Figuring Out Religion

[Kshartle]

One item I would like to comment on relates to the idea that we hold the validation of the Jesus story to an unfairly high standard.

Here's the thing, though: If you ask me to believe that God impregnated a virgin, that the resulting son Jesus was actually God in mortal form, that Jesus performed all sorts of supernatural acts as a way of bolstering his ministry, that when the authorities executed him he suffered but then walked out of his grave three days later, that a bunch of other people popped out of their graves as well when Jesus came back to life, that Jesus travelled around for a bit after rising from the dead, that Jesus finally ascended into the heavens to sit at the right hand of God (or maybe re-commune with God), and that my fate through all of eternity rests on my correct understanding of all of these events, I'm going to subject it to more scrutiny that I would an account of what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast on a given day.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to subject more farfetched claims to greater scrutiny, with the starting assumption that claims involving the supernatural are false.

Not all things that exist must exist in nature.  This is demonstrably provable with the number 3, for example.  Another example is your mind, it has been demonstrated that it is separate from the physical body that's associated with any individual and therefore has no actual physical presence in the universe either.  Either every mathematical equation involving numbers is false and none of us are sentient, or some claims involving the supernatural must be true.

Even if one believes that my particular examples are incorrect and assumes all things which exist are fundamentally of the same matter, that only means God, Jesus, etc. are natural.

Finally there is no correlation, inverse or otherwise, between how extraordinary, incomprehensible, or demonstrable something is and how true it is.

Shoestring.......loving it.

[MediumTex]

What would any of you say to the following statement:

I love Jesus.  It's obvious as I read the New Testament that others loved him as well.  As writers of that era were wont to do, they translated their love for him into embellishments of what he actually did during his life.  According to the common practices of the time, they attributed miracles to him, culminating in the miracle of rising from the dead.  That all makes perfect sense to me, and I probably would have done the same thing if I had been one of the original authors or subsequent scribes who "jazzed up" the story a bit to make it clear that Jesus was an amazing man.

The thing that makes me really love Jesus, though, is based on what happens when I clear away all of the supernatural accoutrements of the various Jesus stories.  When I do this, what I find underneath is a rock-solid message of love, kindness, generosity, humility, and skepticism about authority.  It's the most "true" message I have ever heard, and IMHO requires no attribution of supernatural abilities in order to validate its truth.  Its truth becomes apparent through the practice of the principles themselves.  With no disrespect to Peter, I think these timeless divine truths are actually the "Rock" that Jesus built his church on.

Jesus showed me that heaven really is a peaceful heart.  He showed me that hell is a tortured soul.  Jesus taught me that all of eternity is in each moment.  The challenge of following him is in grasping the potential we have for experiencing heaven in each moment, and in understanding the sacrifices that will be necessary for that to occur.  It basically requires one to transcend his animalistic instincts and tendencies, and that's hard to do, but the rewards are so amazing!

I know that a lot of people get really hung up on wanting to live forever and always wondering about whether they did all of the right things to guarantee themselves a spot in heaven.  I think that Jesus might tell these people that they missed his point entirely.  All they have really done is trade the legalism of the Jewish authorities of Jesus's time for the legalism of modern Christianity, with all of its endless pondering of the nature of the afterlife without giving serious thought to the nature of this life.

Followers of Jesus most certainly do tap into realms that transcend time, but rather than the eternity of bliss that people imagine they will experience after they die, I think the truth is that Jesus wanted people to see how each moment can transcend time, how there can be eternity in everything that we do, how we can find God in our hearts as we pursue these things.

An afterlife of eternal bliss based upon the correct decisions during this life seems like a basically selfish pursuit.  I don't think that God is interested in making such deals with his people.  I think that God wants us to understand his nature more fully, and Jesus showed us the way to do that, and that's why he said that he was the truth, the way and the light. 

My belief is that when religion becomes contentious and anxiety-inducing, it has probably long since gotten off of any path toward God that it may have ever been on.

I love Jesus.  He has opened my eyes to what God is really about.  I now see God all around me, all of the time.  I feel God in everything I do.  I don't need to die to receive my reward; I receive it every moment. 

When it comes to people, "sinner" is really a shorthand way of saying "animal", as in animals always want to know what they can take; they always want to know what's in it for them.  Animals don't care about the manifestation of God in a rainbow if there isn't a meal at the end of that rainbow.  A sinner is a person who goes through life like an animal, simply looking for meals to devour and whatever else he can lay claim to or use to satisfy his own desires.

Jesus helped me to see my animal nature.  He helped me to understand it.  I don't think that Jesus's blood was necessary for me transcend my animal nature; his wisdom was entirely sufficient.

In the same way that I would suggest people not become too preoccupied with what they can "take" from this life in the form of immortality, I would similarly suggest that people not become too preoccupied with Jesus's death either.  The wisdom and beauty of Jesus's message to humanity doesn't require an empty tomb to be true. 

The empty tomb was an expression of love and gratitude from the people to whom Jesus meant so much.  It was not the lynch pin that determined whether Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.    If Jesus's teachings were not true, then an empty tomb would be little more than a cheap sorcerer's trick.  If, however, Jesus's teachings were true, then anything that happened in the tomb is simply irrelevant--i.e., if it's empty his teachings were true and if it's not empty his teachings were still true.

The truth of Jesus's teachings is determined by observing their effects when applied diligently in your own life, not by a leap of faith about what did or didn't happen 2,000 years ago.

[MediumTex]

Finally there is no correlation, inverse or otherwise, between how extraordinary, incomprehensible, or demonstrable something is and how true it is.

That sounds to me like a recipe for a basically superstitious world where all manner of non-verifiable and non-observable phenomena inform human existence in a basically chaotic way.

