Figuring Out Religion

[barrett]

For those who have heard the "word" and rejected it, I think they are going to hell.

Can you understand how hellish this proposition sounds to everyone except the few who do follow the (forced) path? It's not even a proposition but a threat that sounds like it comes from Kim Jong-un. What sort of deity is this we are talking about? Either you obey totally or I put you in prison camp hell for the rest of eternity. Really?

This assertion just makes me angry for a bunch of reasons. Not all that deliver "the word" are equally talented. Maybe they don't actually put the message across perfectly each and every time. For a child who hears "the word" and just isn't interested, what becomes of them? I could go on but I think the point is obvious.

Finally, isn't this an incredibly unfair burden you put on yourself, Mountaineer? I reject it, yet you have tried so hard. But just perhaps you have chosen your words incorrectly... or you said something profound 40 pages ago that might have saved my sorry soul if I'd only taken the time to read a 91-page discussion.

Doesn't that interpretation imply that the absolute worst thing that could happen to such people would be a visit by missionaries, thereby granting them a change to hear the word and reject it? Seems like you're saying that ignorance is bliss, no?

Ah, yes. That too.

[Mountaineer]

For those who have heard the "word" and rejected it, I think they are going to hell.

Can you understand how hellish this proposition sounds to everyone except the few who do follow the (forced) path? It's not even a proposition but a threat that sounds like it comes from Kim Jong-un. What sort of deity is this we are talking about? Either you obey totally or I put you in prison camp hell for the rest of eternity. Really?

This assertion just makes me angry for a bunch of reasons. Not all that deliver "the word" are equally talented. Maybe they don't actually put the message across perfectly each and every time. For a child who hears "the word" and just isn't interested, what becomes of them? I could go on but I think the point is obvious.

Finally, isn't this an incredibly unfair burden you put on yourself, Mountaineer? I reject it, yet you have tried so hard. But just perhaps you have chosen your words incorrectly... or you said something profound 40 pages ago that might have saved my sorry soul if I'd only taken the time to read a 91-page discussion.

Doesn't that interpretation imply that the absolute worst thing that could happen to such people would be a visit by missionaries, thereby granting them a change to hear the word and reject it? Seems like you're saying that ignorance is bliss, no?

Ah, yes. That too.

barrett,

Re. your first question:  I do understand how hellish this can sound.  Scripture says so, as well as you.  I also can conjur up unlimited questions to understand the mind of God - but, somehow I "think" I understand why God has chosen not to reveal all to us.  If He did, there would be no need for faith and we would have all been created as robots or puppets; thank God he is a loving God and did not choose to make us like that.  So, I'm saving my questions for when I get to heaven.    Of course, he is also a God of wrath and justice and will use that wrath to give us what is deserved if we reject his gift and choose to be judged on our own works.  I don't know about you, but I would be shaking in my shoes if I thought I would be judged for my sinful ways by someone powerful enough to create the universe(s); thank God that Jesus took all that judgement upon himself for our benefit.

Re. your last question:  Actually, there is no burden on me at all* for I am only to "cast the seed", it is up to God to water, nurture, grow them - not me.  [Basis for this statement is Luke 8:4-20 and Matthew 28:16-20] I am completely in the free and clear according to God's Word, which I trust completely.  Since I put my trust in God rather than myself, I am not troubled by all that stuff that does not seem to make sense by man who desperately tries to use his reason to understand that which cannot be understood by reason. 

*Note - many in religions, traditions, and protestant denominations that are based on "works-righteousness" to gain salvation will be heavily troubled and wonder if they have done enough.  My Baptist, Methodist, and Roman Catholic friends especially seem to be in that mode a lot.  Thankfully, I have come to understand by carefully reading of Scripture, lots of associated theology material, and listening/watching/reading discussions and papers/books by theologians of various religions, including atheists, that my salvation is because of what Christ did 2000 years ago on the cross; I am forgiven, and I do good works, crappy as they are sometimes, in response to that incredible gift to benefit my fellow man - not to earn anything from God. 

You did not ask this just now, but I have frequently said that humans learn by three methods:  cognitive (reason), experience, and revelation.  Most people that I've met, either in person or on line, who reject God's promises do so because they (over)emphasize reason and neglect or ignore the "revelation" method processing "information" - somehow the process of taking available information and converting it to knowledge and understanding is missing or not utilized.  That is just my opinion so that and a couple of dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks. 

Pointedstick:  My comments to barrett may address your comment/question too; if not, please let me know and I'll answer you separately.

