Wow.  Where to start.  See it already became a "I'm right and you're wrong"....got a cliche for that one?

Illogical to you.  Is that my fault? I can't help it if I believe differently than you do and I cannot understand your position on saying I'm illogical...I really wish you knew, I do, so you could understand me.

Sit. Pick up the bible.  Read it.  Research what I read.  Discuss it with other christians to see where their interpretations are.  Find other interpretations from history.  compare.  see who really is accurate in context with the passage/chapter, in context with the full message, and move on.  Only PhD's need to pass off their resumes every time they speak; as for me it's not to say I'm going to sit here and justify myself when being taught by other theologians or critics of what the bible says until the truth of it is discovered, but I have this feeling that even if I went into that, you'd find a way to discredit me anyway...

Exactly.  I'm trying to tell you that your interpretation is wrong because without using the full bible in context, you can make use of it for your purpose which is not the purpose of the book.

Thing is, you take the one part of Romans 2 and leave out the other 15 chapters.  How is that not taking it out of context.  Why did I do it?  Because I had to in order to show your out of context conclusions were wrong and what part of the bible applies.  Now you went into a different line of thought, the line of Jesus and belief irrelevant so now we have to go down a different line....

My belief is that believing in Jesus is necessary for salvation.  For those who do not believe or have not heard of Jesus, I cannot say you are going to hell because I simply don't know what tomorrow will bring.  I don't know what God's purpose is for you so this morality issue is NOT what salvation is about....but since it was brought into the thread, I addressed it. 

Who said anything about leaving parts out?  When you submit to God's word, you take all of it.  That's why I wonder about "Gays for God" because if you take God's word, that is a contradiction.  Of course I don't know anyone from that group so I can't say they are living a contradictionary life... 

Putting words in my mouth (or should it be keyboard) now?  Why did you look more into the question than you had to?  I asked a simple question I thought...how moral are you when you don't believe....the other questions are NOT to you specifically or any single person here specifically, but asking are they moral or not. 

If there were moral ways to commit a crime, they wouldn't be called crimes to begin with would they? Driving without a license is a crime as determined by other men.  Doing so while helping someone else doesn't dismiss the crime but that doesn't mean that because it is man's law it will be applied.  Last I heard there aren't exceptions to any law; if there were they wouldn't be laws would they?

Ask them.  They are just as guilty for insulting atheism as well as other groups of individuals as well.  It is one thing to say where you are wrong in your interpretations but another to direct prejudgments about specific people without knowing them.  Without saying a word, I have nothing against you.  Once you open your mouth, if I don't agree with what you said that's when I will voice my stance and inform you as to where you are wrong.  It still does not mean that I am telling you, Hambydammit, or any other atheist as "immoral" or "evil" or "going to hell" because we don't believe the same thing.  Hell I won't even tell you that I feel sorry for you but while I'm alive, you are just a brother in life.  If I saw you in need of medical help or something like that I would not deny you that help even if I had to give it with my own two hands because you don't believe in God.  

Romans 12: 17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:  "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I didn't write any of those words....interesting how you managed to conclude that is what I wrote.  But you asked me to write it and you dismiss it....funny how I knew that would happen.

You asked the question, I answered it but I suppose because either my answer made you question or even perhaps fear the result, easier to dismiss than to understand right?  Easier to use earthly justification instead of trying to understand it from the spirtual point of view... 

This whole thng about jesus being necessary for salvation really gets me.  Others here have said much of what I have to say, but when I read things such as when one accepts and believes in jesus, they don't feel the temptation of sin, I don't know what to make of it.

 The no=true-Scottsman fallacy, which razor seems to have misunderstoof above, is taht only people who actually fit the ideal of a Christian are Christians.  The idea that if you still feel the temptation to backslide (or whatever term you want to use) makes you not a true Christian defines a Christian in such a way that makes the claim unfalsifiable.  That is, anyone who does give in to temptation becomes a false Christian automatically, no matter how much they believe or have otherwise been virtuous.

So what then? Do "true" Christians receive some changed emotional state where they no longer feel the "pull of the weasal" (that tugging of taht part of you that makes you wnat to do bad things)?  Do real Christians simply no longer feel temptation at all?  I doubt that anyone stops feeling temptation, while some may be able to withstand the desire.  

A further point is that some people don't consider what the Bible calls wrong to be wrong at all.  Others don't feel the desire to do bad things like steal, kill, or rape.  Then again, some do.  Sociopaths may need to fight against their urges in order to not hurt others.