Based upon your reasoning above, on what basis would we not burn witches once we had identified them using the standard witch identification procedures?

[ns2]

Serious question:
I currently have this dog . He is the sweetest creature I have ever encountered, human or otherwise. He is now about 9.5 years old. It saddens me to think that he only has a few years left, and that at some point I will be without him. I consider myself an agnostic/atheist. Now, if there was a heaven, surely this dog would go there after his passing, even though he has not 'accepted Christ'. How do the believers here reconcile that? Would I be united with him in heaven if I chose to believe? Because it would not be heaven if he was not there waiting for me upon my arrival.

If you like your dog, you'll get to keep your dog.

But you'll have to keep him outside...

  "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and 
    practices falsehood." (i.e., politicians).

We do know that there are animals in heaven. Not just the dogs but also horses. Lots of references to heavenly horses in the Bible.

[ns2]

Serious question:
I currently have this dog . He is the sweetest creature I have ever encountered, human or otherwise. He is now about 9.5 years old. It saddens me to think that he only has a few years left, and that at some point I will be without him. I consider myself an agnostic/atheist. Now, if there was a heaven, surely this dog would go there after his passing, even though he has not 'accepted Christ'. How do the believers here reconcile that? Would I be united with him in heaven if I chose to believe? Because it would not be heaven if he was not there waiting for me upon my arrival.

Here is a link to an interesting book by a physicist who has probably set the record for near-death-experiences due to a strange condition. He isn't a fundamentalist Christian but he believes in Jesus.  He is also a dog lover. Within this story is a deep love relationship with his own dog plus stories of laying his hands on other dogs and healing them (he says it works on humans too but they don't accept it as easy as dogs, especially Christians who have especially terrible hangups about accepting healing from God).

(And he has lots of observations about hell having been there many times - much more interesting than heaven he says).

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-E ... nal+Nature

[Mountaineer]

What would any of you say to the following statement:

I love Jesus.  It's obvious as I read the New Testament that others loved him as well.  As writers of that era were wont to do, they translated their love for him into embellishments of what he actually did during his life.  According to the common practices of the time, they attributed miracles to him, culminating in the miracle of rising from the dead.  That all makes perfect sense to me, and I probably would have done the same thing if I had been one of the original authors or subsequent scribes who "jazzed up" the story a bit to make it clear that Jesus was an amazing man.

The thing that makes me really love Jesus, though, is based on what happens when I clear away all of the supernatural accoutrements of the various Jesus stories.  When I do this, what I find underneath is a rock-solid message of love, kindness, generosity, humility, and skepticism about authority.  It's the most "true" message I have ever heard, and IMHO requires no attribution of supernatural abilities in order to validate its truth.  Its truth becomes apparent through the practice of the principles themselves.  With no disrespect to Peter, I think these timeless divine truths are actually the "Rock" that Jesus built his church on.

Jesus showed me that heaven really is a peaceful heart.  He showed me that hell is a tortured soul.  Jesus taught me that all of eternity is in each moment.  The challenge of following him is in grasping the potential we have for experiencing heaven in each moment, and in understanding the sacrifices that will be necessary for that to occur.  It basically requires one to transcend his animalistic instincts and tendencies, and that's hard to do, but the rewards are so amazing!

I know that a lot of people get really hung up on wanting to live forever and always wondering about whether they did all of the right things to guarantee themselves a spot in heaven.  I think that Jesus might tell these people that they missed his point entirely.  All they have really done is trade the legalism of the Jewish authorities of Jesus's time for the legalism of modern Christianity, with all of its endless pondering of the nature of the afterlife without giving serious thought to the nature of this life.

Followers of Jesus most certainly do tap into realms that transcend time, but rather than the eternity of bliss that people imagine they will experience after they die, I think the truth is that Jesus wanted people to see how each moment can transcend time, how there can be eternity in everything that we do, how we can find God in our hearts as we pursue these things.

An afterlife of eternal bliss based upon the correct decisions during this life seems like a basically selfish pursuit.  I don't think that God is interested in making such deals with his people.  I think that God wants us to understand his nature more fully, and Jesus showed us the way to do that, and that's why he said that he was the truth, the way and the light. 

My belief is that when religion becomes contentious and anxiety-inducing, it has probably long since gotten off of any path toward God that it may have ever been on.

I love Jesus.  He has opened my eyes to what God is really about.  I now see God all around me, all of the time.  I feel God in everything I do.  I don't need to die to receive my reward; I receive it every moment. 

When it comes to people, "sinner" is really a shorthand way of saying "animal", as in animals always want to know what they can take; they always want to know what's in it for them.  Animals don't care about the manifestation of God in a rainbow if there isn't a meal at the end of that rainbow.  A sinner is a person who goes through life like an animal, simply looking for meals to devour and whatever else he can lay claim to or use to satisfy his own desires.

Jesus helped me to see my animal nature.  He helped me to understand it.  I don't think that Jesus's blood was necessary for me transcend my animal nature; his wisdom was entirely sufficient.

In the same way that I would suggest people not become too preoccupied with what they can "take" from this life in the form of immortality, I would similarly suggest that people not become too preoccupied with Jesus's death either.  The wisdom and beauty of Jesus's message to humanity doesn't require an empty tomb to be true. 

The empty tomb was an expression of love and gratitude from the people to whom Jesus meant so much.  It was not the lynch pin that determined whether Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.    If Jesus's teachings were not true, then an empty tomb would be little more than a cheap sorcerer's trick.  If, however, Jesus's teachings were true, then anything that happened in the tomb is simply irrelevant--i.e., if it's empty his teachings were true and if it's not empty his teachings were still true.

The truth of Jesus's teachings is determined by observing their effects when applied diligently in your own life, not by a leap of faith about what did or didn't happen 2,000 years ago.