Happy Thanksgiving (it seems one origin of the term 'thanksgiving' is the response to all the wonderful gifts, i.e. everything, that we have been offered - many of which we have not rejected).

... Mountaineer

[barrett]

I wander into this conversation with trepidation.

That's it. I am outta here. This discussion never ends well for me. But, yes, Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[invst65]

Welcome to the angry atheists forum, invst65.  What does your belief system look like these days?

I don't consider myself an atheist. Actually I don't have any identifiable belief system and feel no compulsion to have one. The only thing I know for sure is that I began questioning the Christian belief system after many years as a Christian and came to the conclusion that I can no longer in good conscience hold onto it.

[Pointedstick]

The things that I have such difficulty getting past are the the contradictions and logical failures.

For example, I am told that God is supposed to love us. Yet the penalty for not following his difficult-to-understand rules is literally eternal torture. What kind of love has the explicit threat of torturing you for the rest of eternity if you don't submit totally? And what kind of loving person forces you to follow rules that you have to seek out yourself and that are actually not very clear? This all sounds like abuse and barbarism, not love.

How could God love us if he consequence of God being omnipotent and omniscient is that He has orchestrated all the people going to Hell that He supposedly does not want to happen? If I set up a fish tank with a bunch of guppies, a piranha, and a safe area that the Piranha is too big to enter, should I be sad when the piranha eats the guppies that don't make it to the safe part in time? That was going to be the obvious result from the way I set up the system. Could I reasonably claim to love the guppies if I set up a system in which most of them were practically doomed from the start? If I did that, people would consider it a warning sign of sociopathy.

Now, I understand that the standard answer to these kinds of points is that God's motives and moral system are beyond our comprehension and logic is not the right tool to use to understand any of this.

But if we are not unable to comprehend God's motives, have can we be sure we are even correctly comprehending scripture? If God's moral system is incomprehensible, how can we be sure we're actually following it? Simply because we follow what scripture says? That runs right back into the first point. What if we're misunderstanding scripture? And if we cannot use logic to interpret either scripture or God's will, what tools do we have available to try to understand what we're supposed to do? It's not like this stuff is clear and obvious. Extremely intelligent and learned Christian theologians have been arguing and debating scripture since there was scripture. And there are hundreds of Christian denominations each with their own interpretation. With such wide disagreement, how is a layperson like me supposed to understand what I am supposed to do? How can I know who has it right?

Finally, I am told that all of this is exposed via "revelation." I am to understand that revelation more or less takes the form of me finally internalizing the truth after enough exposure to it in much the same manner as we internalize how to talk by being exposed to enough language and by practicing talking.

But something like 99.9% of humans who are exposed to language eventually learn to talk, while even among those who are exposed to religion, a non-trivial and constantly growing percentage fail to experience revelation, and instead, decide that it sounds like a bunch of mystical nonsense. And a large number of people who even follow Christianity seem to be doing it for social reasons or because of perceived personal, sensory experiences, not revelation. All of this suggests to me that revelation is not very reliable. I certainly have never experienced it. I have even, on several occasions, actively gone searching for spiritual meaning, and I have never closed my mind off the the possibility of finding it. And there are times when I desire a greater spiritual element in my life. However, the more I am exposed to Christianity, the more repulsed by it I am. And I am not even sure that what I am exposed to here mostly via Mountaineer is even actual Christianity, as in many ways it totally contradicts what my Christian friends believe and what my Presbyterian minister father-in-law preaches to his congregation.

Can you understand how little appeal any of it has, given what I've written here? And if it's not about me, if it's about God finding me and opening my eyes to all of this... why hasn't it happened yet? What if I die before then? My going to Hell would be on Him for failing to show me the light in time, no?

[Mountaineer]

The thing that I ave such difficulty getting past is the the contradictions and logical failures.

For example, I am told that God is supposed to love us. Yet the penalty for not following his difficult-to-understand rules is literally eternal torture. What kind of love has the explicit threat of torturing you for the rest of eternity if you don't submit totally? And what kind of loving person forces you to follow rules that you have to seek out yourself and that are actually not very clear? This all sounds like abuse and barbarism, not love.

How could God love us if he consequence of God being omnipotent and omniscient is that He has orchestrated all the people going to Hell that He supposedly does not want to happen? If I set up a fish tank with a bunch of guppies, a piranha, and a safe area that the Piranha is too big to enter, should I be sad when the piranha eats the guppies that don't make it to the safe part in time? That was going to be the obvious result from the way I set up the system. Could I reasonably claim to love the guppies if I set up a system in which most of them were practically doomed from the start? If I did that, people would consider it a warning sign of sociopathy.

