My Debate with my Christian Friend [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

Raevyn

January 11th, 2003, 12:08 AM

I think only mods and admins can actually change the thread title so it reflects on the forums page as such (as in, it'll change on the page of the thread, but won't on the forums page that lists the titles, if I remember correctly - could be wrong).

I never really understood the "3 monkey concept" beyond a cute guideline for life - hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Does that in itself say if you hear no evil and see no evil, you can't do evil? I'd always just thought of it as 3 points to remember, not as the third point being a result of the first 2?

Next, just because people were created by God doesn't mean they aren't tempted by Satan. Assuming Satan exists it's perfectly possible for him to enter our lives after we're created.

Finally, God give us the power to do what we will so we can exercise it, but we still have the responsibility to act in ways that are approved by Him. He gave us free will so we could learn and be tempted, I think, and yet it's not like that gives us license to do what we want either.

I mean, you have the free will to do a lot of things you shouldn't.

I'm sure Danus could explain it much better then I, and with a better set of references - I'm just speaking about my understandings and beliefs.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 01:01 AM

Heheh...

I think that we had this debate a while back, with Puma Hime.

You're not far off the mark, Raevyn. From what I know of Christian Theology, the reason Christians believe that they were given free will, is so that a person could willingly make the choice to follow Gods' law. From what I understand, God does not want "Robots" or "Slaves". He wants love, and devotion out of that love. If you didn't have the free will to decide whether or not to commit an act, you wouldn't be doing it out of love, but out of obligation. I agree with another point that Raevyn brought up. If God is Love (which the New Testament says he is), and he is looked to as a Father, he gives people the room to make choices, so that they can learn through their own experiences. We are tempted, face adversity, we sin, because they also carry with them natural repercussions. Those natural repercussions make us learn a lesson much more valuably, then by merely HEARING that if you allow temptation to over come you, if you sin, you will go to hell. God is often referred to as the Father. Think of your own parents. While you were very young, yes...they protected you. They told you not to touch the stove, because you could get burned. But...as you got older, they probably realized that some things, you just had to experience, and decide for yourself. I can't tell you how many times my mother said.."ya know..I kind of thought that was going to happen. But I realized it was something you had to learn on your own. Now that you know, I'll bet you won't do that again.".

Christian Theology says that God forgives sins. Therefore, he gives you the free will to commit them. And he gives you a way to be forgiven even after you commit them. He doesn't always "punish you". The idea, is that after you commit a sin, you are supposed to realize what that sin did. What result it carried with it. Whether it be a natural repercussion, or a feeling of a separation from God. Once you feel that result, and realize it, Christian Theology says that it is your "natural" response to seek forgiveness. Think of this example...

Your Mother spends all afternoon cooking a meal that she's never tried to cook before. She really wants to make something special, and exotic. So she spends so much time preparing it. When dinner time comes, your mouth is watering. But when you take a bite, it tastes awful. And..instead of saying "it's good" just to make her feel good. You say.."Oh my GOD! That is awful! What did you cook? Cow Dung?". She bursts into tears, and runs from the kitchen. You feel awful.

In that moment. You had the choice whether or not to keep your thoughts to yourself, and tell your mother that the meal was good. Or....You could have done what you did, and told her it was awful. It's what you FELT afterall...right?

But..then why do you feel so awful now? Because your mothers feelings were hurt. You hurt someone you loved. So....sooner or later, you go and apologize. And she forgives you.

This is supposedly the nature of Sin and Forgiveness. Your mom didn't brainwash you in the past, to tell her how wonderful her cooking was. But..the natural consequence of telling her it was awful, was your feeling of guilt, and separation from her, when she was hurt. You learned a valuable lesson there. You learned how much you love your mom. How much it hurts, to know that you hurt and dissappointed her. You learned that you enjoy making her happy. That you enjoy sitting down to dinner with her. And probably, how kind she is for even trying so hard to create this meal for you. It's humbling.

That is why God gives free will, in Christian Theology. The lesson you get through experiencing the consequence of sin, is far more valuable then any brainwashing ever could be. If you don't realize how bad life would supposedly be without him, why would you need him?

Shaz could probably answer this best. In the meantime, here's the thread where we discussed this in the past, in case this made too little sense (i'm very tired).

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?threadid=10555&perpage=15&highlight=Free%20Will&pagenumber=1

Let's make this a hot potato thread. Your turn Shaz!

tabcat

January 11th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Maybe the Christian ideology is that God gave humans free will because he wants love and devotion not slaves, but that begs the question of punishment. How much free will does a person truly have if they know that sin is punishable by death, ie separation from God, everlasting imprisonment in hell, etc. I'm sorry, I just see a lot of fear in this ideology to get people to behave correctly. How many people behave correctly and attempt to live without sin because they love God or because they are afraid of the alternative? As long as whatever God (or Goddess) is being worshipped holds over his/her creation the threat of hell or everlasting damnation, there can be no solid argument that this Deity desires only the love of his/her creation. And while Christian theology says God forgives sins, that forgiveness is bought with the blood of God's own son. How loving and healthy is that?
I do believe we have choices in our lives about behavior and thoughts and everything else. I believe the natural reprecussions of these choices should be the ONLY punishment if humans are to truly enjoy free will.
Of course, and this will be offensive to some and I apologize in advance, my feeling is that any Deity that requires the love and devotion of his creation is pretty insecure in his omnipotence.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 02:22 PM

Again, if you read both threads, this and the one I referenced, the thing is...GOD does not give you the punishment. YOU Do. (In Christian Theology). You have free will to make a choice. And if you choose the thing which will carry a consequence of punishment...You are making a choice of your own free will.

If you steal a jacket from a store, you know that if or when you get caught, you will receive a punishment (legally). And yet, many people still do steal. They are making a choice, with their own free will. Free will doesn't mean that there are no consequences...free will means that you have the freedom to make that choice in the first place. In other words, you aren't created as a robot, with no opportunity to choose the wrong thing. THAT is free will. Free will doesn't mean.."I can do whatever I want, without any consequence". It means.."I have the freedom to make the choice, myself".

If you sin, you will face consequence (in Christian theology). That is your choice. That is your free will. You weren't created with a microchip implant in your brain making it impossible for you to sin. You weren't created as a robot. You were given a brain which could weigh the pro's and cons' of any action, and the possible repercussions versus the possible gains. That is the gift of free will.

This also starts the debate over what exactly IS the punishment for sin. What I've learned of Christianity, is that it's not so much that you are threaghtened with the "burning fires of hell" (imo, that is a terror tactic. That whole image probably came from Revelations, which is actually little more than a symbolic, prophetic dream, and some minister picked up on it, and figured it would be really good to use to scare people into not sinning). In my opinion, based on what i've learned of Christian Theology, what the bible says more often, is that the consequence of sin, is death. (Symbolically speaking. A Spiritual Death.).

