Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:55:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> It's gotten quiet here, and we're off the lugnet.homepage. I'm going to see if
> anything runs out of the bushes when I do this...
It's obvious from the above statement that your just trying to stir the pot,
but you DO make many good points.
>
> All this splitting hairs & quoting Paul to rule on whether a sinner can be
> saved
> and get away with sinning.... I sure hope you religious people intend for your
> flocks to interpret this as having some relevance for what they do right now.
> Because I'll tell you this: NOT ONE OF YOU knows if you're saved. It's ALL
Not true. That's your opinion, on what authority do you base it?
> hair-
> splitting. Nobody comes back from death to answer that question. It's whatever
Jesus did just that, and continues to answer that very question all the time.
> you say it is. It's all in your head. Worrying about these conditions is a
> pointless exercise in self-torture. And you have millions of people more
> confused by this junk.
I wasn't trying to split hairs or confuse anything, rather I was trying to
simplify matters. The gospel is a very simple thing, the problem comes when we
try to define things down to their absolute smallest particle that we come up
with all this divergence. Love your God and love your neighbor are pretty
simple. We complicate it with our ulterior motives, that's not christianity's
fault but the people who endeavor to follow it.
>
> I've been a camp counselor and seen kids without that great a father-son
> relationship trying to make up the deficiency with an imaginary God that
> doesn't talk back to them, and becoming more screwed up every day for trying.
There are just as many success stories of people who have had their lives
changed dramatically - moot point.
>
> The whole debate between 'unweaned' and 'wiser' Christians about what we get
> for our works of righteousness, is first about Original Sin. And it's never
> settled
> because happy people don't buy it. If you didn't consider every one guilty by
> nature, you might have been able to make some progress in bettering mankind.
Christianity and the other religions, when properly practiced, have done more
to better mankind than any atheistic philosophy ever has. All religions have
extreme elements and ignorant ones as well. Unfortunately the squeaky wheel
gets the grease - and all the attention. Meanwhile the sincere take the blame.
> As it is, hordes of doubt-plagued Christians remain confused about their
> motivation
> for their daily acts. (Because they don't know who the supposed beneficiary of
> their actions is.) But two thousand years later Christians still go on and on
> about the inhumanity of Christian people to each other, how unfit our nations
> are because we make technological progress but can't pass the moral majority's
> bar exam.
I agree, but this is the fault of (in most cases) the person teaching, and also
the person hearing - it is incumbent upon each of us to determine the veracity
of such teachings - contrary to popular belief: the bible is not that difficult
to understand.
> Christianity perpetuates ignorance about what the good life is, and
> raises its children up to be bigots, sloths, mindless drones and worse, which
All of those things are explicitly contrary to christian teaching. If someone
is teaching that stuff, can they in fact be considered "christian"?
> it
> is powerless to prevent except by making people feel *guilty* by threatening
> God's judgment.
Christianity is about *release* from guilt. Do you think so many "sinful"
people would have flocked to Jesus to hear his every word if he was constantly
breathing fire, brimstone and condemnation? He was constantly invited to the
homes of "sinful" people and took much criticism for it. The only people he had
a problem with were religious hypocrites - the same ones you and I are
mistrustful of. The problem is that we forget that He came to reach those who
knew they were in need of Him (re: his comment about the sick needing a
physician not those who are well). Some Christians try to force/nag people into
believing who don't want to. Jesus never did that. If someone is pooring guilt
all over you they are "off topic".
> If someone seems to be leading a good life, you notify them that they're
> going to burn in hell if they don't make changes. This phenomenon is the
> first clue that the whole Judeo-Christian tradition is *part of the problem on
> Earth*. And there isn't anywhere else that matters.
Yes, Christianity wrongly applied has caused much harm, but that is far from
representative of true Christianity. That's like saying all muslims are
terrorists.
In these types of discussions it is important not to characterize the abberant
as normal, if we do, of course our conclusions will be skewed.
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Bill, you're falling into the trap of quoting from scripture as if it were authoritative again. It is to you, we grant that, but it's not authoritative to me. (...) Trot out someone who's saved, then. Not someone who THINKs he is, or even KNOWS he (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| It's gotten quiet here, and we're off the lugnet.homepage. I'm going to see if anything runs out of the bushes when I do this... All this splitting hairs & quoting Paul to rule on whether a sinner can be saved and get away with sinning.... I sure (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