Now, I understand that the standard answer to these kinds of points is that God's motives and moral system are beyond our comprehension and logic is not the right tool to use to understand any of this.

But if we are not unable to comprehend God's motives, have can we be sure we are even correctly comprehending scripture? If God's moral system is incomprehensible, how can we be sure we're actually following it? Simply because we follow what scripture says? That runs right back into the first point. What if we're misunderstanding scripture? And if we cannot use logic to interpret either scripture or God's will, what tools do we have available to try to understand what we're supposed to do? It's not like this stuff is clear and obvious. Extremely intelligent and learned Christian theologians have been arguing and debating scripture since there was scripture. And there are hundreds of Christian denominations each with their own interpretation. With such wide disagreement, how is a layperson like me supposed to understand what I am supposed to do? How can I know who has it right?

Finally, I am told that all of this is exposed via "revelation." I am to understand that revelation more or less takes the form of me finally internalizing the truth after enough exposure to it in much the same manner as we internalize how to talk by being exposed to enough language and by practicing talking.

But something like 99.9% of humans who are exposed to language eventually learn to talk, while even among those who are exposed to religion, a non-trivial and constantly growing percentage fail to experience revelation, and instead, decide that it sounds like a bunch of mystical nonsense. That suggests to me that revelation is not very reliable. I certainly have never experienced it. I have even, on several occasions, actively gone searching for spiritual meaning, and I have never closed my mind off the the possibility of finding it. And there are times when I desire a greater spiritual element in my life. However, the more I am exposed to Christianity, the more repulsed by it I am. And I am not even sure that what I am exposed to here mostly via Mountaineer is even actual Christianity, as in many ways it totally contradicts what my Christian friends believe and what my Presbyterian minister father-in-law preaches to his congregation.

Can you understand how little appeal any of it has, given what I've written here? And if it's not about me, if it's about God finding me and opening my eyes to all of this... why hasn't it happened yet? What if I die before then? My going to Hell would be on Him for failing to show me the light in time, no?

Pointedstick,

I really, really, really wish we could discuss this in person, but I'll give another try here.  I am going to keep this very simple ... it will not be complete and likely you could pick it apart if you try but is is probably "good enough", not perfect.  I am trying to address your fundamental issue, not dot every I and cross every T that you are wondering about.  More later if you wish.  Have a great Thanksgiving and enjoy your family and friends.

1.  All you have to DO is trust in God's promises that I've discussed before.  The "bottom line" summary of Holy Scripture, that is what Christians believe, is summarized in the words of the Apostles Creed.  You do not HAVE to DO any of those rules you so worry about - but, for believers, we WANT to do them as best we can while at the same time knowing we fall far short because we are human.  Compliance with the rules is not FORCED upon you and will not be used to judge if you are saved as long as you believe the promises.  Unbelievers will be judged by compliance to the rules and the slightest infraction results in eternal separation from "The Kingdom of God"; more bluntly stated, unbelievers will be cast into the outer darkness (various other descriptions are used) for eternity.  The "what kind of loving God" would punish, etc., is similar to the loving parent who tells his children to do something that he knows is for the child’s own good, but the child disobeys because he thinks he knows more than the parent, and then the parent responds with a just punishment.

2. When you are baptized, you receive the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit works within you to strengthen your faith.  You do not, however, have to be baptized to be saved.  Baptism is one of the "means of grace" God uses to bring Himself to us.

3. Jesus also comes to us in The Lord's Supper, a second "means of grace”?.  Frequent feeding Jesus to us via the bread and wine also strengthens our faith.  Like baptism, you do not HAVE to receive the Lord’s Supper to be saved. 

4. Jesus also comes to us when we hear the Word proclaimed, i.e. preached and taught faithfully.  God's "revealed" Word is the Holy Scripture - the OT and the NT.  It is NOT, dreams, "God told me", “I feel the Spirit”?,  "I had a revelation while walking in the woods", etc.