When you act in a way which purposely harms another person, are you not "killing your spirit"? Harming yourself, at the same time that you harm the other person? You cannot both be spiritual, and malicious, at the same time. Similarly, a "Sinner" is thought to not be able to be a "Spiritual" person when they are willfully acting in Sin. To Christians, what makes someone "Spiritual" is their Relationship to God, and Christ. When you act in a manner which is contrary to their teachings, you are separating yourself from them. Building a wall between you and them. Thus, the consequence of that sin, is a death to your spiritual self. If you are "Spiritual" (dwelling in spirit, in the nature of spirit) this means that you are in a relationship with God, and Christ. If you sin, this brings you OUT of a relationship with God, and Christ, or at the very least, harms it, until you realize your error, and ask for forgiveness. This refers to my story, about the mother at dinner time. She is still your mom, but you have hurt her. And as a consequence of the pain that you brought her, you feel distanced from her. When you Sin, you create a distance between God, and yourself. When you realize your error, and make the effort to go and mend the bridge (meaning YOU have to go to HIM and ask his forgiveness) the relationship is mended, and you are acting in accordance to spirit again. I've heard over and over from Christians, that hell is not the fiery brimstone place described by many evangelicals. Rather, it is a state of separation from God. Imagine a large room, separated by a piece of glass. On one side, you stand, alone. On the other, you see God, and all those who have a relationship with him, dwelling together, in love, and happiness, a huge feast..etc, etc, etc. Imagine being alone, and separated from those that have loved you, and those that you love, forever. That is how some people define Hell. The separation from God. The separation from Spirit.

Thus..yes, you are given free will.

The same way that you are given free will in any relationship. You can choose to cheat on your mate, for instance. But..the consequence of that choice, might be your mate leaving you. And you winding up alone.

That is free will. You have the Choice, but the Choice has Consequences.

Too bad I'm not a Christian, or a Preacher anymore, eh? lol.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 02:47 PM

On the topic of Christ needing to die, in order for every ones sins to be forgiven, this is a topic I have never really understood myself.

This obviosly would be more an area for a Rabbinical student to discuss. Since the whole idea of blood sacrifice within the Judeo Christian realm, comes from the old testament.

I'm not sure why God demanded blood sacrifice, except that blood holds a tremendous amount of power. Even Pagans tend to admit to this, many people will use a drop of their own blood to seal a spell. Or something like that. Blood is a life force. Blood supposedly contains the essence of spirit. (interesting, when you consider how much of ourselves, is due to DNA). Anyway...it's been held as very powerful, and very sacred, throughout time, and spanning continents, and cultures.

Thus, God demanded blood sacrifice. Before modern times, Jews brought animals to the temple to be slaughtered. Why? Well..in a culture where sheep or animals were highly valued for sustinence, as well as other purposes, you were giving that thing which was vital to your lifestyle, over to God. Giving it to him. Instead of keeping it to yourself. Kind of the same reason that we offer food and drink to the Gods and Goddesses, in the form of libation. I don't think that the early jews, or many ancient cultures were really strong vegetarians ;).

So...he demanded blood sacrifice. Why weren't the sheep being offered at the temple, enough anymore? Why did Jesus have to die?

Well...most Christians believe that the Jewish culture of the time had become very corrupt. Think of the money changers in the temple. Think of the Pharisee's. The Jewish culture of the time, in the view of Christianity, had lost it's relationship to God. Lost its spirit, lost its way. It had been corrupted by greed, political motivation, etc. Many people made the offering of a sheep, or a bird, or whatever, not out of a sincere desire to be closer to God, but as a token. "Yeah..I can do this...and dude...I can sin! And then I can go back, and do it again, and it's all cool!". And worse than that....people were charging large fee's for the animals to be brought to the temple... etc. God apparently felt something needed to Change. That people needed a reminder of what sacrifice was for, in the first place, and how much it means. And he didn't want this practice profaned any longer. So...he sent Christ. His ONLY son. The ULTIMATE sacrifice. Not a lamb, or a bird, or a cow...his SON. What better reminder of what sacrifice was intended to be, can you find than that? Sacrificing the things which are vital to yourself. That are important to you, that you love, and cherish. That Sacrifice should be made, at a personal cost to yourself. That Sacrifice should be made, out of sincere desire. That sacrifice should be made, out of your heart. That the Desire to be Close to God, should be far and above any other motivation (tradition, laws of your culture, obligation, etc). It should be your desire to have a relationship with Him, that should be the most important thing in your life.

So he gave up his only son, so that people could see this. They could see that in order to have a relationship with humanity again, he was willing to give up the thing that he loved most. To watch his son Die. That is how much he loved humanity. That he would go to any lengths, to establish a relationship with them again.

I suppose it was a "Monkey See, Monkey Do" proposition in some ways. God's ultimate desire was that bye the sacrifice of his Son, humanity would see the example of how important their relationship to God is. And want to establish a deeper relationship with him.

And remember, the Bible says that Jesus did this willingly. That he willingly gave his life over to God. In the story of the crucifixion, he is poked fun at bye the guards, and the other people being crucified, and people said.."If you are really the Son of God, why don't you climb down off that cross?". And Jesus basically said that at any point, if he WANTED to end his suffering, he could call upon his father, and the angels would come, and rescue him (Boy..i should get a bible, and quote it, because it sounds really lame coming in these terms). But he understood what God was trying to illustrate, and was willing to pay the price, in order to open the eyes of mankind, to see their importance to God.

It seems to me, Tabcat, that what you are saying is not so much.."WHY" did it go down like that..because, I can tell from your posts that you already know what Christians think about it. It seems to me that you are saying.."I don't agree with it.". Well..the truth is, neither do I. I don't agree with much of Christianity's teachings, or in the concepts of sin, and hell, and all of that.

But..on the other hand, I do understand WHY the argument makes sense to them. If they've looked into it, and studied it. I don't like it when Christians just believe it right off the bat, without questioning or study. That bothers me. But..when a Christian has examined it, asked the why's, and it makes sense to them...more power to them. As long as their not trying to force it on me.

The truth is, the Story of Christs Passionplay, is very close to many ancient myths, and ancient cultures. Many cultures demanded sacrifice, some even human sacrifice. Many cultures believed in consequences for actions, etc.

I think the reason that people are so eager to "question" christianity, and poke holes in the theology, is more because they are on the defensive, because they feel that someone is trying to force it upon them.

I try to look at the story itsself, as a piece of literature. And separate my personal defense mechanisms, from it...

When I do that..I start to say.."Ya know what..this is a pretty good story, about a God who loved his people so much... yadda yadda yadda". There is SOME value in the story. I may not build my life around it. Or agree with every teaching that the religion holds, but I recognize why it is valuable to others. And what the theme is. The theme of it is, that God wants a relationship with Man. He loves them. That's pretty much it for me. That's what it all means to me.

And that's not too differen't from what I feel about my God and Goddess. They want a relationship with me too. So..it's really not all that differen't.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Oh...one more thing,.....You said...

Of course, and this will be offensive to some and I apologize in advance, my feeling is that any Deity that requires the love and devotion of his creation is pretty insecure in his omnipotence

Really? Hmmm...do you advocate open relationships then? Do you think it's okay for your boyfriend/husband to sleep with other women?

Why is it differen't. In Christian theology. God loves you. He wants you to love him, and wants your devotion. not that differen't, IMO.

Raevyn

January 11th, 2003, 02:56 PM

I haven't read all the posts here yet, but wanted to respond to a few things (I apologize if I'm repeating what Danus has said, or missed something so far).

a) It's always been my impression that Jesus died for our sins out of love - that he was making a sacrifice in faith for the love of humanity, and as a show of faith in his father. Have you never sacrificed anything for someone you love? Have you never done something risky to prove your faith that it could work out?

b) I personally get the impression that a lot of the fear and punishment type stuff was exaggerated by the church to exert power and gain prosperity. I don't believe that was God's intention. While I can understand and appreciate your thought there, I really see it as fault of man, and man is sinful, rather then fault of God or weakness in the religion itself.

tabcat

January 11th, 2003, 08:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Danustouch

It seems to me, Tabcat, that what you are saying is not so much.."WHY" did it go down like that..because, I can tell from your posts that you already know what Christians think about it. It seems to me that you are saying.."I don't agree with it.". Well..the truth is, neither do I. I don't agree with much of Christianity's teachings, or in the concepts of sin, and hell, and all of that.