I'd say it sounds pretty new-age, where are the crystals?  I'd further say, the person saying that wants it to be all about them rather than all about God.  Even further, I'd say, that person has sucumbed to Satan's lies and tricks.  Even further yet, I'd say, I would like to have them for a neighbor - they sound very at peace with themselves and would probably not cause much trouble for the 'hood as well as being interesting to talk with over a beer.

[MediumTex]

I'd say it sounds pretty new-age, where are the crystals?  I'd further say, the person saying that wants it to be all about them rather than all about God.  Even further, I'd say, that person has sucumbed to Satan's lies and tricks.  Even further yet, I'd say, I would like to have them for a neighbor - they sound very at peace with themselves and would probably not cause much trouble for the 'hood as well as being interesting to talk with over a beer.

Is it "new age" to simply take Jesus's words at face value and try to understand his teachings as best you can?  That sounds more "old age" to me.

Can you elaborate on why the interpretation that I am describing makes it all about the believer instead of all about God?  It seems like the more that we release ourselves from the obsession with immortality, the more it allows us to see beyond ourselves.

With respect to Satan's lies and tricks, which ones would such a believer be succumbing to?  There is no pretext or justification for sinning.  There is no desire to turn away from God in any way.  There is no desire to justify the continual satisfaction of worldly desires.  There is no picking and choosing of which of Jesus's teachings to follow.  Perhaps most importantly, though, the interpretation I am describing potentially puts the believer into direct and constant contact with God.  How would a setup like that be the result of Satan's lies and tricks? 

It seems like the approach to Christianity I am describing would be precisely what Satan would not want people to do.  If I were Satan it would bug me to have to try to tempt someone who experienced the presence of God many times every day.  I would much prefer to target people who went to church on Sundays, but who didn't really think too much about God or God's plan for them during the rest of the week.

[Mountaineer]

MT,

I'm really tired so will likely make a mess of my response but I'll give it a shot.  I will post again in a bit with my responses to your questions/comments/statements in CAPS inside your quote.  Plus whatever else I can do with my  tired mind. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I'd say it sounds pretty new-age, where are the crystals?  I'd further say, the person saying that wants it to be all about them rather than all about God.  Even further, I'd say, that person has sucumbed to Satan's lies and tricks.  Even further yet, I'd say, I would like to have them for a neighbor - they sound very at peace with themselves and would probably not cause much trouble for the 'hood as well as being interesting to talk with over a beer.

Is it "new age" to simply take Jesus's words at face value and try to understand his teachings as best you can?  That sounds more "old age" to me.  JESUS IS ALL OVER THE SCRIPTURES.  SINCE I BELIEVE IN THE INERANCY OF SCRIPTURE, THEN I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT JESUS' TEACHINGS INCLUDE ALL THE SCRIPTURE AND ALL THE TEACHINGS.  SO, TAKING JESUS' WORDS AT FACE VALUE AS YOU PROPOSE MEANS THAT I DO TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE IN THE CONTEXT I'VE DESCRIBED IN MY OTHER POSTS.

Can you elaborate on why the interpretation that I am describing makes it all about the believer instead of all about God?  It seems like the more that we release ourselves from the obsession with immortality, the more it allows us to see beyond ourselves.  BECAUSE IT IS FUNDAMENTAL AS TO WHY JESUS CAME - SO WE COULD LIVE WITH GOD FOREVER WITH PERFECT BODIES AND SOULS - A COMPLETE PERFECT WHOLE.

With respect to Satan's lies and tricks, which ones would such a believer be succumbing to?  There is no pretext or justification for sinning.  There is no desire to turn away from God in any way.  There is no desire to justify the continual satisfaction of worldly desires.  There is no picking and choosing of which of Jesus's teachings to follow.  Perhaps most importantly, though, the interpretation I am describing potentially puts the believer into direct and constant contact with God.  How would a setup like that be the result of Satan's lies and tricks?  YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE IN CONTACT WITH GOD WHILE ON THIS EARTH.  GOD CANNOT BE IN THE PRESENCE OF EVIL SO YOU WOULD DIE SINCE WE ARE ALL SINNERS.  JESUS IS OUR MEDIATOR WITH GOD.  BECAUSE OF JESUS, GOD DECLARES US JUSTIFIED.  BECAUSE OF WHAT JESUS DID, WE ARE FORGIVEN OUR SINS AND WILL BE SAVED.  IT IS ALL ABOUT WHAT JESUS DID AND NOTHING ABOUT WHAT WE DO.

It seems like the approach to Christianity I am describing would be precisely what Satan would not want people to do.  If I were Satan it would bug me to have to try to tempt someone who experienced the presence of God many times every day.  I would much prefer to target people who went to church on Sundays, but who didn't really think too much about God or God's plan for them during the rest of the week.  THANKS BE TO GOD YOU ARE NOT SATAN.

OK, MT, HERE IS MY RESPONSE.  I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR SEVERAL MINUTES AND THE BEST I CAN COME UP WITH FOR NOW IS THAT I BELIEVE THE THREE CREEDS SHOWN BELOW ARE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT ABOUT MY BELIEFS.  I PERCEIVE, MAYBE WRONGLY, THAT THE STATEMENT YOU POSTED IS IN CONFLICT WITH THESE CREEDS (AND PERHAPS WITH THE BELIEFS OF THE LCMS CHURCH THAT I POSTED A LINK TO EARLIER BUT YOU HAVE NOT YET COMMENTED THAT YOU READ THAT).  SATAN IS A MASTER AT JUST VERY SLIGHTLY TWISTING THINGS SO THEY SOUND REALLY GOOD BUT ON STUDY ARE ERRORS.  ALL HE HAS TO DO IS PLANT A SEED OF DOUBT AND US SINNERS WILL OFTEN TAKE IT AND RUN.  THAT IS HOW I PERCEIVE THE STORY ABOUT JESUS YOU POSTED.  ... Mountaineer

LCMS
* Apostles' Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the
virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He
descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Christian: the ancient text reads “catholic,”? meaning the whole
Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.

* Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible
and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all
worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was
buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into
heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and
the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by
the prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church I acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of
the world to come. Amen.

Us men means all people.
Christian: the ancient text reads “catholic,”? meaning the whole
Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.

* Athanasian Creed
Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith. Whoever does not
keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally.
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither
confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For the Father is one person, the Son is
another, and the Holy Spirit is another. But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit is one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is
the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit: the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit
uncreated; the Father infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal,
the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one
Eternal, just as there are not three Uncreated or three Infinites, but one Uncreated and one
Infinite. In the same way, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy Spirit almighty;
and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is
God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is
Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.
Just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each distinct person as God
and Lord, so also are we prohibited by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods
or Lords.
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is neither made nor
created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three
Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity
none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; but the whole three
persons are coeternal with each other and coequal, so that in all things, as has been stated
above, the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshiped. Therefore, whoever
desires to be saved must think thus about the Trinity.
But it is also necessary for everlasting salvation that one faithfully believe the incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is the right faith that we believe and confess that our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is at the same time both God and man. He is God,
begotten from the substance of the Father before all ages; and He is man, born from the
substance of His mother in this age: perfect God and perfect man, composed of a rational
soul and human flesh; equal to the Father with respect to His divinity, less than the Father
with respect to His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ:
one, however, not by the conversion of the divinity into flesh, but by the assumption of the
humanity into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who suffered for
our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead, ascended into
heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will
come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming all people will rise again with their
bodies and give an account concerning their own deeds. And those who have done good will
enter into eternal life, and those who have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.

©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122?7295
888?843?5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/cic

[Pointedstick]

Mountaineer, maybe you can help me resolve something that's been bugging me today.

I feel like the messages I'm being told come from the Christian religious denominations are somewhat at odds with what Jesus himself said when he was alive. I mean, Jesus spoke heavily about how one should act while still on this earth. It seemed important to him that people be humble, generous, and not overly doctrinaire (he was a Jewish reformer, after all).

But now I'm hearing that one's acts on this earth are irrelevant to salvation as long as one believes in the stories about who Jesus was and what he did. This seems to contradict a large part of the very message that Jesus was preaching.

"Believe in who Jesus is and you'll get into heaven" is what I'm hearing, but that just seems so simplistic. One could believe this and totally ignore all the nuances of the messages of peace and charity and forgiveness, right? So then what was the point of those messages if you don't actually have to follow them in order to receive your eternal reward?

[ns2]

Mountaineer, maybe you can help me resolve something that's been bugging me today.

I feel like the messages I'm being told come from the Christian religious denominations are somewhat at odds with what Jesus himself said when he was alive. I mean, Jesus spoke heavily about how one should act while still on this earth. It seemed important to him that people be humble, generous, and not overly doctrinaire (he was a Jewish reformer, after all).

But now I'm hearing that one's acts on this earth are irrelevant to salvation as long as one believes in the stories about who Jesus was and what he did. This seems to contradict a large part of the very message that Jesus was preaching.

"Believe in who Jesus is and you'll get into heaven" is what I'm hearing, but that just seems so simplistic. One could believe this and totally ignore all the nuances of the messages of peace and charity and forgiveness, right? So then what was the point of those messages if you don't actually have to follow them in order to receive your eternal reward?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, PS.

According to the gospels Jesus said in the sermon on the Mount that not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the Kingdom but He who does the will of my father in heaven. Evangelical Christianity says the opposite - that it doesn't matter whether you follow the teachings of Jesus, only that you call Him Lord - that is your total justification. (Feel free to refute me, but that's my reading of the perversion of Christian doctrine).

[MediumTex]

I appreciate the great discussion guys.

[doodle]

Not trolling...just reading about Bill Hicks and came across this and thought it related:


The elder Hicks would say, "I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God." And Bill would counter, "No it's not, Dad." "Well, I believe that it is." "Well," Bill replied, "you know, some people believe that they're Napoleon. That's fine. Beliefs are neat. Cherish them, but don't share them like they're the truth."[8]

[Xan]

One could believe this and totally ignore all the nuances of the messages of peace and charity and forgiveness, right?

I don't think one could.  It's pretty clear from James that that doesn't work.

According to the gospels Jesus said in the sermon on the Mount that not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the Kingdom but He who does the will of my father in heaven.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[Pointedstick]

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

But surely that's not all, right? I mean, am I to believe that's the only thing that matters? Or rather, that it's the prerequisite for any of the other good things you do to matter?

Also "Quote from: God, John 6:29" made me LOL.

[MediumTex]

Do people who subscribe to a certain set of religious beliefs think of the beliefs of other religions in atheistic terms?

For example, how would a typical Christian feel about Allah?  I predict that it would be a basically atheistic position.

One thing that continually bothers me is that picking one religion in most cases means that you think all other religions are misguided, wrong, and maybe even evil.  That always seemed like a shame to me.

[Xan]

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

But surely that's not all, right? I mean, am I to believe that's the only thing that matters? Or rather, that it's the prerequisite for any of the other good things you do to matter?

Yes, actually, I believe all the other good things flow from that.  And I may be able to illustrate it in a satisfactory way.

I'll start by declaring that the only way that a deed can be truly good is if the doer has nothing to gain by doing it.  That is, if my salvation depends on me doing deed X, and I do it, then it could always be said that I only did it in order to save my own skin.