5. Also, I suggest you stop thinking of Christianity as a moral system.  I do not think that is the best explanation of what it is all about as it pushes one to a "works-righteous" or Old Testament LAW system rather than the "Jesus has done it all FOR YOU" system - GOSPEL.  I'm not saying morals are not important, I'm saying you need to interpret the Old Testament via understanding the New Testament teachings - not vice versa or you end up mired in the LAW and the GOSPEL fades into the distance.  I'm not at all surprised you think most of your religions friends and family focus on the LAW, most do.  I do not think mixing LAW and GOSPEL instead of keeping them clear and understanding the role of each, is a salvation issue; it just has way more potential to drive people away from religion because all they see is conflict and confusion intead of clarity.

6. One of the biggest hurdles that I deal with is the concept of original sin; my human self wants to discount that and believe in the goodness of mankind, not the inherent, built in sinfullness of mankind.  Unfortunately, that is just not reality.  It has become obvious to me that Martin Luther had it right with his comment that we are simultaneously saint and sinner. 

… Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Mountaineer, I'm afraid that you're just repeating your own creed to me. Since it's not mine, simply laying it all out again doesn't seem likely to convince me of anything.

"All you have to do is trust God's promises" is unsatisfying to me considering that I've never actually heard them; I've only had people tell them to me and read what other people wrote down on the subject on it in a book--both of which make God seem like an fickle, wrathful, abusive, murderous, basically unlikable character.

I am not discounting anything that you say, but what is there to attract me to this faith if I do not already believe in it?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, I'm afraid that you're just repeating your own creed to me. Since it's not mine, simply laying it all out again doesn't seem likely to convince me of anything.

"All you have to do is trust God's promises" is unsatisfying to me considering that I've never actually heard them; I've only had people tell them to me and read what other people wrote down on the subject on it in a book--both of which make God seem like an fickle, wrathful, abusive, murderous, basically unlikable character.

I am not discounting anything that you say, but what is there to attract me to this faith if I do not already believe in it?

Uh, the fear that if God really means what He has had men write down and has been believed for a couple of thousand years is correct ... you are screwed in the biggest way possible?  In other words, the purpose of the LAW is to make you believe you cannot possibly do what God demands of you, and thus how you desperately need a Savior (Jesus) to bail you out?

... Mountaineer

[invst65]

The "what kind of loving God" would punish, etc., is similar to the loving parent who tells his children to do something that he knows is for the child’s own good, but the child disobeys because he thinks he knows more than the parent, and then the parent responds with a just punishment.

I'll ask this question for Mr. Pointed Stick so he doesn't have to. Do you really see similarities between a parent spanking a child for disobedience and God sending you to a place of eternal torment for not having the right religious credentials (i.e., "being born again", "having the right belief system", "believing the Apostle's creed", whatever you wish to call it)?

[Pointedstick]

Uh, the fear that if God really means what He has had men write down and has been believed for a couple of thousand years is correct ... you are screwed in the biggest way possible?  In other words, the purpose of the LAW is to make you believe you cannot possibly do what God demands of you, and thus how you desperately need a Savior (Jesus) to bail you out?

So just Pascal's Wager, then? Why does that not apply equally to the dire warnings in all other religions?

Besides, on a personal level, fear and threats are not a very successful motivator for me. Or rather, they often motivate me to do the opposite.

So, in summary… God makes laws He knows I cannot follow because of what a human 6,000 years ago who is not me did, and then He says I'll go to Hell to be forever tortured as a result, but then says that because He actually loves me (:o), he sent His only son Jesus (who is actually also Him) to die so that I wouldn't have to go to Hell for eternal torment, but only if I believe this, and once I do, that's it, I've got my golden ticket and while I should behave morally on this realm, it's not actually required because I am a sinner and the most important thing it to acknowledge this and believe in Jesus.

I'm sorry, but that's just one of the silliest, most unbelievable things I've ever heard. Again, it may be right, but it sounds ludicrous to me.

Ironically, I think I could wrap my mind around this better if God was not claimed to be loving. I could understand a cruel, wrathful, capricious God who made arbitrary rules for us to follow and hurts us if we deviate because he is in charge and we are His subjects. It would be like how Michael Brown simply needed to OBEY the police officer and he might be alive today.

When a violent and overwhelming force threatens you with the loss of your very existence, you have to comply if you want to avoid the consequences. What I can't fathom, is how an entity that meets this description can possibly be described and believed to be "loving." Darren Wilson did not love Michael Brown when he killed him. A king does not love the subjects he executes. A parent who murders his child does not love that child. And I cannot fathom a God that loves humans while sending most of them to a torture chamber for the rest of eternity. I don't think I can imagine how it is possible to love someone and condemn them to the worst punishment you can inflict.