________________________________________________

Of course I'm saying I don't agree with it. I was raised by a Baptist mother and a Presbyterian father who did everything they could to snuff out what was for me an inherent pagan nature. I have always felt a connection to nature and found the divine in it. Even as a very young child. I had visions and premonitions as a child which was considered evil on my part even though I had no control over these things. I have always found the concept of hell illogical in the face of being told that God loves me. And while I have heard the separation from God part as an explanation from hell, in the doctrines in which I was raised hell was a real place with fire, pain, agony, and despair. And I've been told on several occasions I will spend my life there: because of premonitions, because I divorced a man who beat me but wouldn't never have an affair so I could get a biblical "legal" divorce, and because I have the audacity to not be afraid of God/Goddess but to go so far as to believe I have piece of the divine within me. All the fear and the manipulation served to make me really sick spiritually for a number of years. And I can honestly say I have lived in hell: I have through choices been separated from God/Goddess and my fellow man(woman). That is all the hell I need to believe in. I have studied the Bible extensively with the help of concordances and other study guides and I know what it says, and I know what is preached--at least in the churches in the southern U.S. and I know that most churches preach the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Christ, who by the way I have the utmost respect for. I know that I trust nothing that depends on fear to control its subjects, and I guess I spend a certain amount of energy developing a reasonable argument about my beliefs because I live in an area where nearly everyone is Christian and complete strangers knock on my door on a regular basis to try to save my soul. While I actually discuss my beliefs with very few people, there are a few people with whom I sometimes feel compelled to discuss my beliefs.

quoted by Danustouch:
_____________________________________________
I try to look at the story itsself, as a piece of literature. And separate my personal defense mechanisms, from it...

When I do that..I start to say.."Ya know what..this is a pretty good story, about a God who loved his people so much... yadda yadda yadda". There is SOME value in the story. I may not build my life around it. Or agree with every teaching that the religion holds, but I recognize why it is valuable to others. And what the theme is. The theme of it is, that God wants a relationship with Man. He loves them. That's pretty much it for me. That's what it all means to me.
____________________________________________________

I suppose too, I still have some issues with Christianity and with what I see as the emotional and spiritual wounds I still carry, even though I've been working through that stuff for years. It's all tied up in some mental health issues and some addictive behaviors. So the "story" is so intimately woven into the fabric of my thinking and world view that it's like picking a red thread from an enormous tapestry: the work is never ending and the holes that are left must be filled with something else for the picture to make any sense.
I know this is a long post, but thanks for the dialogue. I've gotten some insight about some things.

tabcat

January 11th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Danustouch
____________________________________________________

Really? Hmmm...do you advocate open relationships then? Do you think it's okay for your boyfriend/husband to sleep with other women?

Why is it differen't. In Christian theology. God loves you. He wants you to love him, and wants your devotion. not that differen't, IMO. [/B]
____________________________________________________

Actually, I don't believe in open relationships (for me anyway), and the two are not the same, IMO. Here's why: my husband and I entered into a relationship by our own free will (there's that pesky term again). We have made a commitment to one another to love and devote ourselves to the other because that's what we choose to do.
From the Christian tradition that I come from God does not really give his creations any choice but to love him. God doesn't WANT our love but demands it. There is a difference. To me it's kinda like an overbearing mother or father who because they gave birth to a child believe that child owes them utter love and devotion. However, love is only love when it's freely given. If there are demands or strings attached, it's not love. It's obligation.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 09:31 PM

But....here we come to the crucial point that so many who still have so much bitterness toward christianity as a religion, hold (for the record, I have faced many of the same situations from "christian" people as you have. ) The problem is NOT with the religion itsself..but how it has been interpreted, and then related, by others.

When you try to look at the Bible objectively, and take the central theme of it into account, instead of nitpicking verses which may seem to conflict with eachother, you see that the Bible itsself is a story woven with the central theme of Love. For eachother, and God. This doesn't mean that I may agree with every single commandment, or doctrine of the bible. I don't. However, Sometimes, it helps to realize that the Bible is a book. Supposedly devinely inspired. However, once it is placed in HUMAN hands, it gets interpreted, by humans. So the preachers that you encountered, and the people you encountered, had their own spin on it. Their own motivations for teaching the things they've taught. They're own beliefs, and their own insights. They are human. With flaws. Not perfect. They may take verses out of context, in order to try to drive home a point that they believe in. They may misinterpret passages, or verses. They may "add" their own opinions into biblical themes in their sermons. They may add their own flavor to the message.

I don't have a problem with Christianity as a valid religion. It's simply not valid to me, for my own reasons. However, I realize that there are those who will twist ANY sacred text, to fit into their own worldviews. And many of the "hateful" christians I've encountered, and that you seem to have encountered, have probably done just that.

Christianity doesn't fit into my worldview. And thus, I'm not a Christian. Christianity doesn't fit into your worldview, and thus, YOU are not a Christian. However, there is still some value in some of its teachings. And it still holds immense value to many of its' adherants. Just like we can't make others understand OUR faith, we can't demand that they make us understand theirs. If a Christian stands in front of me, ramming his religion down my throaght, yep...your danged right I'll debate it, and defend my beliefs. However, I don't really see the need to debate them when I'm alone, Or amongst others of my own faith (in other words, I don't generally hang around with other pagans, poking holes in Christianity. I'd rather spend the time talking about my own faith...as I said..unless a christian is MAKING me defend my faith to him/her).

The point is..just because it doesn't fit into your worldview..does not mean that it's worthless, pointless, or wrong. It just means that you have some personal issues with parts of it. That's cool. That's why you do have free will. Just don't let it consume you. Realize that while it may not be right for you, it is right for some.

Danustouch

January 11th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Incidentally Tabcat...i've tried to explain to you the argument that they make, about it NOT being an "obligation" to love God. But a Choice. That the choice carries with it natural consequences (such as a separation from God). But...I can't make you understand it. You are pretty dedicated to your idea's about it.... Just know that some of the idea's of Christianity you were taught, are not held by all Christians.

Marchosias

January 12th, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Raevyn

Next, just because people were created by God doesn't mean they aren't tempted by Satan. Assuming Satan exists it's perfectly possible for him to enter our lives after we're created.

Of course. And its a good thing, in many cases.

FLipsiDE

January 14th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Here I was going to play Devil's advocate and defend Christianity but Danustouch did such a good job I feel the need to rebalance. (It's the Discordian in me... )

The idea (as proposed by several of my Christian apologetic friends and presented by Danustouch) that God does not create Hell, that we create our own hell through the choices of "to have a relationship with God or not to" in no ways frees Him of the blame. As creator of the universe He would still bear the burden of having created a system where the rules of the game (eternal game) are so tremendously high, without providing information or verification about the game. If you don't know the game is going on and you don't know the rules but will be punished for 'loosing', then Free Will is meaningless.

As far as Hell not being fire and brimstone, I suspect that is a "liberal" conspiracy... one that is neither approved of by the deeply fundamentalist Christian groups nor necessarily Biblically accurate.

Rev 19:20 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Luke 16:23
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of
his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Matt 25:41 implies eternal punishment also.

I guess it depends on what parts of the Bible people decide is literal and what parts aren't... Much more palatable are the parts that suggest that the sinful soul will be utterly destroyed instead.