It's only when I have nothing at all to gain that I've done a work purely for my neighbor's sake.  Having been saved by grace in faith for Christ means that people are THEN free (as in, actually able whereas they weren't before) to do good works.  This is one of the key points that distinguishes orthodox Christianity from all other belief systems.  (With the interesting exception of hard atheism.)

Also "Quote from: God, John 6:29" made me LOL.

Thanks!  :-)

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, maybe you can help me resolve something that's been bugging me today.

I feel like the messages I'm being told come from the Christian religious denominations are somewhat at odds with what Jesus himself said when he was alive. I mean, Jesus spoke heavily about how one should act while still on this earth. It seemed important to him that people be humble, generous, and not overly doctrinaire (he was a Jewish reformer, after all).

But now I'm hearing that one's acts on this earth are irrelevant to salvation as long as one believes in the stories about who Jesus was and what he did. This seems to contradict a large part of the very message that Jesus was preaching.

"Believe in who Jesus is and you'll get into heaven" is what I'm hearing, but that just seems so simplistic. One could believe this and totally ignore all the nuances of the messages of peace and charity and forgiveness, right? So then what was the point of those messages if you don't actually have to follow them in order to receive your eternal reward?

Xan has already given you an excellent response.  I will try to be additive to that.

The following took me quite a while to get my head around, perhaps because it really is so simple, perhaps because it seems so "illogical" versus the way we humans think.
* Jesus came to earth, lived, died, was resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God.  He came to atone for our sins.  On the cross, Jesus took on the sins of all mankind from all time.  He died, he rose, he defeated death for all time by dying.  Satan was defeated on the cross.
* Because of what Jesus did, we are forgiven by God.  We are declared justified.  God no longer sees our sin.  Why, because God says so.  Does it make sense?  Only if you believe what God says.  It appears to be totally backwards from how we humans operate.  So, on Judgement Day, believers will get a free pass since they have already been declared justified before God.  This is summarized in the verse John 3:16.
* Many of Jesus's teachings are telling us how to treat one another.  Any time God tells us what to do, that is Law.  Anytime the Scriptures tell us what God has done for us, that is Gospel.  Both Law and Gospel are the Word of God.  Because we are still sinners, it is impossible for us to keep the Law perfectly, only Jesus did that; Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law, not abolish it". 
* The three purposes of the Law are to be a curb for our evil sinful tendencies, be a mirror to show us how far we fall short of perfectly keeping the Law, and for Christians be a guide for how God intends us to live.
* Because of what Jesus did, we are freed from trying to please God at every moment by trying to work our way to heaven, we are free to love our neighbor.  How do we do that, by trying to follow the Law.  Note that we are doing that as a response and thanks for what God did, not as the direct action of trying to "be 'good' little boys and girls" and earning God's favor.  So, we are following Jesus's teachings to some degree, trying 100% but doing far less than that.  That is OK.  So, how do we serve God?  By serving our neighbor via whatever our vocation is.  Be the best doctor, trash collector, lawyer, plumber, engineer, homemaker, etc. that you can be; it serves your neighbor.  Luther says that we are simultaneous saints and sinners; I agree that is a really good description of us.

For what it's worth, I have come to believe that all religions besides Christianity are based on "works righteousness", not Grace through Faith.  And, most, if not all others, put their faith in or follow dead people or objects or themselves (Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, paganism, atheiesim, etc.) rather than the risen Christ.  Also it seems that many Christian denominations, in spite of verbalizing "God is in charge" also heavily preach "works righteousness" or a "decision" theology.  I have come to understand also that it is really, really difficult to fully believe and understand we humans don't need to do anything to help out God or to gain God's favor.  It really does seem arrogant to think God needs our help or that we need to publically profess that we have been "born again"  .  Note, I am not saying that all other denomination are not Christians, I am saying they may not have a thorough understanding of the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) or have been influenced by Historical Criticism or have taken Scripture out of context.  That is a topic for another time.

Hope that helps.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Do people who subscribe to a certain set of religious beliefs think of the beliefs of other religions in atheistic terms?

For example, how would a typical Christian feel about Allah?  I predict that it would be a basically atheistic position.

One thing that continually bothers me is that picking one religion in most cases means that you think all other religions are misguided, wrong, and maybe even evil.  That always seemed like a shame to me.

Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. do not worship the same God that Christians do.  Christians worship the triune God as described in the three creeds I posted earlier.  I don't think you would get a Muslim to profess belief in those creeds, even though they recognize Jesus as a prophet.

I do agree with you that picking one religion can appear to be a shame since those who do not subscribe to it will go to Hell.  However, would you want your son to give a wrong answer on a math test just so his classmates would not feel bad about themselves?  There are plenty of cases in life where there is only one right answer (e.g. math).  I think religion falls into that category too.  And, the consequences of my being wrong on a math test are far less than me picking the wrong religion (even if I could do the picking instead of God who does the picking by the means of Grace).  God says all will hear.  The Scriptures presented purely are all that is necessary for salvation, they just do not answer every question that we humans "want".

[MediumTex]

Based upon the Christian worldview being described above, it seems like the following conclusions would logically flow:

1. Prior to Jesus's ministry, Heaven was populated exclusively by Jewish people.  Prior to Jesus's ministry, all non-Jews and Jews who didn't obey the Law went to Hell where they will suffer for all of eternity.

AND

2. After Jesus's ministry, Heaven was populated almost exclusively by non-Jewish people (with the exception of the small population of messianic Jews).  After Jesus's ministry, most Jews have gone to Hell, where they will suffer for eternity.

***

In other words, the identical behavior--i.e., a Jewish person following the Law--at one point in time was a ticket to Heaven, and at another point in time was a ticket to Hell.  When you really think about it, there would have to have been a moment in time (unless there were some kind of "phase-in period") where literally all Jews who died before it would go to Heaven and all Jews who died after it would go to Hell based upon the identical beliefs and actions during life.