[Mountaineer]

Uh, the fear that if God really means what He has had men write down and has been believed for a couple of thousand years is correct ... you are screwed in the biggest way possible?  In other words, the purpose of the LAW is to make you believe you cannot possibly do what God demands of you, and thus how you desperately need a Savior (Jesus) to bail you out?

So just Pascal's Wager, then? Why does that not apply equally to the dire warnings in all other religions?

Besides, on a personal level, fear and threats are not a very successful motivator for me. Or rather, they often motivate me to do the opposite.

So, in summary… God makes laws He knows I cannot follow because of what a human 6,000 years ago who is not me did, and then He says I'll go to Hell to be forever tortured as a result, but then says that because He actually loves me (:o), he sent His only son Jesus (who is actually also Him) to die so that I wouldn't have to go to Hell for eternal torment, but only if I believe this, and once I do, that's it, I've got my golden ticket and while I should behave morally on this realm, it's not actually required because I am a sinner and the most important thing it to acknowledge this and believe in Jesus.

I'm sorry, but that's just one of the silliest, most unbelievable things I've ever heard. Again, it may be right, but it sounds ludicrous to me.

Ironically, I think I could wrap my mind around this better if God was not claimed to be loving. I could understand a cruel, wrathful, capricious God who made arbitrary rules for us to follow and hurts us if we deviate because he is in charge and we are His subjects. It would be like how Michael Brown simply needed to OBEY the police officer and he might be alive today.

When a violent and overwhelming force threatens you with the loss of your very existence, you have to comply if you want to avoid the consequences. What I can't fathom, is how an entity that meets this description can possibly be described and believed to be "loving." Darren Wilson did not love Michael Brown when he killed him. A king does not love the subjects he executes. A parent who murders his child does not love that child. And I cannot fathom a God that loves humans while sending most of them to a torture chamber for the rest of eternity. I don't think I can imagine how it is possible to love someone and condemn them to the worst punishment you can inflict.

The conundrum you describe is what happens when our rebellious nature uses reason to try to understand the mind of God instead of just trusting His promises.  Ain't going to happen dude, but I'm just one tiny voice in the cosmos, what do I know!  Honestly, I laid out a path to follow that might help you, don't know if it would or not, God may have something else in mind that will get your attention one of these days.  Don't blame God for what happens if things don't work out per your chosen method to get you through life though.  What do you say we take this up a bit later and chill for a while.

... Mountaineer

[invst65]

So, in summary… God makes laws He knows I cannot follow because of what a human 6,000 years ago who is not me did, and then He says I'll go to Hell to be forever tortured as a result, but then says that because He actually loves me (:o), he sent His only son Jesus (who is actually also Him) to die so that I wouldn't have to go to Hell for eternal torment, but only if I believe this, and once I do, that's it, I've got my golden ticket and while I should behave morally on this realm, it's not actually required because I am a sinner and the most important thing it to acknowledge this and believe in Jesus.

I think you have come to a very good understanding of the gospel of fundamentalist Christianity, even though Mountaineer says your thinking is a product of your rebellious mind (BTW, is that the perfect cop-out when it comes to answering questions about the faith, or what? - your reasoning is the product of a mind that is in rebellion against God. If you would just stop your rebellion and agree with what me and God are saying then you would finally understand that we are right.)

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).

[Mountaineer]

So, in summary… God makes laws He knows I cannot follow because of what a human 6,000 years ago who is not me did, and then He says I'll go to Hell to be forever tortured as a result, but then says that because He actually loves me (:o), he sent His only son Jesus (who is actually also Him) to die so that I wouldn't have to go to Hell for eternal torment, but only if I believe this, and once I do, that's it, I've got my golden ticket and while I should behave morally on this realm, it's not actually required because I am a sinner and the most important thing it to acknowledge this and believe in Jesus.

I think you have come to a very good understanding of the gospel of fundamentalist Christianity, even though Mountaineer says your thinking is a product of your rebellious mind (BTW, is that the perfect cop-out when it comes to answering questions about the faith, or what? - your reasoning is the product of a mind that is in rebellion against God. If you would just stop your rebellion and agree with what me and God are saying then you would finally understand that we are right.)

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).

invst65,

I think it is great that you are offering your perspective about Christianity as ultimately, everyone has to come to a conclusion about what they believe, hopefully based on hearing the Word of God and also taking into account studying material from credible sources (Scripture, writings by the early church fathers, medieval scholars, current day theologians); a careful examination allows one to evaluate the material from the experts as well as from laity like you and me who just offer opinions or our experiences. 