Good defense Danus... where's Bel? I think he would appreciate this thread. I am grabbing quotes from "fire and brimstone" sites, but there is a chance I (or the original posters :) ) have not read them correctly.

Danustouch

January 15th, 2003, 12:41 AM

As creator of the universe He would still bear the burden of having created a system where the rules of the game (eternal game) are so tremendously high, without providing information or verification about the game. If you don't know the game is going on and you don't know the rules but will be punished for 'loosing', then Free Will is meaningless.

But..that's just it. In Christian Theology..they believe they DO know the rules of the game..it's all there in the Bible.

As far as Hell not being fire and brimstone, I suspect that is a "liberal" conspiracy... one that is neither approved of by the deeply fundamentalist Christian groups nor necessarily Biblically accurate.

Again, here you say the "Deeply fundamentalist Christian Groups". Yes..well...these, imo...tend to be a little on the dramatic and militant side anyway...having a "motive" to preach this idea...the motive being to convert people any which way they can, even if it includes "fear tactics". Deeply Fundamentalist Groups, of any religious denomination, tend to raise my hackles...they're generally pretty frightening folk, who will take the "worst" translation of any doctrine, and apply it to situations..just look at fundamentalist Isamic Groups... like Al Queda, and Islamic Jihad.

As far as not being biblically accurate, well...I'd really have to look up the latin/greek/hebrew translations to be able to verify the meaning/translation of "Fire", and then also look at the context those verses were written in.

Fire, might be equal to "Torment" for instance. and "Torment" can come in any number of forms. People often relate "Desire" to "Burning" after all... or even "Inspiration".

The verse you quoted from Luke, kind of stands to actually prove my point, in a way...he was separated from Lazarus.. and Abraham. Kept distant from them..there you see the "separation" theory.

I don't have my bible near me, so I can't really dissect it any further than that.... because to do so might be taking it out of context. He may have been speaking figuritively/poetically.

FLipsiDE

January 15th, 2003, 07:49 PM

But..that's just it. In Christian Theology..they believe they DO know the rules of the game..it's all there in the Bible.

So get a sample of each denomination to agree on what is necessary and what is not necessary for entrance to Heaven and what actions or inactions merit ANY form of eternal punishment, even if the punishment is 'simply' mind numbing loneliness.

I know that these kinds of views are usually propogated by the militantly fundamentalist types, the problem is, if no one calls them on it then these views get spread to the moderates of that religion and eventually it becomes standard doctrine. When someone makes a statement like "God hates fags" or "women should be servile to their husbands" most people react with a bit of horror. "What century did YOU just come from?"

But many Fundamentalist positions should produce no less horror, but the meanings are less obvious and more implied. Doctrinal positions on the inferiority of women to men or the evils of homosexuality, the fate of non-believers to an eternal torturous damnation, the literalness of revealed scripture in the face of empirical evidence... these things may be fine as long as the pagan ideal of "you have your way and I have mine" are followed. But fundamentalist politicking against sexual rights, whether abortion, homosexuality or birth control (And in Islam female circumcision), religious freedoms like the right to be a Wiccan in the Army or Islam prohibitions against converting people in Muslim states or Chinese restrictions against worship, or trying to reduce the state of general education through "Creation Science" or school prayer is going beyond that ideal. If no one stands up and says "you know, that doesn't make sense" then the fight against these kinds of actions is partially lost right there. If you allow these assumptions to remain unchallenged then you are conceeding defeat in the ideology.

The problem is that it is easy to become rude, and thus alienate the audience. Tie this to a general fundamentalist trait of "they disagree so they must be anti-_______" and it's very difficult to get a valuable discussion or debate to say "Look. I understand what you believe and I disagree about the value of your intentions AND the ideology behind it, but I am not out to destroy your religion. I just disagree."

But I find when talking to my Lutheran friend that her and her Father have accepted a LOT of fundamentalist positions simply because no one has ever disagreed with them. There is a value in these questionings that does not lie only with destroying or degrading another person's faith. There is a value in the question and the process of it's answer, whether I agree with the result or not.

Danustouch

January 15th, 2003, 10:39 PM

But...Flipside, I'm saying basically the same thing. I don't agree with ALOT of Christian Doctrine. But...I also don't need to go about screaming about it all the time, or saying that it's utter B.S. I simply choose NOT to follow it, NOT to support it, and to find a better battleground on which to fight those things which I am utterly against.

IMO...very few people have been converted from such fundamentalist views, to more liberal ones, through debate. So why bother debating it? IMO..it's a futile attempt to be understood, when often, there is simply NOT enough common ground to reach any point of agreement. MY solution to the issue, is NOT to debate it, unless they bring it TO my face, and I HAVE to deal with it. I don't go seeking it out. What I do instead, is vote for the candidates which support my views. Educate people about MY views (people who are more open, and receptive). Educate people about the topics which are important to me. Sign petitions, call my senators, and all of that. THAT, unfortunately, is a far more likely way to make sure that your feelings are represented in the world, then arguing with these folks.

As far as the differences in denominations, they simply don't need to agree on every facet. Just as a Gardenarian doesn't have to agree with a Dianic on every facet. Sure...the more fundamentalist evangelicals might say that the lutherans are wrong for one thing, and the lutherans might say the evangelicals are wrong for another... but... I find that denominations within Christianity function MUCH like those within Paganism. As differen't as they may be in many doctrines, if a Christian is oppressed in some foreign country, MOST Christian denomination, if not all, will work to release that oppressed person from their oppressors (one case being the two girls who were jailed in afghanistan, for preaching...although I would personally disagree that that was oppression).

You don't have to allow these things to remain unchallenged, you just have to choose your battle ground. My battleground is making sure that the fundamentalist regime does NOT dictate legislation. And that it doesn't prevent me from pursuing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't personally care whether those fundamentalists believe In a firey hell, or that I'll go to hell...because I know my own truth. What I CAN say, is that I find that many of the doctrines proposed by Fundamentalists, come from misinterpretations, or embellishments. As for the rest...hey..they're allowed to believe what they want to believe. Some of it still has merit. It may not make sense to me, but I must admit that it DOES make sense to them. And that there IS some thought process, and rationale, behind some of it.

Belteshazzar

January 16th, 2003, 03:26 PM

Lucy! ....I'm home! :D

hello everyone, I hope all of you are having a blessed year thus far.

I read through this thread very quickly, and here are my observations if anyone is interested.

1. Grey's argument is a non-sequitor. (it does not follow) One can't use logic to make his argument and then break the laws of logic to do it.

A. God is good.
B. God made everything.
C. Everything is good. (does not follow)

2. Danu- did a great job defending the Christian position, and in doing so demonstates how Grey's argument is a non-squitor. However, Danu- in turn offers up her own non-sequitor by saying that "Christianity is vaild, but not valid for her".

If Christianity (which is founded in Christ) is valid, then when Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father (Father of all) but by Me" (John 14:6), this statement is valid as well.

If Danu's position of "many paths" or "different paths" is valid, then Christianity cannot be.

3. Hi Flip! Good to see you are still around! I like what you said about the importance of determining what is literal and what is figurative.

And Danu made some great points of how people/ministers manipulate scripture to say whatever it is that fits their personal agendea. BTW, it is not just the fundies who do that, the libs do it consistantly.

ahhh ...it's great to be back!

shaz

p.s. ....Is it time to change my avatar?? ...what do you think I should do, ...funny, ..sexy ...or what?