 The bottom line is that whatever our desires are, they have a seat in the hormones, physiology of the brain, and other physical factors.    So, either true Christians have the right brain chemistry to not want to do what the Bible says is sinful, meaning that they are not struggling at all but have simply won the religious lottery, or God gives people who really believe a physiology make-over.  So, which is it?

because if the things I love to do, being the result of physiology, taste, and hormone levels are sinful, then the responsibility still falls on the one who designed me.  If God designed you to not desire things the Bible abhors, then you're life is not a struggle to live up to the Bible, and so you've really just gotten lucky.  But if you ever do want to, say, have sex with a woman who is not your wife, then you are as susceptable to temptation as anyone slse, and it is what you actually do that decides your moral worth, not what you believe.

Shaun 

Maybe I did misunderstand what it meant but to me it sounded more like "wait for the 'you'll never understand this part because you have to believe to understand it'." No Christian is perfect and the first one that claims to be is what the bible describes as a "false prophet." The only perfect person was not born of the flesh which is what exempts that; the belief that Jesus was from God. All Christians will fall to sin but that does not make them any less of a person just the same as if any atheist falls to sin/evil/illegal act.

As a Christian, it's not a changed emotional state but rather a change in lifestyle if you will. I didn't feel like a serial killer one minute and holier than thou the next. It's more likened to someone who truly quit smoking; even one look at a cig will make them feel ill and resist the temptation to smoke again. When you believe, and it becomes your life, you don't act the same or speak the same. That's about the best way I know how to describe it....

That would imply there are perfect people running around right now. Every person is not perfect. Every person on this planet has little devils on their shoulder telling them to do something against their better judgments. You really think that the pope never thought about sex or that [name a Christian] didn't ever have a "hate" thought at some point? No person is perfect and not one person will ever meet the laws of God as set from the old testament (Psalm 14, Romans 3). As Christians believe however, the way to stop acting like a fool is Jesus.

Earthly desires are just that. Every person has them and they will never end until God says so. The point however is understanding why Jesus came and what that gives you when you believe. That's where it changes along with your life. Earthly struggles, while never gone, are easier to confront (Romans 6)....this is what Christianity and the bible teach. 

It is a confusing book, believing in it or not.  This is why you have various denominations. Each form of Christianity took the book, decided they didn't agree with something the other churches did, and ran with it how they saw fit.  One of the most difficult things to describe much less understand is WHY.  Most denominational churches today became businesses instead of houses of worship and it's difficult to break out of that mindset at times.  I do not hate any of my Christian brothers because beyond the differences, which are all semantics, we are all believers in Jesus, which is the most important part.  Once you move beyond that though, it does get tough and sometimes, a bit argumentative.  I am by no means an expert on the book because obviously I had to learn what I know from someone else in study together, and though this the group I participate in study with we are all growing in understanding what it takes to actually understand what it is this book actually says.

A good example is the idea that you do not have control over your ability to believe to be saved; its not easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know God unless God wants you to know him.  But it is in the bible, and it removes the question of can we simply choose to believe.  You can LOSE your salvation, but to gain it is not accomplished by works or actions or even choice (Ephesians 2).  No one likes to think they do not have control over their lives and their eternal salvation is usually put into that mix.  

I guess the thing that probably causes the most interesting of discussions is when the bible is used to make a statement or point out of context, or worse, the driving force of traditions that even Jesus told us not to do.  Transforming it to mean something it does not is probably what causes the biggest issues between Christians and probably to a far greater degree, between theists and atheists (usually the problem is trying to differentiate if faith should exist vs. if the bible is correct - somehow those get intertwined and the discussion gets...ugly). I don't want to sound long winded but many of the issues between Christians deals with omissions of the text for the purposes of self and tradition.  Why people get caught up on the issues such as baptism (one says at birth, one says when adult, one says sprinkle water, one says dip head, one says dip whole body, and so on and so on) is why you see disagreement.  God's word translated and interpreted for man's use instead of God's use...and it will go on until the end of time.  Even today, seeing churches ignore parts of the bible to be politically correct...it was not what was intended.

Because you think that way today does not mean you will tomorrow (and I don't mean in the next 24 hours).  God will use whom he will and when he wants to and when that day comes is anyone's guess. My point...no one should worry about that, only what you have to deal with today.

Universal compassion is central to Christianity as well though it is hard to see that when you have some of the followers like the group at the Westboro Baptist Church and their site titled godhatesfags.com.  Perfect example of what I can only describe as fools perverting God's word for attention.