I offer a comment for clarity:  you have said several times I'm a "fundamentalist" - that is actually rather far from what I believe according to the definition of what a fundamentalist believes (as an aside, based on my understanding, a fundamentalist tends to cherry pick verses rather than take the whole pericopy in context - cherry picking verses out of context is how you end up with the more bizzare cults, e.g. snake handlers). 

A more accurate term for the LCMS tradition, is Confessional Christianity; that means we confess that the Holy Scriptures are true, interpreted in historical and literary context in the original languages, and we accept the Lutheran Book of Concord is an accurate statement of belief that is consistent with Holy Scripture.  The Book of Concord, while not holding the same status as the Holy Scripture, includes the foundational documents* of the reformation that took place in the 1500s.  Likely what you refer to as fundamentalism is a rather new take on Christianity that evolved in the United States within the last couple of hundred years and the "new" interpretation of Christianity you referenced I would call liberal Christianity that began in Germany in the mid 1800s with the historical critical method of Biblical interpretation.  I would also point out that the new "liberal" denominations are rather rapidly losing members, even faster than the mainline denominations, as members find there is little meat to go with the teachings.  The devil does try mightly to divert and distract us, and subvert God's Word doesn't he?  The good news is God has already won the battle.  But that is just my perspective based on a lot of study about Christianity - you may have a different take.

* Augsburg Confession, Appology to the Augsburg Confession, Smalkald Articles, Formula of Concord, Small and Large Catechisms, etc.

... Mountaineer

[invst65]

I offer a comment for clarity:  you have said several times I'm a "fundamentalist" - that is actually rather far from what I believe according to the definition of what a fundamentalist believes (as an aside, based on my understanding, a fundamentalist tends to cherry pick verses rather than take the whole pericopy in context - cherry picking verses out of context is how you end up with the more bizzare cults, e.g. snake handlers). 

I'm not sure what the precise definition of a fundamentalist is but I was using it rather broadly to refer to those Protestants who hold "fundamental" views of the Bible starting with believing that it is the "authoritative and infallible Word of God" which I surmise is something you and your LCMS brethren would also lay claim to (actually I know it is). I would have fit that description myself at one time though I have attended Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, and many independent churches. There was a beautiful and comforting simplicity in that belief for me at one time but I don't hold it any more. Paul said that when he was a child he spoke as a child and reasoned as a child but when he became a man he put away childish things and that's basically how I feel about Christian doctrines like that of eternal torment, the young earth, original sin, etc. I know there are many Christians who would say I am going to hell for rejecting those beliefs and that is a good part of of the reason I don't even call myself a Christian any more. To be perfectly honest with you, I think people who hold these beliefs are already in hell.

[invst65]

Hey, which kind of church did you find least objectionable?  Just curious.

Probably the Southern Baptist church we attended for a few years and where I sent my kids to elementary school. It wasn't your typical Southern Baptist church however. I would describe it as kind of like what the Pentecostal churches used to be before they became just as dead as all the rest. Unfortunately, the pastor of that church was fired when he was caught committing adultery and it was never the same after that. Went back a few years later and might as well have been attending a funeral.

[Greg]

Xan pointed this out at one point but I had a bunch of questions about Christianity and I found gotquestions.org. I really liked it and it's a great jumping off point to other literature after that. Also I'm only at page 37 of currently 93 of this forum topic, so I've got a whiles before I can start really posting, but I've been liking what I have read thus far. Good stuff here.

[invst65]

http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-hell-fair.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/fire-and-brimstone.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/eternity-hell-just.html

A few posts back I asserted that the only power Christianity has nowadays is hell and I was accused of being an angry atheist.

So I find it interesting that I now find the Christian believers on the forum are proving my point by trying to convince the unbeliever Pointedstick that the doctrine of eternal torment in hell for unbelievers is true.

I read all of those links in their entirety BTW, and I'm pretty sure Pointedstick, if he even bothers to read them, will find them as unconvincing as I did so I doubt he'll be falling on his knees and accepting Jesus because hell is true any time soon.

Just take the first one with it's reference to Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus. How anyone can read that story in the Bible and honestly conclude that Jesus was trying to paint for us a true picture of hell and the doctrine of eternal torment for unbelievers is beyond me. The rich man went to hell and the poor man went to heaven for no other reason than one was rich and the other poor as far as we can tell. How does that support the Christian dogma concerning hell?