Danustouch

January 16th, 2003, 03:39 PM

If Danu's position of "many paths" or "different paths" is valid, then Christianity cannot be

Shaz, I believe that there are already numerous threads about this issue, which both you and I have participated in. Let's keep that debate to those threads, and keep this one directed toward answering Grey's statement/question :)

Two different' debates, imo :)

Welcome back, go for the sexy avatar. Can't wait to see it.

And of course, both fundies and libs twist contextual interpretations of biblical text. However, in my experience, liberals try to go more along the lines of interpreting verses in context with the entire "theme" of the Bible, while Fundamentalists often take a differen't approach, interpreting them to meet their own agenda.

Brief example, Liberals try to concentrate more on the theme of "Love" in the Bible (which I believe is the overriding theme of the Bible), while the fundamentalists will often say in one breath, God is Love, and in the next "He's jealous and wrathful". That's my take on it. Liberals tend to stay away from the "jealous and wrathful" statements, more often, because there are simply far more messages of Love in the Bible, then those which talk of hatred, jealousy, or wrath. I used to actually KNOW the numbers that the word love was used, as opposed to the word punishment. But...they slipped my mind when I left Christianity :)
So..my "interpretation" of this, is that Liberals will take the overriding theme, Love, something good, which appeals to most people...and try to use that as their means of witnessing, while a fundamentalist will use "Love" and when that doesn't work...they'll use "Wrath" (fear tactic). So...I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I see the Fundamentalist Radicals (such as Falwell) twisting it far more often, and far more vocally, then I do the liberals.

FLipsiDE

January 16th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Welcome back Bel! My vote: Sexy. Something in stretch leather, rubber and lace. ;)

How is Grey's statements a non-sequitor? I know how I would attack his premise but non-sequitor wasn't what I had in mind...

But there are plenty of non-literal (symbolic) ways to take that quote from John.

So what do you think Bel? Burning sulfurous Hell or "I can see through the window but chose not to come in" kinda Hell?

Belteshazzar

January 16th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by FLipsiDE
How is Grey's statements a non-sequitor? I know how I would attack his premise but non-sequitor wasn't what I had in mind...

Consider Grey's conclusion: "5)therefore everything is good and evil does not exist"

If evil does not exist, then niether does good.

How can something be "good", if there is no other option?

How can man have volition, it there are no wrong choices?

Grey's argument ultimately leaves him "amoral".

Moreover, if evil does not exist, then Grey could not say that anything is wrong. Lieing, cheating, rape and murder are all amorally acceptable according to his logic.

But there are plenty of non-literal (symbolic) ways to take that quote from John.

So what do you think Bel? Burning sulfurous Hell or "I can see through the window but chose not to come in" kinda Hell?

I think, that if it makes literal sense, make no other sense of it, lest you come up with non-sense.

I don't believe in a literal flesh barbquing hell.

I believe that metaphors and symbolic language is used to communicate the spiritual torment that a person will experience when he/she can no longer fulfill his/her carnal lust. True spirituality comes when we can deny ourselves, and we are born of God's Spirit. The scriptures say that God is a "consuming fire". The Holy Spirit came in the form of fire, and is symbolized by fire. Since becoming a Christian, God continues to turn up heat in my life and burn up the hay and stuble (hence the parables) of my flesh (carnal man), and in doing so develope the spiritual man. And I want you to know, it does burn. However, I say "let it burn!"

Could it be that the "lake of fire" is symbolic of God's consuming fire? A state where God removes the carnal/sinful condition of man by separation? Is this state temporal and not eternal?

As for me, "I know whom I have believed in, and I am conviced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him against that day." I know that God's plan is much bigger than I am, and God will accomplish all that He desires.

shaz

Marchosias

January 16th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Hey hey, Beltie's back!

FLipsiDE

January 20th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Non-sequitor. Oh! Yeah... heh heh. That works.

Bel: Moreover, if evil does not exist, then Grey could not say that anything is wrong. Lieing, cheating, rape and murder are all amorally acceptable according to his logic.

I disagree. Evil is a theological concept, wrong is a social one. I can think something is wrong even if I do not believe it is evil. (note my tolerance of Republicans)

This next bit is probably getting a bit off tangent so if you want to move it to a new thread, I'm cool with that.

Hell is major sticking point for me, whether fire and brimstone or the more "compassionate" eternity of angst and wailing.

Bel: I believe that metaphors and symbolic language is used to communicate the spiritual torment that a person will experience when he/she can no longer fulfill his/her carnal lust.

First off...

Bel: I think, that if it makes literal sense, make no other sense of it, lest you come up with non-sense.
Why should I take those quotes from Luke(16:23-24), Revelations(19:20) and Matthew(25:41) as less than literal if they make literal, if unpleasant, sense?

secondly...
So if God made us why do we have these lusts? Why do chages in brain chemistry and age make us view these lusts differently? If this was a spiritual thing then changes in brain chemistry shouldn't have anything to do with it. Different people have different strength lusts (Man does that sound like a condom ad or what?). Is it fair that some people are born without much interest in sex (or food or wealth or whetever) while other are born with a tendancy towards mania? Why would God punish us for eternity from such a biased test? If I was born with some hormone deficiencies that made adoption of the Christian moral imperatives easy as breathing, should I be rewarded as much as the fellow who tends towards manic obsessions but who somehow manages to overcome such obstacles? (food, sex, gambling, alchohol, drugs)

What if research show that Homosexuality is a matter of placental hormones? Then it would have a biological basis and that would complicate this issue further. Why should one person be punished for a brain that only sends happy thoughts :hearteyes when looking at the same sex?

Genetics and brain chemistry are at least partly to blame for much alchoholism, depression, mania, or schitzophrenia. Add this to a brain wired to be human and not to be holy and you have people turning to drink or drugs or sex or violence to create social ties or for comfort or to forget. All of this varying disposition towards sin...

When eternal punishment is on the line you think the test would at least be standardized. :D

Grey

January 22nd, 2003, 11:38 PM

ahh but flipside the test is "standardised" in that my friend and most christians I know believe that simply by accepting jesus as thine personal saviour shall garuantee heaven no matter what the crime as he is all forgiving....

as for the biological stuff go to the buddhist philosophy "as above so bellow, as bellow so above" if your spirit is affected so is you body, you can also see this kind of thing on "the matrix" and its common dogma in most multiplanar theologies as far as I can see, except of course were theyre condsidered compltetely differrant realms of the same world...

Illuminatus

January 23rd, 2003, 11:37 AM

It's really a blindingly simple paradox. God cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent, because there's no room for evil in that equation.

It's not the only paradox in Christianity, just the most blatant.

- Ill

FLipsiDE

January 23rd, 2003, 03:21 PM

Is it that simple Grey? :eyebrow: If so them Mormons and Catholics will get into heaven too... what about Unitarians? Their doctrines do not even require that belief and I THINK they are still technically considered Christians... not sure though. The stated belief that a simple faith in Jesus is all that is required means that all the people that SagaDrago condemns for being Sunday Christians and the people that Bel says don't understand what it really means to be a Christian would also get into heaven, regardless of their lack of fervor or misconceptions. So why wouldn't all Christians simply find the most lax denomination that would still get them entrance? I know you made your first statement sarcastically, just addressing it anyways. :)

The second point is kind of neat... hmm.. the Muslims used to have an idea that if you were born with a defect of any kind then it was a sign of Allah's disfavor, a stain or blemish on your soul. You were barred from many positions of trust or power if you were less than physically sound. I've also heard Pagans use a similar theory for Karma, the things that happen to you in this life are the result of past sins or choices made by the soul before being incarnated again. Either way I find it an abhorrent theology.

