1) a garden or park, e.g., the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8–17); (2) the heavenly Paradise, home of the saints of God (Lk 23:43; 2 Co 12:4 [RSV 3]; Rv 2:7).

3. Sheol. The etymology of this word, occuring 65 times in the Heb. OT, is still obscure. M. Luther* tr. it Hölle in all places except Gn 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; in these passages he tr. it with Grube. The KJV tr. it with “grave,”? “hell,”? and “pit.”? Since the derivation of the word is uncertain, the context must determine the meaning in each case.

(a) Sheol may mean the resting place of man's mortal remains (Jb 17:16; Is 38:10).

(b) Sheol may mean realm of the dead, into which all enter who depart this life, righteous as well as wicked (e.g., Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; Ps 16:10; 31:17; 89:48). In this sense it is a gen. term used very much like Eng. “the hereafter”? or “the beyond.”? The phrase “to go down into Sheol”? means “to die, to depart from the land of the living.”? But it should be noted that when the righteous are said to descend into Sheol, their fate beyond is never taken into account. The hope of the pious in the OT is expressed differently, e.g., Ps 73:24.

(c) Sheol may mean the place where God's judgment overtakes evildoers. In this sense Sheol receives such as are taken away in God's anger. Korah's rebel band went down to Sheol because they had provoked the Lord (Nm 16:30, 33). Harlots go to Sheol (Pr 5:5). The anger of the Lord burns to the depths of Sheol (Dt 32:22). Acc. to Ps 49 all men die physically, righteous as well as ungodly (v. 10), but there is a difference in their existence in the hereafter. The confidence of the Psalmist is exressed in the words “They (i. e. the wicked) are laid in Sheol (KJV the grave), death shall feed on them, but God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol (KJV the grave); for He shall receive me”? (vv. 14–15). Clearly there is a sharp contrast bet. the doom of the ungodly and the glorious hope of the believer, who hopes to rest securely in the hands of God; cp. Ps 73.

4. Hades (perhaps derived from the Gk. word for “unseen”?). In non-Biblical Gk. literature this term denotes the realm of the dead. In the LXX Hades is used almost exclusively for Sheol. In the NT it means “realm of the dead”? (Acts 2:27, 31; Rv 20:13–14) or (e.g., Lk 16:23) a place where unbelievers suffer. When the rich man found himself in Hades, he was not in an intermediate state, but “in torments.”?

5. Gehenna was the Gk. name of a deep, narrow valley SW and S of Jerusalem; the Heb.name was ge hinnom, “valley of Hinnom”?; the meaning of Hinnom is obscure. It was the scene of the sacrifice of children to the idol Moloch (2 K 23:10). Later it was used for disposal of refuse by fire. By transfer of thought the name Gehenna came to denote the abode of the wicked after death (e.g., Mt 5:22, 29; 10:28; Mk 9:43, 45; Lk 12:5; Ja 3:6).

6. Abyssos. A Gk. word derived from an adjective meaning bottomless, unbounded, denotes (1) the “deep,”? or primeval waters (LXX Gn 1:2); (2) the depths of the earth as a symbol of great distress and anguish of soul (Ps 71:20); (3) the abode of the dead (Ro 10:7); (4) hell, as the abode of evil spirits presided over by Apollyon, identified by many with Satan (Rv 9:1–2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3).

7. Tartaros. This Gk. word is not in the Bible, but a related verb form occurs 2 Ptr 2:4. In Gk.mythology Tartaros is an underground prison, regarded as the abode of the wicked dead where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; its corresponds to Gehenna (see par. 5 above) as a name for hell.