[Pointedstick]

I did read them. Like most sources in support of Christian doctrine, I found them unconvincing, as they were largely self-referential, and the supporting passages appeared to be far more nuanced and open to interpretation than the website seemed to assert (hence why there are a whole ton of different Christian denominations… why is this if the Bible and the Gospel are so obvious as to their meanings and messages?).

Finally, I found them emotionally unsatisfying since the entire doctrine of Hell that I have encountered thus far seems from my personal, human perspective to be the height of injustice, with the only counter to this assertion that I have heard thus far being that God is inscrutable and perfect and His morality is different than ours, so if we don't understand it or don't like it, that's just further evidence of our own sin and need to accept Jesus' gift. Again, it's totally self-referential. This stuff only makes sense if you already believe it unquestioningly.

[Mountaineer]

I did read them. Like most sources in support of Christian doctrine, I found them unconvincing, as they were largely self-referential, and the supporting passages appeared to be far more nuanced and open to interpretation than the website seemed to assert (hence why there are a whole ton of different Christian denominations… why is this if the Bible and the Gospel are so obvious as to their meanings and messages?).

Finally, I found them emotionally unsatisfying since the entire doctrine of Hell that I have encountered thus far seems from my personal, human perspective to be the height of injustice, with the only counter to this assertion that I have heard thus far being that God is inscrutable and perfect and His morality is different than ours, so if we don't understand it or don't like it, that's just further evidence of our own sin and need to accept Jesus' gift. Again, it's totally self-referential. This stuff only makes sense if you already believe it unquestioningly.

A basic question: Do you believe Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, was burried, and rose again from the dead - why or why not?

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

A basic question: Do you believe Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, was burried, and rose again from the dead - why or why not?

... Mountaineer

I think it is quite possible that Jesus was a real man who lived as a rabble-rousing self-proclaimed prophet who pissed off the government and was murdered for it. However, the claimed Biblical resurrection is a supernatural event, and as such it is an absolutely extraordinary claim that requires fairly convincing evidence that I have never encountered.

I would not say that I actively disbelieve the resurrection, but I have never found anything that would convince me that it happened. And if something happened that people at the time saw as a miraculous resurrection, it is plausible to me that there is a rational explanation for what people saw. Similar events have occurred in modern times where someone was presumed dead, only to get back up quite alive. Again I am not saying that I believe those things to be true, only that they seem possible to me; at least as possible that a miracle occurred that revealed God as the creator of the universe and Jesus as His son. I am not willing to simply take this on faith given that I have never experienced any kind of "revelation" that it has been suggested grants one the clarity and knowledge of the truth of this claimed event.

So, how can I experience a revelation? It has been suggested that reading and hearing the Gospels is the road to revelation, but it doesn't seem to be working for me.

[Pointedstick]

I don't think one needs to experience a revelation.  I do think that God opens our eyes, even a grouchy old agnostic like myself.  I think it happens on God's timing [...]

If that is true, what am I to make of all the people (myself possibly included) who die before God "opens their eyes?" Since they never accepted Jesus, they're all in Hell, right,? If God is responsible for opening their eyes, and doesn't do it before they die, then that means that God is responsible for them all being in Hell, no?

This may be true... but it sure seems monstrous and unfair to me. In many ways, I might accept Christianity better if Christians portrayed God as angry, cruel, and capricious, and said, "you better do what God wants or else he's going to torture you forever! He killed millions in the past because he didn't like them! He is a God of wrath and fire and you'd better listen up right good if you want to avoid everlasting torment!" Instead there's all this stuff about love and I just can't see the love in any of what God is said to do or the system He has supposedly set up.

[Xan]

There's an interesting lecture (with a pretty cool ~2 minute introduction) about what it might be like if CS Lewis could debate the "new atheists".  The presenter has a book about it which I haven't read yet, but mean to.  I had no intention of listening to this whole thing when I started but ended up doing so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CUJ8h8cXTw

[Mountaineer]

Interesting article.  Note the perspective that faith is so very much more than warm, fuzzy feelings.  An Excerpt:

Early on the first Sunday of Advent, I logged in to Pandora and heard the familiar chant “Adoro Te Devote.”?

As a child, I knew Thomas Aquinas’ beloved text as “Humbly I Adore Thee.”? At that time, faith meant standing with my family in the family church and singing such hymns with devotion.

The joining in song and prayer drew me closer to God. Or so I thought.

Later, as my life became more challenging and as I entered a world that seemed largely untouched by faith — a world where hatred, greed, violence and arrogance had free rein — I wondered if faith needed to be something more.