I know that God moves in mysterious ways, but the idea that all of the Jews who Hitler slaughtered are now in Hell, while Hitler is now in Heaven (he was a Christian, after all) just strikes me as very dissonant.

In fact, the whole idea of the Jewish God basically setting things up so that Jews who follow the Jewish Law will suffer in Hell for all of eternity doesn't make sense to me.  The response to that observation may be: "Well, it may not make any sense, but that's the way it works."  Sometimes, though, if enough things don't make any sense, it can be a way of realizing that a certain set of beliefs may not be true.

For example:

Who did Adam and Eve's son Cain marry?

How did Noah fit all of the animals in the world in one boat?  Even if you could travel the whole world to collect all of those animals (which you couldn't back then), they simply wouldn't fit in a single boat that could have been built back then.

How do the cave paintings by primitive humans all over the world fit into the Adam and Eve creation story?  If the Bible is inerrant, the geneology starting with Adam and Eve only goes back 6,000 years or so.  How do we overlay that with what we otherwise know about the history of our own species?

Where does Neanderthal man fit into the Adam and Even/Garden of Eden narrative?  Was the Garden of Eden a paradise for Cro-Magnon man only?

Is it possible that Satan is the one who buried all of those bones and did those cave paintings just to throw people off of the one true path? 

Those are just a few things that cross my mind here and there.

[Mountaineer]

MT, very interesting questions that I have had myself.  I'll do my best to give my perspective although please remember that it is not about me or my journey or my perspectives which are all subject to error ... it is all about God who never makes errors.  However, I am glad to share my thoughts, my journey, my understanding of religion at any time with the assumption it may help others with their struggles.  My thoughts are in CAPS embedded in your quote.

... Mountaineer

Based upon the Christian worldview being described above, it seems like the following conclusions would logically flow:

1. Prior to Jesus's ministry, Heaven was populated exclusively by Jewish people.  Prior to Jesus's ministry, all non-Jews and Jews who didn't obey the Law went to Hell where they will suffer for all of eternity.

AND

2. After Jesus's ministry, Heaven was populated almost exclusively by non-Jewish people (with the exception of the small population of messianic Jews).  After Jesus's ministry, most Jews have gone to Hell, where they will suffer for eternity.


***

In other words, the identical behavior--i.e., a Jewish person following the Law--at one point in time was a ticket to Heaven, and at another point in time was a ticket to Hell.  When you really think about it, there would have to have been a moment in time (unless there were some kind of "phase-in period") where literally all Jews who died before it would go to Heaven and all Jews who died after it would go to Hell based upon the identical beliefs and actions during life.

I know that God moves in mysterious ways, but the idea that all of the Jews who Hitler slaughtered are now in Hell, while Hitler is now in Heaven (he was a Christian, after all) just strikes me as very dissonant.

In fact, the whole idea of the Jewish God basically setting things up so that Jews who follow the Jewish Law will suffer in Hell for all of eternity doesn't make sense to me.  The response to that observation may be: "Well, it may not make any sense, but that's the way it works."  Sometimes, though, if enough things don't make any sense, it can be a way of realizing that a certain set of beliefs may not be true.

I WOULD SAY THAT ALL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THE PROMISES OF GOD, THAT IS TRUST THE TRIUNE GOD ABOVE TRUSTING THEMSELVES, ARE THE ONES WHO ARE NOT SAVED.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER WHEN GOD TOOK THE FORM OF MAN IN JESUS.  JESUS WAS THERE ALL ALONG, BOTH IN TIME AND BEFORE GOD CREATED TIME.  FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, THE TERM "JEW" CAME ABOUT AS A DERAGATORY TERM USED BY THE CAPTORS IN THE BABYLONIAN CAPITIVITY ... ROUGHLY 600 BC.  THE PROMISES HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE ORIGINAL SIN OF ADAM (MEANING MAN IN HEBREW) AND EVE,  GN 3:15.  ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF TRUSTING GOD WAS NOAH WHO BELIEVED AND TRUSTED GOD IN SPITE OF HOW FOOLISH IT SEEMED TO ALL THE OTHERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY PERISHED, OR ABRAHAM WHEN GOD TOLD HIM TO SACRIFICE ISAAC, OR THE CENTURIAN IN JESUS'S TIME.

For example:

Who did Adam and Eve's son Cain marry?  SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY.  I SEEM TO REMEMBER MY PASTOR SAYING THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD THEORY THAT HIS DESCENDENTS POPULATED SOME OF THE ARABIC LANDS.  I RECALL  ALL THE DESCENDENTS OF SETH ARE THE ONES WHO ULTIMATELY BECAME THE ISRAELITES - GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE TO BRING FORTH CHRIST TO THE WORLD.

How did Noah fit all of the animals in the world in one boat?  Even if you could travel the whole world to collect all of those animals (which you couldn't back then), they simply wouldn't fit in a single boat that could have been built back then.  IF GOD CAN CREATE THE UNIVERSE, SOMEHOW IT DOES NOT SEEM IMPOSSIBLE TO FIT THE ANIMALS INTO THE ARK.  I COULD SPECULATE AND SAY IT WAS JUST DNA SAMPLES AND SOME MIRACULOUS EVENT TO BRING LIFE FROM THAT DNA AFTER THE FLOOD, BUT, THE SCRIPTURES DO SAY THAT NOR TELL US THE ANSWER.