CAH

H. Ebeling, Der Menschheit Zukunft,- 2d ed. (Zwickau, 1913 ); T. Kliefoth, Christliche Eschatologie (Leipzig, 1886); C. E. Luthardt, Die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1870); R. Seeberg, Ewiges Leben? (Leipzig, 1915); A. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge (Verden, 1858); P. Althaus, Unsterblichkeit und ewiges Sterben bei Luther (Gütersloh, 1930) and Die letzten Dinge, 4th ed. (Gütersloh, 1933); J. A. West, What the Bible Teaches About the World Beyond (Burlington, Iowa, 1939); L. F. Gruber, What After Death? (Burlington, Iowa, 1925); E. C. Pautsch, “Eternal Life,”? The Abiding Word, I, ed. T. Laetsch (St. Louis, 1946); W. F. Wolbrecht, “The Doctrine of the Last Things,”? The Abiding Word, I, ed. T. Laetsch (St. Louis, 1946); E. C. Fendt, “The Life Everlasting,”? What Lutherans Are Thinking (Columbus, Ohio, 1947), pp. 307–322; G. Beiderwieden, Heaven (St. Louis, 1937); That Unknown Country, or What Living Men Believe Concerning Punishment After Death (Springfield, Massachusetts, 1891).

[Mountaineer]

The answer is because of this:
You already do believe it, at least to some degree.  Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you clarity, understanding, stronger faith - just be patient and do not expect an answer on your terms.  All my opinion, of course, but I think if you VERY carefully objectively examine yourself, with God's help, you will come to the same conclusion as I have.  I think the same of Moda.

I totally understand what you're saying, but how do either of us know that I am internally yearning for Jesus and not God himself in the Jewish old testament tradition, or Zeus, Mohammed, or Buddhist enlightenment, or to commune with my ancestors? Why am I to conclude that my intermittent spiritual yearning is necessarily expressing both a desire for your faith and illustrating its truth, but not for one of the tens of thousands of other faiths that humans have believed throughout the millennia?

The only possible answer is because his is the REAL god; all the others are impostors.
Of course, the adherents of every other religion say the same thing.
As Heinlein pointed out, since every religion contradicts every other religion, they can't all be right... but they can all be wrong.

Another thing to consider when trying to determine who is the "True God" or "REAL God" is all religions, including the religion of atheism, other than Christianity expound a  "works-righteous" method to achieve salvation or peace in this life.  Christianity expounds a "grace (the gift of forgiveness) through faith" way.  Works-righteous means that you have to depend on yourself to do sufficient good works to get to heaven or have a peaceful life. 

Key questions to consider for the other religions:  How do you determine what is sufficient good works?  When looking at world events and all the craziness of humans now and throughout history, do you really want to depend on man, i.e. yourself, for your salvation or peace?  Or, is it better to depend on a source, outside yourself, for salvation and peace ... a source that is alive instead of dead and has a record in history and a couple thousand years of INTENSE scrutiny to examine Him and the events surrounding his life and resurrection?

For those of you who are rejecting the gift, I hope you somehow find peace and Shalom on this Lord's Day if you are delving into the deep waters of life, and not just escaping reality by watching football.

... Mountaineer 

[Mountaineer]

Saw this on another blog and thought it was a good description of our current state of affairs.

In this time when institutions are at a low ebb in terms of the level of public trust they engender, when everyone is suspicious of the hidden agenda behind the public presentation-- we are in a time when trust is best engendered, when the public witness is best made, in the small integrities one encounters in the day to day interactions of people with each other. When someone comes to understand one is trustworthy in small, everyday things said one may be willing to grant trust in larger, more expansive projects. The day when one can walk into a crowd and announce "I am here from the local congregation and I am here to help you" and expect to be greeted with anything but skepticism and suspicion is over. Trust and confidence need to be built one-on-one over time. He who is faithful in small things, much will be added unto. But it starts with faithfulness in the small things.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Apparently, everything is so clear that the popes of the last 150 years can't even agree about whether or not our pets will join us in heaven.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world ... open-.html

Another great reason to interpret Scripture with Scripture instead of relying on the frailties of fallen man to tell us what the Scriptures mean.    This is treatise is approaching 500 years old, but still is a good perspective of "the Pope" for those who wish some enlightenment.

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

... Mountaineer