Grey

January 27th, 2003, 01:38 AM

Yes It is that simple. As for the denuciation of "sunday christians" these are people who go to church etc, etc but dont get the real message, dont really open theyre heart to jesus. As for mormons... theyre considered a small step above pagans by most christians in this area and the other places Ive stayed in long enough to find out. The catholics.... Even they do not denie that if you accept jesu as your savoir youll go to heaven as even they say he is all forgiving... hence the prcatice of confession, the spiritual rebirth at ones baptising and dclaration ceremonies.

Thank you illuminatus, that was my poin exactly.

JimWA

February 3rd, 2003, 03:40 PM

A pragmatic persons guide to the Bible. I judge things in how useful they are in helping me relate to others and the world.

The first thing that I get from the bible is that we are all made of the same earth and share the same breath. This unity of humanity is very good and cannot be undone. The universe itself is declared to be very good and nothing can change or undo that.

Now I come to the Fall. The Fall is not about forbidden knowledge or power. The is no such thing as forbidden knowledge. The Fall is about how power and knowledge are used. First we are told to use our power and knowledge to bring everything together in its natural unity. The thing that is forbidden is to use knowledge and power to exclude others. Use knowledge to define who's inside the fold and who's outside the fold. Use knowledge and power to define who is evil and who is good.

The only thing to change by the Fall is our perception of the universe. Because of it we have a hard time seeing the universe as good, but the original unity still exists. It's just very hard to see. We have so many generations of using power to exclude behind us that we see this state of affairs as natural. This is another product of the Fall. The Fall is an unnatural state. The unity that exists behind it all is our natural state. You just have to make your way back to it. To start, you need to think about all you do and say in terms of whether it serves to include or exclude.

Do I think that I have to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior to be saved, not a chance. If this makes me a non-christian, then so be it. For me salvation is my birthright and it is yours also. The so called Christian way of salvation only serves the Fall. It serves to put people in one of two groups. This is doing the same thing that is forbidden by the bible. This puts me in an inbetween position, not a christian and not a pagan although I tend to get along with pagans better.

FLipsiDE

February 3rd, 2003, 05:30 PM

Hey JimWA,

First off: Yes. I am sure that very few people would call you a Christian with that declaration. Not an insult, just a statement that your view is VERY un-orthodox.

Second off: (This should be Bel's job. Where'd you go bud?) So everything is about Inclusion or Exclusion? So what happens when someone you strongly suspect to be an (as yet uncaught) child molester moves into your neighborhood, in between your house and your kid's school? Would you tell your child to avoid that person? Avoid there house? Wouldn't that be an Exclusionary type action? What if that person honestly believed that adult-child sex was good for both, not just some mental problem? How about the rapist or the crack dealer? Kicking them out of your neighborhood would be pretty Exclusionary wouldn't it? Aren't borders and tarrifs exclusionary? How about fishing rights or Nuclear bans that won't let Korea have the same nukes that China and the US have? If you use public services (water, roads, land) then you have taken them from animals who were using them before, is that a type of exlusion or is it ok if they aren't human? ;)

The Bible is full of rules. Some very clear and others implied. To say that the whole Bible is Exclusive or Inclusive it to completely ruin the purpose of it. The Old Testament was the history and religious justification for the current state of affars of a people. It was and is the codex of Jewish heritage. It wasn't in any way meant to be 'inclusionary' as it has VERY specific language about how the Hebrews are the 'chosen' people of God. It makes no effort to appologize to the Babalonians or Egyptians for misrepresenting their religions, nor for providing a one sided view on the wars they fought. That's because it wasn't written for them. (heck. Wasn't written for a long time. Oral history.)

In the ten commandments, the cornerstone of Christianity and Judaism, the first four rules are very Exclusionary. "Love me, only me, no others, don't use my name willy nilly, my day is special, and ixnay on the images-ay, " (first 3 in Catholic). It's one of the many complaints put forward when someone tries to plaster the Ten Commandments on the wall in Schools or Court. It IS exclusionary.

But that's not neccessarily a bad thing. (Except in school or court or government)

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with your sentiments exactly. You can pull some very good things from the Bible, but you are doing so very selectively. :)

JimWA

February 4th, 2003, 02:54 PM

Dear flipsIDE,
I kept my commetary only on the first 3 chapters of the bible, so if it seemed that I was being selective it's because I was being selective. On this kind of forum, one can not write a five page essay. Next, I took this to be a Pagan forum. I'd like to hear some more pagan points of view. My point odf view might qualify as nonchristian but I don't know if it qualifies as pagan.

The first 3 chapters in the bible is among the most powerful stories in the world. Just by knowing the story it colors your outlook on life. It doesn't matter what religion you profess. Once known you are tainted by it. There is no getting around it, you can only deny it has effected you.

At our core we have two basic spirits we walk in. The first one is inclusive and it's children trust, mercy, love, compassion... The other is exclusive and it's children strife, hate, fear.... It's more complicated than that as we usually waver between the two extremes.

As for child molesters, my first responsiblility is to protect my children, my second responsibility would be about his redemption. Sin and the original sin are very real to me. Evil is not an illusion, a delusion maybe but not an illusion. It has real consequences. To walk again in the spirit of inclusiveness after falling out of it, one must deal with the mistakes and consequences. Everyone will in the long run bow and apologize to God for the trouble they've caused. Even the serpent from the garden himself will do so and do it of his own free will. That's destiny.

Mithrea

February 4th, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by JimWA
On this kind of forum, one can not write a five page essay. Next, I took this to be a Pagan forum.

Actually, some members do write that much but I'm not mentioning any names ;) :p

Also, just because it says "Online Pagan Community" on the sign doesn't mean we are all pagan. This community is inclusive to all paths because of the number one rule: respect. We have Christian members, Hindu, Jewish, and many other non-pagn members as well members from many different paths in the pagan community and people who have no specific path at all. Be prepared to get many different viewpoints on anything you post here. That's what makes this site great :)

FLipsiDE

February 4th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Ow. Sorry Mithrea, sometimes I get going though... (I TRY to edit it down! Honest!)

JimWA. Hmm... maybe I'm just reading more into the words you are using. I very firmly disagree that Inclusive and Exclusive are meant to be used in the context of good and evil.

The first 3 chapters in the bible is among the most powerful stories in the world. Just by knowing the story it colors your outlook on life. It doesn't matter what religion you profess. Once known you are tainted by it. There is no getting around it, you can only deny it has effected you. Ever heard of Memes? very cool and I agree. It does taint your worldview. But so does hearing the Sumerian version of Noah's ark. MUCH more sensible. For that matter, ANY idea or story that you pay enough attention to has some subtle (or not so subtle) effect on your worldview. This theory might be why some people tremble at the thought of their children reading Harry Potter books... memetic engineering at it's most insidious! (But certainly no worse than Bible Study coloring books, memetically speaking.)

So you believe in Original Sin? But you sound like you don't believe in Hell... very curious theology. I personally can find no redeming features in the notion and consequences of original sin. "Guilty until proven innocent" The Fall has too many faults in it for me... as a Mythology it's fine, as the basis for a literalist religion I think it has some bad seeds in it that mature into bad messages.

Mithrea

February 4th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by FLipsiDE
Ow. Sorry Mithrea, sometimes I get going though... (I TRY to edit it down! Honest!)