How do the cave paintings by primitive humans all over the world fit into the Adam and Eve creation story?  If the Bible is inerrant, the geneology starting with Adam and Eve only goes back 6,000 years or so.  How do we overlay that with what we otherwise know about the history of our own species?  THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW THAT I HAVE BEEN DESCRIBING SEVERAL TIMES NOW SAYS THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE "FALL" EVERYTHING (MAN, ANIMALS, THE EARTH, TIME, ETC.) WAS CURSED AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT, THERE IS NO RELIABLE WAY TO DATE ANYTHING PREHISTORY.  ALSO, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANCIENT HEBRAIC TERMINOLOGY AND LANGUAGE IS LOOSY-GOOSY COMPARED TO OUR ENGLISH ... A GENERATION FOR EXAMPLE CAN HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERING MEANINGS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT.  JUST LIKE IT HAS NO VOWELS; THEY HAVE TO BE "UNDERSTOOD" ACCORDING TO CONTEXT.  SIMILARLY, GREEK HAD NO PUNCTUATION AND HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONTEXT.  I HAVE HEARD IT DESCRIBED THAT GOING FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER VIA TRANSLATION RESULTS IN LOSING 30% OF THE ORIGINAL DETAIL AND INSERTING 30% NEW STUFF; HOWEVER THE MEANING IS SPOT ON.  THAT STATEMENT WILL LIKELY DRAW FLIES  ABOUT HOW UNRELIABLE I SAID THE BIBLE WAS.  THAT IS WHY THE "SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE" AND "EASILY UNDERSTOOD PASSAGES INTERPRET THE MORE NEBULOUS PASSAGES" METHOD IS SO IMPORTANT ... IT KEEPS ONE FROM CHERRY PICKING AND FOCUSING ON THE TRIVIAL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE IMPORTANT.

Where does Neanderthal man fit into the Adam and Even/Garden of Eden narrative?  Was the Garden of Eden a paradise for Cro-Magnon man only?

I THINK A BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY DID GOD PICK THE ISRAELITES TO BRING JESUS TO THE WORLD AND WHY DOES THE BIBLE NOT ADDRESS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE WORLD AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN.  THE ANSWER IS, ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT ADDRESS THAT.  ONE WAY I CAN GET MY HEAD AROUND IT IS TO COMPARE IT TO THE LIBRARY.  THERE ARE MANY BOOKS.  I HAVE NOT READ THEM ALL.  WHY NOT?  OUR ANSWERS WILL PROBABLY DIFFER DEPENDING ON WHERE AND WHEN WE LIVED.  WHY DID ONE PARTICULAR AUTHOR DECIDE TO WRITE A BOOK ON CAR REPAIR AND NOT ART APPRECIATION?  WHO KNOWS, PROBABLY ONLY THE AUTHOR.  THE ONE THAT I CARE ABOUT MOST IS THE ONE WHERE THE AUTHOR THAT TELLS ME HOW TO BE SAVED.  AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, HE TELLS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW BUT NOT ALL WE WANT TO KNOW.

Is it possible that Satan is the one who buried all of those bones and did those cave paintings just to throw people off of the one true path?  WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.  AS WITH THE STORY OF JOB, GOD ALLOWS MANY THINGS TO HAPPEN FOR HIS PURPOSE.  IN THE CASE OF JOB, PERHAPS IT WAS SO WE WHO READ THE JOB ACCOUNT WILL REALIZE "WHO ARE WE TO QUESTION THE MIND OF GOD?" WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE SUFFERING THAT JOB DID.  BUT, TO COUNTER MY OWN POINT, THERE IS NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE THAT SAY WE WILL NOT SUFFER IN THIS LIFE, IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE.  CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST TO NOW, SOMETIMES MORE, SOMETIMES LESS, BUT USUALLY NOWHERE NEARLY AS BAD AS WHAT CHRIST SUFFERED WHEN HE TOOK ON THE SIN OF EVERYONE FROM ALL TIME AND DIED FOR US SO THAT WE COULD LIVE.

Those are just a few things that cross my mind here and there.

[Gosso]

What would any of you say to the following statement:

I love Jesus.  It's obvious as I read the New Testament that others loved him as well.  As writers of that era were wont to do, they translated their love for him into embellishments of what he actually did during his life.  According to the common practices of the time, they attributed miracles to him, culminating in the miracle of rising from the dead.  That all makes perfect sense to me, and I probably would have done the same thing if I had been one of the original authors or subsequent scribes who "jazzed up" the story a bit to make it clear that Jesus was an amazing man.

The thing that makes me really love Jesus, though, is based on what happens when I clear away all of the supernatural accoutrements of the various Jesus stories.  When I do this, what I find underneath is a rock-solid message of love, kindness, generosity, humility, and skepticism about authority.  It's the most "true" message I have ever heard, and IMHO requires no attribution of supernatural abilities in order to validate its truth.  Its truth becomes apparent through the practice of the principles themselves.  With no disrespect to Peter, I think these timeless divine truths are actually the "Rock" that Jesus built his church on.

Jesus showed me that heaven really is a peaceful heart.  He showed me that hell is a tortured soul.  Jesus taught me that all of eternity is in each moment.  The challenge of following him is in grasping the potential we have for experiencing heaven in each moment, and in understanding the sacrifices that will be necessary for that to occur.  It basically requires one to transcend his animalistic instincts and tendencies, and that's hard to do, but the rewards are so amazing!

I know that a lot of people get really hung up on wanting to live forever and always wondering about whether they did all of the right things to guarantee themselves a spot in heaven.  I think that Jesus might tell these people that they missed his point entirely.  All they have really done is trade the legalism of the Jewish authorities of Jesus's time for the legalism of modern Christianity, with all of its endless pondering of the nature of the afterlife without giving serious thought to the nature of this life.

Followers of Jesus most certainly do tap into realms that transcend time, but rather than the eternity of bliss that people imagine they will experience after they die, I think the truth is that Jesus wanted people to see how each moment can transcend time, how there can be eternity in everything that we do, how we can find God in our hearts as we pursue these things.