I'm not sure I understand you.  What do I think of God's control?  It is what it is...I'm not going to concern myself on that because God has me a bit more involved with a lot of other stuff... 

 I don't agree with that.  People are not Christian because they are afraid of going to hell; they are Christian for two reasons: they were born into it so that's all they know OR they were called.  That's it.  Hell has nothing to do with it at all.  Those who were born in it can be some of the best followers of Jesus but the traditions are what might hold them back from God's will.  That is why you see groups that distort the idea of "judging" beyond their church and do silly boycotts of companies.

 1 Corinthians 5: 12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

It is not for me to say who is in hell or who isn't and it should be that way for all Christians. 

I still don't quite understand the question.   I know may Christians that say they believe because it's what they grew up with or some, like sapient, didn't know God, may have found God, and then rejected God (I don't know him so I can't say one way or another).  Because you don't choose to believe, anyone called to believe is not an automatic shoe in and those never called to believe are not automatically going to hell either.  People following tradition however are probably the most dangerous as that is typically not from God but from man.  Those traditions can go from the silly to the extreme in a heartbeat and somehow, and this is the worst part, they use them to judge someone's faith.  

Many, many people are Christian because they fear hell. They  are taught this fear since early childhood, so its hard for them to separate this fear from their sense of reality. When I was younger, this was their first warning to me if we ever got into discussion; this is a fear with which they live their lives and instill in others to spread their faith. Even when I was ten though, I thought that living life with that kind of fear is absurd. hell is absurd.

You can deduce from the Bible (and people have showed me this reasoning) that if there is a hell, Buddha is in it. Buddha sinned. (he never claimed to be a prophet who transcended sin--his life was a process of becoming better). He lived 600 years before Jesus. The only way to heaven is through Jesus. so, this is why its easy for other Christians to tell me that Buddha (and Gandhi) is in a place/idea called Hell. Gandhi even lived after Jesus, and in his spiritual journey he didn't go through Jesus, but he did have a universal compassion for mankind. so, since he didn't arrive at his spiritual state through jesus, according to Jesus (says Christians), he's in hell.

Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

again, in principle, buddhists have nothing to fear, and in principle Christians have hell to fear if they do not 'choose' to accept Jesus as their savior.

The interpretation of these traditions is that jesus said the only way to heaven is through him; according to them, jesus is the one judging people's faiths.

Gee...I wonder if it could be that most on this site post on how Christians [as individuals] are...oh nevermind. 

So...what's your point? 

Na...I'm just a big hung up on misinterpretations and the use of scripture to mean something it doesn't.  Speaking of which, wasn't I asked by mouse about it?  Oh, and if I'm antsy about it...reactionary...

That's my point of being Christian because it's what you grew up with.  It wasn't Jesus' point to fear hell; his point was to change your life so hell isn't even in your thoughts.  Putting back there was not the purpose of Jesus at all.

I think that depends on what point of view you are coming from.  If you are coming from the Jewish point, that is to say the Old Testament, sure.  But if you are coming from the Christian point, that is the New Testament, then no that's not true.

Says Christians but not his word or the word of the NT.  Read Romans 2 and 1 Cor 5 (again).  It is not for a Christian to say who is or who isn't; only God. 

Hell is after death so what would it matter?

Depends on the tradition.  If someone is shouting you are going to hell because you are an athiest, that's not Jesus speaking at all. 

Awesome. I hear tell that most people who study things do research.

Would you mind providing me with some of the proofs you discovered in your research? If your position is the most logical, then there must be some proofs somewhere, since anything that is logical can be demonstrated.

I didn't ask what it's not. It's also not a six inch high gremlin name Howard. We could list things that are not other things all day.

So it's for punishing those people?

What kind of proofs do you mean? The kind that as I was reading the book and it said "holy bible" it was in fact a bible or something more profound like as I read the book I discovered the old testament, while relevant, no longer applies to a Christian?

Being without God for eternity can only be punishment.

Compassion means nothing after death.  It's only relevant during your time on Earth. 

why wouldn't compassion be relevant after your time on earth?

why shouldn't compassion be an eternal principle?

why would compassion end after our arbitrarily finite time on this planet? 

it makes sense to faiths outside of your narrative tradition. if compassion means nothing after your dead, then it directly follows  that whatever makes up you or your soul also means nothing after your dead.

 compassion can be infinite, even in your narrative tradition. hell is not necessary.