;) I didn't say there was anything wrong with it . . . :lol:

Danustouch

February 4th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Actually, some members do write that much but I'm not mentioning any names

I resemble this remark!:p

Mithrea

February 4th, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Danustouch
I resemble this remark!:p

;) :D

Xander67

February 4th, 2003, 11:20 PM

well... sometimes it takes a few extra words to get your idea across lol...

JimWA

February 5th, 2003, 01:46 PM

I'm glad to see people taking all this with a sense of humor. This means that we are not taking our own points of view to seriously. This gives room for growth. The point I'm trying to make is that the subject matter is rich and complex, and I can't give a full account of my point of view in one post or 29 posts. This means I take anybody else's post as just a small part of there philosophy or belief system or whatever you want to call it.

Ravens_Tears

February 5th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Grey
I often debate my buddy jordan about topics of religion. as hes a christian it often ends up that well be talking over the bible more than anything else.
one day we decided to debate the nature of evil. he was using referances only from the bible while was from various other sources trying to get a definition of wrong. He eventualy went on to say that the devil and also satanism were evil. And that paganism was by its definition a sin against god (from a christian point of view). So here was the counter argument I used

1)god mad everything including the universe itself
he agrees
2)god is 100% good
he agrees
3)the three wise monkey concept (that unless youve experienced evil you cant do it) was correct
he agrees
4) therefore since god made everything and hes 100% good nothing can be bad as he made them all and is impossible of doing wrong. On top of wich since he knows all even if he had been able to create evil he wouldnt have as he would know what would happen.
5)therefore everything is good and evil does not exist

any comments or problems you see with the argument??

Your argument is unsound, as the statements agreed upon to make this argument are not accurate.

It is true that based upon Biblical teachings, paganism and practicing craft are considered sins against God and therefore, considered evil. (The term "pagan" it's self is of christian origins, it is the lable given to those who do not believe or practice bibilical teachings.) However, I am not aware of any statement in the bible (which is supposed to represent the word of God) that implies that God is 100% "good. He is called the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, he is ALL. The bible also claims that God is loving and forgiving but also jealous and vengeful. Satan was an angel that was cast out down to earth from heaven as punishment for his vanity, for thinking he was more than his creator.

What this says to me is that God cannot be 100% "good"
That satan was cast out to the earth implies to me that Hell is where we dwell now, as we are living on the earth and it is supposed to be satan's domain.

As far as the "three monkeys" statement, that is more a question of "nature vs nurture". Not a particularly apt premisis for this particular arguement.

By the way, I am not Christian.

Sorry for the brevity but I see people are not particularly enthused by long posts....

Mithrea

February 5th, 2003, 11:24 PM

I will repeat for those of you who aren't following. I didn't say that it's bad to write long posts. I was only pointing out that many people write a great deal to JimWA because he commented on the subject. Write as much as you want and don't use me as an excuse to not explain yourself fully if you so desire.

JimWA

February 6th, 2003, 02:36 PM

Don't let my opinion stop you from making a post as long as you want. My thinking is that if we keep them shorter it will tend to make the thread more a dialogue instead of a series of monologues, but if you feel you need the space to express yourselves, don't let my opinion stop you. I'm interested in reading anything you have to write.

As for all the points of view expressed on this thread. They've all been argued before in one way or another. Even my philosophy has been put forth before by Origen, a 3rd century christian theologian who was excummunicated because his theology was to pagan for the church but on the other hand he was to christian for the pagans.

FLipsiDE

February 10th, 2003, 09:50 PM

hee hee... don't worry Mithrea. I might feel guilty when I hit the submit button on my 20 volume dissertation but I'd do it anyways if it was what I felt was required. :)

Ravens_tears, It might not directly say it "26:2 And lo God said "I am 100% good" in the Bible but the concept is pretty much assumed by most Christians. The idea that they were worshipping a not good God would worry some people. Also, it mentions in the bible in a bunch of places that god is Good, is all that is good and stuff in that vein. Finally, I think it's one of those basic principles. God is perfect. It is better to be good than evil. Good must be perfectly good. How He can be Jealous AND perfectly good... now that's a bit beyond me. ;)

JimWa, yeah. Most people here have a pretty good sense of humor. Somethings have to be written out in long form... a discussion is better but it COULD reduce the conversation to sound bytes and bumperstickers. I like to not only make my statement but try and explain why or if I am attacking ask questions to get the other person to see where I'm coming from. I like pointing out fallout from stated beliefs... if you believe in original sin and the Fall and the apocalypse then there is a lot of fall out from that. One of my favorites is Timothy 2:11-15 that tell us that women should not teach or participate in discussions like this because they are easily led astray. It is a logical statement... if you believe in the Fall and Original Sin as described in Genesis.

Mithrea

February 10th, 2003, 11:08 PM

JimWA

February 11th, 2003, 04:00 PM

I miss used the term original sin, my bad. For me no one has commited the original sin because they are decendants of Adam and Eve. I don't agree with the orthodox interpretation of the bible. I think I've made that clear in the past. For me original sin represents the spirit behind sin. The Sin that is the cause of all sins. Again, it's about how power and knowledge are used.

Do you believe that goodness is the ultimate power in the universe? I do.

FLipsiDE

February 11th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Personally do I believe that goodness is the ultimate power in the universe?

No.

I believe that "good" is a human idea and only makes sense if you ask a very specific group of humans in a very specific region and time. Between times and places, what is "good" changes radically.

Turkish soldiers used to go into Hungarian towns and take a babe from the arms of a mother. They would toss the babe in the air and catch it. With their bayonets. It was Heathen women making Heathen babies who would all burn in Hell anyways. It all seems "good" if you buy into some basic assumptions...

There are species of Mites where the brothers and sisters have sex while still inside the mother's womb. When the time comes the womb explodes, killing the mother and releasing the daughters to go find other hosts. The male doesn't even have a mouth because he doesn't ever live long enough to need to eat. He ponies his sisters and starves to death beside the corpse of his mother.

"Good" is a human concept and only makes sense when we are VERY specific when chosing our audiences.

That said, I DO believe that there are aspects of the Divine that are intentionally closer to us than the Divine can ever be. These masks or faces can be as perfectly good as is possible. These faces of the Divine are what I consider most Gods or spirits to be and they reflect the same definitions of "good" or "evil" as the communities that spawned them. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Coyote, Raven, Odin, Shiva, Kali, Isis, Osiris, Czernog... all faces of the Divine, all appropriately moral or immoral to their culture and times.

:D But I happily admit my ignorance on the subject as I have recieved no divine revelations confirming my opinions on the subject. (But none that have told me I'm wrong either!)

Merrick

February 1st, 2005, 08:08 PM

yea i also have been told many times that i would burn in hell and suffer eternal pain until i will b thrown at Gods feet on judgment day and there banished to hell a second time......

charming i know

....and i say i dont believe in hell so how can i go to a place i dont believe exists?

i dont think i wanna go to heaven either though. it states in the bible that heaven is a place where everyone gets to spend eternity on the floor in front of Gods throne worshipping him. fun. um, no thanks.
wheres the Goddess while all this is happeneing?

djmixon

February 2nd, 2005, 12:12 AM

Morr

February 2nd, 2005, 04:26 AM

I often debate my buddy jordan about topics of religion. as hes a christian it often ends up that well be talking over the bible more than anything else.
one day we decided to debate the nature of evil. he was using referances only from the bible while was from various other sources trying to get a definition of wrong. He eventualy went on to say that the devil and also satanism were evil. And that paganism was by its definition a sin against god (from a christian point of view). So here was the counter argument I used

1)god mad everything including the universe itself
he agrees
2)god is 100% good
he agrees
3)the three wise monkey concept (that unless youve experianced evil you cant do it) was correct
he agrees
4) therefore since god made everything and hes 100% good nothing can be bad as he made them all and is impossible of doing wrong. On top of wich since he knows all even if he had been able to create evil he wouldnt have as he would know what would happen.
5)therefore everything is good and evil does not exist

any comments or problems you see with the argument??