An afterlife of eternal bliss based upon the correct decisions during this life seems like a basically selfish pursuit.  I don't think that God is interested in making such deals with his people.  I think that God wants us to understand his nature more fully, and Jesus showed us the way to do that, and that's why he said that he was the truth, the way and the light. 

My belief is that when religion becomes contentious and anxiety-inducing, it has probably long since gotten off of any path toward God that it may have ever been on.

I love Jesus.  He has opened my eyes to what God is really about.  I now see God all around me, all of the time.  I feel God in everything I do.  I don't need to die to receive my reward; I receive it every moment. 

When it comes to people, "sinner" is really a shorthand way of saying "animal", as in animals always want to know what they can take; they always want to know what's in it for them.  Animals don't care about the manifestation of God in a rainbow if there isn't a meal at the end of that rainbow.  A sinner is a person who goes through life like an animal, simply looking for meals to devour and whatever else he can lay claim to or use to satisfy his own desires.

Jesus helped me to see my animal nature.  He helped me to understand it.  I don't think that Jesus's blood was necessary for me transcend my animal nature; his wisdom was entirely sufficient.

In the same way that I would suggest people not become too preoccupied with what they can "take" from this life in the form of immortality, I would similarly suggest that people not become too preoccupied with Jesus's death either.  The wisdom and beauty of Jesus's message to humanity doesn't require an empty tomb to be true. 

The empty tomb was an expression of love and gratitude from the people to whom Jesus meant so much.  It was not the lynch pin that determined whether Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.    If Jesus's teachings were not true, then an empty tomb would be little more than a cheap sorcerer's trick.  If, however, Jesus's teachings were true, then anything that happened in the tomb is simply irrelevant--i.e., if it's empty his teachings were true and if it's not empty his teachings were still true.

The truth of Jesus's teachings is determined by observing their effects when applied diligently in your own life, not by a leap of faith about what did or didn't happen 2,000 years ago.

I agree with most of this.  But it seems what you are saying is that a Christian Saint is better than a Christian common person.  Very few people can attain this level of peace with themselves, God, and the world.  And so they require a more supernatural or selfish projection of their religion.  Pascal addresses this in "Pensees" where he says:

Other religions, such heathen ones, are more popular, for
they are wholly external, but they are not for clever people. A
purely intellectual religion would be better suited to the clever, but it
would not serve the common people. The Christian religion alone is proportionate
to all, being a mixture of external and internal. It elevates the
people to the internal and humbles the proud to the external; it is not
perfect without both, for the people must understand the spirit of the
letter, and the clever must submit their spirit to the letter.

Christians are to humble their exterior, but also elevate their interior.  It is far more difficult for the common person to humble the exterior than it is for the clever person.  While the difficulty for the clever person is in elevation of the internal, which comes more easily to the common person.  I find a mainly intellectual religion lacking in joy, which is why I moved away from Stoicism and Zen.  GK Chesterton made the interesting point that Christian saints are typically painted with eyes that are wide open or full of compassion, while Buddhists are typically painted with closed and sleepy eyes.  If I have to choose then I'd go with the openness and compassion.

[MediumTex]

Christians are to humble their exterior, but also elevate their interior.  It is far more difficult for the common person to humble the exterior than it is for the clever person.  While the difficulty for the clever person is in elevation of the internal, which comes more easily to the common person.  I find a mainly intellectual religion lacking in joy, which is why I moved away from Stoicism and Zen.  GK Chesterton made the interesting point that Christian saints are typically painted with eyes that are wide open or full of compassion, while Buddhists are typically painted with closed and sleepy eyes.  If I have to choose then I'd go with the openness and compassion.

That is an interesting and very thoughtful take on religion, but it seems to cast religion as sort of like a spiritual health club, where the individual simply shops around for the one with the facilities, equipment and membership profile that is most appealing to him personally.

[Libertarian666]

Christians are to humble their exterior, but also elevate their interior.  It is far more difficult for the common person to humble the exterior than it is for the clever person.  While the difficulty for the clever person is in elevation of the internal, which comes more easily to the common person.  I find a mainly intellectual religion lacking in joy, which is why I moved away from Stoicism and Zen.  GK Chesterton made the interesting point that Christian saints are typically painted with eyes that are wide open or full of compassion, while Buddhists are typically painted with closed and sleepy eyes.  If I have to choose then I'd go with the openness and compassion.

That is an interesting and very thoughtful take on religion, but it seems to cast religion as sort of like a spiritual health club, where the individual simply shops around for the one with the facilities, equipment and membership profile that is most appealing to him personally.

You mean it isn't? Now you tell us!

[MediumTex]

I'm okay with the idea that Hitler wasn't a Christian, but it is still disturbing to think that he and millions of his victims will suffer side by side in Hell for all of eternity.

I once took a New Testament course at a Baptist college (as a side note, the Professor's name was "Dr. Lord").  It was an evening course and most of the people in the class were part time students who had full time jobs and really weren't all that engaged in the class as far as I could tell.

So the professor is going over the requirements for salvation and I thought I was just pointing out the obvious by saying something like: "So that means all Jewish people are going to Hell then, right?"

Suddenly the whole class was engaged.  I think some people might have imagined that I was getting at some kind of anti-Semitic point (which I wasn't doing at all).  I just thought that we would get this interesting topic out in the open and really untangle it, but instead it just seemed to piss everyone off, including the professor.  That always seemed like a strange response to a very legitimate topic of discussion in a New Testament class.

I should have told my disgruntled classmates to express their displeasure with me through the strength of their counter-arguments, rather than through their sour and vaguely menacing facial expressions, but I didn't fully appreciate at the time that a college classroom is often not the best place to discuss controversial ideas.