More rigorous, perhaps, deeper than a child’s cozy feelings. Faith needed to embrace more than lingering echoes of days gone by. Faith needed to address today’s cruelties and sadness. Faith needed to confront warfare, prejudice and unwarranted privilege.

If faith couldn’t address the dark sides, then it was just ritualized nostalgia. It was an in-crowd affirming itself; it was nice people gathering for pleasing ceremonies and making no discernible difference in the world.

If faith saw only itself, then passions would be spent on internal concerns, like budgets, leadership tussles and arcane debates. Institutional maintenance would matter more than integrity and potency.

Meanwhile, human suffering would worsen, and the work Jesus actually gave us to do would remain undone. We would whine about loss of status, but not see ourselves staying safe inside.

The world around us has brought American Christianity to a crossroads. Will we stay safe or stand tall? Will we decorate our churches for Advent and Christmas or make a difference in the world?

Ferguson, Mo., is our bellwether. Its continuing drama shows that religious life is on the streets, crossing racial lines, speaking truth to power, fighting for justice. Whatever faith meant in the 13th century when Thomas Aquinas was writing brilliant essays, today faith means going toe-to-toe with the darkness.

See the link to read the rest of the article.  http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/this-advent


... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Desert, I've never really felt at home among atheists. They tend to be arrogant and confident about their lack of religion, and appear to actively disdain it and people who believe it. That's not the way I feel at all. 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. If I am going to make an attempt to follow a religion, I don't want to follow one that makes no sense to me. And so far, the evangelical born-again style of Christianity that you and Mountaineer are championing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It appears to require that I trust in an entity with an incomprehensible moral system that, when attempted to be understood in familiar human moral contexts, looks a lot like psychopathy to me.

By contrast, my father-in-law is a mainline Presbyterian minister who believes that Jesus' gift was automatically granted to all humans, saving everyone. That seems like an act of love to me. To him, following Christianity is about celebrating Jesus and God for this gift, not about satisfying some sort of condition for avoiding eternal torment. This makes a lot more logical sense to me as the act of a God of love, but at the same time I can see why it would be a religion that's shedding members (it is) because it doesn't really require anything at all from adherents.

[Mountaineer]

Desert, I've never really felt at home among atheists. They tend to be arrogant and confident about their lack of religion, and appear to actively disdain it and people who believe it. That's not the way I feel at all. 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. If I am going to make an attempt to follow a religion, I don't want to follow one that makes no sense to me. And so far, the evangelical born-again style of Christianity that you and Mountaineer are championing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It appears to require that I trust in an entity with an incomprehensible moral system that, when attempted to be understood in familiar human moral contexts, looks a lot like psychopathy to me.

By contrast, my father-in-law is a mainline Presbyterian minister who believes that Jesus' gift was automatically granted to all humans, saving everyone. That seems like an act of love to me. To him, following Christianity is about celebrating Jesus and God for this gift, not about satisfying some sort of condition for avoiding eternal torment. This makes a lot more logical sense to me as the act of a God of love, but at the same time I can see why it would be a religion that's shedding members (it is) because it doesn't really require anything at all from adherents.

Pointedstick, sorry for jumping into the conversation between you and Desert, but I though this might be appropriate.  I too, am only trying to help address your questions, comments, and quest for understanding.

I bolded three items above to share my two cents on.  Forgive me for plowing old ground.

Born Again:  Scripture indicates this happens at your Baptism when you receive the Holy Spirit, not as a result of anything you, as a human, decide to do or feeling you have.  It is external to you, much like everything else that comes from God, and does not come from within.

Jesus' gift granted automatically granted to all humans:  I agree, Jesus died on the cross for all, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Condition for avoiding eternal torment: Scripture indicates the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, i.e. unbelief, or said another way, refusal to accept the gift that Jesus granted to all humans.  The Holy Spirit will do His work in you in the way and time He chooses and help you understand the Word.

Miracles and the supernatural aside, the hardest thing for me to come to grips with was and is absolutely everything I have and all that exists in this universe is a gift from God; hard to wrap ones head around the implications of that.  It is easy to accept my house, wife, children, health, wealth, etc. are gifts from God ... much more difficult to understand that pain, suffering, doubt, faith, sickness, destituteness, and Jesus are also gifts given for my good and the good of others who my sinful self's perspective may or may not not think deserving; that is of course from the perspective the gift of my "reasonable" incapable of understanding much, mind.

... Mountaineer