(do you think hell is necessary?) do you think living life with the fear of hell is necessary? do you think knowledge of hell is necessary?

nevertheless, it says clearly in the bible (and on the signatures of some posters in this site) that the only way to heaven is through jesus.  if this is to be understood clearly and directly, it would follow that gandhi is in hell. 

tell me, would living in paradise be considered compassion? If so then it is infinite.  I have never considered that to be compassion but, as written, the promise. 

Nevertheless?  You just skipped my point entirely and frankly then it's pretty obvious you don't even understand the scripture I posted for you to understand.  Shame you are stuck on the single point because you miss the rest. 

Here is what gotquestions.org has to say about salvation:

"Jesus is the only way of salvation because He is the only One who can pay our sin penalty (Romans 6:23). No other religion teaches the depth or seriousness of sin and its consequences."

"Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ! 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved'" (Acts 4:12).

Are the Christians who say the above wrong or right about salvation? Is what they are saying "tradition" and judgement or simply quoting scripture? Is Romans 6:23 and Acts 4:12 being correctly represented by these Christians or do they have it wrong? Is it unreasonable for these Christians, given the scripture, to believe that Gandhi's in hell?

How do you read those Bible verses which they sited?

Also, here are questions which are still lingering from my last post.

1. Is hell necessary?

2. Is living life with the fear of hell necessary?

3. Is your knowledge of hell necessary? Why?

what role does hell play in your faith? 

For the record, here's my refutation of your assertion that hell is not a motivator for salvation. You haven't proven any of my logic faulty. You've just said, "No, I'm right."

If your logic is bad, then your conclusion is at best suspect, and at worst completely wrong.

Will you please address this?

hi razorphreak,

i am not ignoring your posts, sorry if it seems that way. honestly my goal in this dialogue is to do my best to understand your worldview. 

the questions that i posted above were acknowledging your posts above, not ignoring them, and i'm still curious to know your answer. maybe i just didn't get it the first time; in anycase, i separated my questions out point by point so that you could address each one specifically.

could you do that? 

1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

2 and 3.

if the fear of hell "shouldn't happen," then why mention hell at all?

you said, "if you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?" how would God's purpose be different than what it is now if we didn't know about hell? If the fear of hell is 'not necessary' and 'shouldn't happen' during our time on this planet, God's purpose would be the same whether we knew about hell or not.

Why should we know what would happen to us if we failed God if fear is not a way to know God or understand God? What role does this kind of knowledge play in the Christian faith?

4. How has the knowledge of hell helped you in your own faith? if this knowledge hasn't helped you in your faith in God, then how has it helped others in their faith in God? If it hasn't helped anyone (and it has for certain harmed many) on their spiritual journeys, then what is it for?

Thanks, razor. I think I'm pretty good, but amazing might be going a little too far. Maybe we can agree that I'm awesome.

Let me condense your first post a bit...

Ok. I've read Romans 2. I've addressed Romans 2. It is unclear, for in some places it seems to say that god will judge people based on their actions/morality, and others it seems to say that god will judge based on belief in Jesus. I don't have a magic 8 ball to tell me which interpretation to believe. Do you?

You've said that I'm taking it out of context. How do you know you're taking it in context? You're not the only one here who's read the bible, you know. Most of us are former Christians, and most of us have read every word of the bible many times.

On top of this dilemma, there's the fundamental question of why the bible should be trusted! Even if you could come up with a proof of your interpretation being the one that Paul intended, why should we believe Paul?

Oh, lucky me... you answer this at the end of the post...

Brilliant. This, razor, is what's known as circular logic, and it's a logical fallacy.

They're answers that you take from the bible. Hundreds of thousands of Christians interpret it differently. Prove them wrong.

I dismiss them as answers because they're only one interpretation from a vague and contradictory book compiled by a group of politically inspired men hundreds of years after the original texts were supposedly written. Why do you believe a book like that?

I suspect you still don't know what question I'm asking. At the very least, you keep ignoring it when I ask it. Let me try again:

How do you know that your interpretation is correct?

I'll warn you ahead of time, you saying "I read it in context," will just lead to the question, "How do you know you read it in context?"

razor, you haven't answered any questions posed to you satisfactorily. You've given your opinions, and not posted anything that backs up your position. This board is called the Rational Response board for a reason. If you're going to give an answer, you need rational reasons for doing so. All you've done so far is quote one passage of scripture and ignore the fact that your interpretation is contradictory to hundreds of thousands of other Christians.