If Satan and his minions never experienced evil, since God is good and he created only good (since he himself never experience evil, though he is all knowing) - How did Satan & Co. turned sour and fell out of heaven? What triggered them? The need to rule heaven? What would make them revolt in the first place? If God is good - he would have treated them with goodness, no need to revolt there.

Also, whats up with the snake in the Genisis story. Again - God created only good, the Snake wouldnt be so sneaky as to tempt Eve.

I agree with the concept that each socity defines its idea of good and evil. I think this was discuissed in a thread I posted not too long ago, in "Just Talk" about how people think that I'm a psychotic evil person who should be put away because I'm interested in death and serial killers. People view me (and others who take intrest in these things) because death & serial killers are defined as "evil" or "bad" or "dark". Where as in other socities, it may have been viewed upon differently.

Same with ideas such as human sacrifice, canibalism, etc. Not to mention religous Dogmas and such.

You cant take one concept of what is "good" that is created by one specific socity that follows a specific religion - And apply it to the whole of the human population. Its just not possible.

As for Free Will - I dont believe any diety gave it to me or anyone else. I think this is part of being human. This is part of evolution of spiecies. We are not some chosen spiecie that some Diety decided to grant us Free Will. There are so many intellegent animals (dolphins and elephants for example) who closely act like humans, they have emotions and customs and even their own socities and tribes. I believe that later on in evolution, they would develop into even more intellectual beings - You never know.

EVEN if a Diety DID give us Free Will.. *shrugs* I bet its to make this show called "Earth and Its Humans" MUCH more interesting. If you'd be sitting up there stalking everyone and making sure they are "good" - Wouldnt it be boring if they really were just... good & prudish...? Throw in some FreeWill in there! You've got a great live 24/7 soap opera till the very day of the apocalypse.

Protagonist

February 2nd, 2005, 08:12 PM

I often debate my buddy jordan about topics of religion. as hes a christian it often ends up that well be talking over the bible more than anything else.
one day we decided to debate the nature of evil. he was using referances only from the bible while was from various other sources trying to get a definition of wrong. He eventualy went on to say that the devil and also satanism were evil. And that paganism was by its definition a sin against god (from a christian point of view). So here was the counter argument I used

1)god mad everything including the universe itself
he agrees
2)god is 100% good
he agrees
3)the three wise monkey concept (that unless youve experianced evil you cant do it) was correct
he agrees
4) therefore since god made everything and hes 100% good nothing can be bad as he made them all and is impossible of doing wrong. On top of wich since he knows all even if he had been able to create evil he wouldnt have as he would know what would happen.
5)therefore everything is good and evil does not exist

any comments or problems you see with the argument??
Has your friend ever read Candide? I recommend you recommend it to him.

I don't believe Evil exists. I believe Good exists, and that one can be farther from or Closer to Goodness, the state of being far from Goodness being that which we would commonly call evil. I think this generally jives with the idea of Higher Power that is Good, and therefore synonymous with Goodness. Yes, this means I'm saying that evil is the absence of Divinity, and I strongely believe this. In my personal worldview, I see those Beings that are Gods and Goddesses as being closest to the ultimate Higher Power, Goodness, First Cause, call it what you will. The best thing about my believing this is that, since this Higher Power is, in essence, Goodness, practicing goodness here on earth brings one closer to Divinity, not after death, but here.

Also, because of the whole Goodness = Higher Power thing, I feel that, yes, humans shouldn't do things this Higher Power wouldn't "like." Why would anyone want to, anyways, if all the One asked of us was goodness? It seems to me that this can be the only way to happiness. True happiness, that is. Some would argue that, by believing this, I am not truly "free," that is, I feel compelled to act in accordance with Goodness. I ask of them their definition of freedom. Freedom to do as one wishes doesn't see to me something that would lead to happiness; we often do not know what we want or need, make mistakes, and are unhappy because of it. Freedom from suffering is the sort of freedom I see as worth coveting.

Just for the record, Grey, don't worry - I don't think anyone thought you were being disrespectful to Christians. They just felt it should be mentioned, given that in the past, there's been a lot of outright pointless Christian-bashing.

Nemesis Descending

February 2nd, 2005, 11:22 PM

BlackMagicalCat

February 4th, 2005, 11:30 PM

i love my son,my son has an independant will,he is not a robot,if he does well,i will let him know and bless him,if he does evil,i will punish him acordingly,if he makes mistakes i will help him and guide him the best i can.evil does not exist? your kidding,right?have you read any newspaper lately?people murder in the name of god,molest children,kill and rape women,steal ,cheat,bambozzle,slander,lie,hate,decieve,trick,slander..ect...and you say there is no evil in us.i think we have all sinned and hurt someone at one time or another,and it isnt gods fault,its our own.i think when you harm an inocent child,an angel is taking you number and writing it down.

Morrighan61

February 11th, 2005, 02:03 AM

I have to admit I am often upset with Christianity as a religion. Mainly because it's followers never seem to follow through on Jeshua's teachings. I like him, but I just don't see him in a traditional manner. I don't really "get" those who do most of the time.

I thought I knew a "real" Christian once, and even that she was a dear friend. For years we had these wonderful theological discussions and even when we didn't agree we still loved each other enough to care about what the other person believed. But a couple of years ago she really showed me that I was completely wrong about her.

I showed her how folks in the current goverment were actively discriminating against pagans. I sent her quotes from Bush and his cronies that outright called MY religion "invalid" and "not real" and that if taken to the logical conclusion meant that "I" and others like me would NOT be given same rights to practice my faith as she, herself had. Yeah, I objected, and I fully expected her to be disgusted too despite our theological differences.

Instead she supported the bigotry and basically indicated that my because my religion wasn't valid to her my right to practice it meant nothing. That it was okay by her that some people in the goverment (who as elected officials are supposed to be representing ALL folks Christian, Pagan, or whatever) would support a viewpoint that gives rights to one religion over another, and that outright makes fun of another.

She sat there and silently condoned prejudice. When I called her on it? Her answer was that "as she grew older she was less tolerant and that she just didn't feel that since my beliefs were really valid to her that she could support them" and yes, she openly admitted she'd be more comfortable if I converted.

A decade and more and the whole time she was just sitting there treating my faith, the one I've practiced most of my life as a parlor game, something to be permitted albeit distastefully, but not encouraged....

I can't tell you how disillusioned and hurt I felt.

No, we're no longer friends. When I indicated that was utter hypocrisy to me she pretty much dropped me without so much as an "I'm sorry." Not even a letter telling me so....

I miss her.

I really do, but....

I pretty much feel it's her loss....

Do I think there are real "Christians" out there?

Sure.

Folks like Andrew Harvey and Matthew Fox....Maybe Rev Jones at Grace Cathedral here....but in general? I think they are few and far between in the religion that bears his name.

Most Christians I meet have a 'holier than thou" attitude towards other faiths that makes me perfectly sick and I don't think they "get" Jeshua of Nazareth at ALL...

Morrighan