Further, you've completely avoided the question of why you would believe the bible anyway.

Further, you've completely avoided the question of how you can know when you've read the correct context.

This is my last try, razor, because I know that it's futile to ask you questions. You're too deeply indoctrinated to even see that you've been refuted repeatedly, so I fear there's no real hope of having a conversation with you, but I guess I have a windmill tilting fetish, so I'm asking one more time.

huh?

I've read it. Thanks. All the tests say my reading comprehension is remarkably high.

cliche? maybe... I was thinking more on the lines of arrogant, but whatever floats your boat.

Now I'll officially call you arrogant. Your relationship with sky-daddy is better than thousands, millions who have read the bible? Because you say so. Because you say you know the sky-daddy better than other people. Right.

My sky daddy is better than your sky daddy...

and it's in line with all bible based scholars??!?!?! All those ?!s are the international sign for incredulity. I can only assume you mean its in line with all the ones who happen to agree with you, and the ones who don't, aren't real biblical scholars...

and you know this because sky daddy tells you so.

Interesting. It seems you don't care that I've read the thing, front to back, many times. It seems you don't care that I see a book riddled with inconsistencies and errors, and that it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of what's on the page. This Link

lists quite a few significant contradictions and errors. Maybe you just missed them in your reading?

Probably you don't care, because you know you're right because sky daddy told you so.

I don't know that you do. You haven't proven anything. All you've done is arrogantly claim that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Seriously? You honestly don't know that churches everywhere teach that hell is the absence of god's presence?

From http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/is-hell-real.htm

From http://www.tbm.org/what_is_hell.htm

There ya go, kiddo. I searched google for "What is Hell" and within the first 3 links I found someone preaching that hell is separation from god, and that most people go to hell.

So there you go. Why don't you do your own google search. There are tons of different interpretations, and I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon feed you each one of them just to prove that I'm aware of them. Do your own research.

rational means "using reason." It is unreasonable to believe a 2000 year old document without proof. Since the only evidence for its truth is anecdotal, there is no reasonable basis for belief.

I didn't realize you were in possession of an original. Could I read it please?

Um... no. You don't really know much about this, do you?

Christianity wasn't codified until the Council of Nicea in 325. Read all about it here . The bible you read was not codified until the mid 1500s. Read all about it here.

Odd that you don't even know enough of the history of your own religion to know that I obviously wasn't talking about Peter, Paul, James, or John.

It's getting very difficult to take you seriously, razor. You obviously haven't read much outside of church-approved propaganda, and you certainly don't know very much about the history of your own religion.

Tell me again why I should believe anything you say?

1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

2 and 3.

if the fear of hell "shouldn't happen," then why mention hell at all?

you said, "if you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?" how would God's purpose be different than what it is now if we didn't know about hell? If the fear of hell is 'not necessary' and 'shouldn't happen' during our time on this planet, God's purpose would be the same whether we knew about hell or not.

Why should we know what would happen to us if we failed God if fear is not a way to know God or understand God? What role does this kind of knowledge play in the Christian faith?

4. How has the knowledge of hell helped you in your own faith? if this knowledge hasn't helped you in your faith in God, then how has it helped others in their faith in God? If it hasn't helped anyone (and it has for certain harmed many) on their spiritual journeys, then what is it for?

why is heaven like the NFL? why shouldn't everyone go to heaven? is hell necessary?

I don't think every word from God helps. In fact the idea of hell passed down by God does not help. I still don't understand how it is useful to your faith at all, and it is destructive in many other people's lives.  Can you give me an example or an anecdote to show how this knowledge helps people? I can give you examples of how it has hurt people.

razor,

I've said before, but maybe you missed it.  I'm not here to baby step you through the various sects of Christianity and their beliefs.  If you would like to learn more, go to a library.  If you truly don't understand the enormous differences between current denominations, and the enormous changes that Christianity has undergone since its beginning, then the first thing you need to tackle is your own ignorance.

zarathustra did a good job of informing you of the basic beginnings of Christianity.  Again, go to your local college library and get some reputable texts by real historians.  You're not prepared for a discussion on these boards.

As for the veracity of the gospels, or any of the bible for that matter, I suggest you learn more about the scholarly methods of determining historical accuracy, which include things like contemporary documentation, outside corroboration, historical consistency, internal consistency, and quite a few other litmus tests.  The bible fails on virtually all levels.  But then, you'd know that if you read something other than the bible.