Christianity and the charade of human life

blearyeyed

Member
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Having been raised a christian my whole life, I have always had a few major questions that were never quite answered by the numerous Sunday services I've attended.

The concept that has always confused me is our supposed God-given "free will" to choose him and have eternal life, versus the much less attractive alternative. (The whole free-will concept has been discussed to death in other forums, the focus of my question is only indirectly related to this).

My pastors have always explained to me that God granted us free will because he wanted us to consciously choose Him over the ways of the world.

Ok, fine. But how meaningful is the choice to be with God when the alternative is an eternity in hell? Really, who in their right mind weighs the two options and thinks, "Gee, this is a tough one." (This is, of course, assumming that one believes these two choices actually exist)

My main questions are: What is the point of giving us life on earth only to live out this elaborate charade of making choices that aren't really choices? How meaningful is a choice to be with God when it is made out of fear from going to hell? Why would an omnipotent God want/need the validation of his creations worshipping him to the point of threatening punishment if they don't?

It is the whole question of, do I follow the rules because I am a morally "good" person or do I follow the rules because I don't want to get punished for it?

If the reason most Christians are Christians is the latter, then I don't see the point.

I feel that if God wanted our choice to follow him to be at all meaningful, then He should at least make it between two appealing choices instead of an absurdly one-sided one.
 
Good. You have at least realised this. There are so many who have been conditioned by the religious teachings that they are so fearful and reactive that they don’t even realise what you have realised.

There is quote by Swami Vivekananda. When we are in some bad, we bring in the good to keep the bad away. Then he says take the good also away and become zero. Only in that state of absolute unattachment we become egoless and feel the experience of GOD.
For this to happen we need to remove all fear. You have to believe that whatever you are it is because of GOD. Accept that. I’m not saying don’t listen to others. Listen to others be open but don’t listen in fear. Empty all fear and conditioning and allow GOD to speak to you through your conscience which is consisting of your own experiences gained in your life.

Don’t be worried about hell. This earth we live consists of hell and heaven too. I don’t believe there is another hell. We will see heaven through meditation, unattachment, fearlessness, our religious practices, loving others, etc. and we see hell when we do the opposite. When I say heaven I mean by complete unattachment, bliss, and enlightenment and by hell I mean only the lack of it. Not getting boiled in hot oil, etc.

It is never too late for any change. 99% of all of us are in earth; neither in hell nor heaven. We all only aspire and GOD understands our difficulty. In the Bhagavat Gita, Lord Krishna at the end of his discourse to Arjuna tells that even you follow a little of what I have told, you have done a great deal towards enlightenment. So really there is no punishment.
With this in mind, let us aspire to fulfil our ambitions our dreams, our duties realising the GOD in us. Even if we achieve some percentage it is ok because we never die and in our next birth we will continue. Slowly you will also remove even the fear of death. Everything is only an experience of GOD through us and his creation. This according to me is true spirituality.
 
Having been raised a christian my whole life, I have always had a few major questions that were never quite answered by the numerous Sunday services I've attended.

Don't look for answers at Sunday services. Think for yourself. I regard individuality and personal autonomy as very important in one's spiritual journey. Sunday services cannot always speak for God because they are led by human beings.

In thinking for yourself you may be wrong and you may be right. Sunday service leaders are no better than you in discovering the divine will, so don't put more trust or faith in them than you would put in yourself. There is nothing special about Sunday services. It is just a gathering of a community and the leaders who preach about the Gospel there are simply repeating old news.

I myself have been Christian for my whole life and I got sick of the "textbook answers" that people gave. I dislike the idea that the answers have already been written down. That have not. You must think for yourself. That is why there is a place for intellectual and rational minded people in a religious community.

There are many who say, "Don't think for yourself, the thinking has already been done." This is the problem with evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Their Christians believe the answers are already known, that you don't have to do any more thinking.

I say their "answers" don't make sense and this is why you are confused and worried. Their belief system was made for simple-minded people and obviously you are not one of these simple-minded people.

My pastors have always explained to me that God granted us free will because he wanted us to consciously choose Him over the ways of the world.

We are individuals. Our life is our own. First and foremost, we belong to ourselves and have a right to sacrifice part of our individuality in the interests of another. It may be a member of the opposite sex, the government, society or God. God respects that right.

Ok, fine. But how meaningful is the choice to be with God when the alternative is an eternity in hell? Really, who in their right mind weighs the two options and thinks, "Gee, this is a tough one." (This is, of course, assumming that one believes these two choices actually exist)

I think you have to get away from that kind of theology. Jesus never actually defined hell and nor did he define heaven. He only gave descriptions. This leaves questions like, where is hell? Where is heaven?

I think your idea of heaven and hell is what I call the evangelical and fundamentalist notion of hell. Not all Christians think of hell in those terms. You could ask Thomas, for example (I think he is a Catholic) for his alternative notion of hell.

But in the meantime, I could describe mine.

There is so much evil, injustice and suffering in the world that I have to assume that hell, to some extent, is already here. God doesn't have to create hell or bring it here. Part of it is already here. God doesn't have to send us anywhere. We are creating hell right here. There are nuclear weapons. There is pollution. We are currently in the process of draining the planet of its natural resources.

Rather than God throwing us in some trash-bin, He simply leaves us here.

This is where we get to the question as to why God would give us a choice like that. The reason is because modern science and technology has the power and potential to give us lives of comfort. The people in the current generation are so much better off than prior generations. We never had it so good.

But this has come at a cost to many humans. It was possible through the political, military and economic power of the Western world. Many people have died so that we in the Western world could live in comfort. Many people's blood were spilled so that we could live "the good life." We have built nuclear weapons, polluted our planet, sent CO2, sulphur and toxic gases into the atmosphere and drained our natural resources in the name of relentless economic growth and the pursuit of profits.

Jesus gave a number of descriptions about the "kingdom of heaven." It should be obvious that those in the kingdom of heaven would not live like the energy- and resource-hungry Westerners of today. Basically, you have the choice of the "good life" of the planet-destroying consumer or you can be one of the "meek" who will inherit the earth. That is the choice Jesus was talking about. This is the "heaven" and "hell" I believe Jesus was talking about.

My main questions are: What is the point of giving us life on earth only to live out this elaborate charade of making choices that aren't really choices?

They are choices if we experience the process of making a choice. If we "believe" we have made a choice, that is a choice. Our experience of "reality" is real to us. If we believe we have done something, then according to us, we have done it.

How meaningful is a choice to be with God when it is made out of fear from going to hell? Why would an omnipotent God want/need the validation of his creations worshipping him to the point of threatening punishment if they don't?

It depends on your concept of "heaven" and "hell." You're also making it sound like the choice God requires us to make is part of a magnetic tape that follows a single linear path. Surely there is a lot more going on in life and in this world than this linear path you are describing. This is the problem I have with evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. It oversimplifies theology and eschatology. You either accept this oversimplified theology or you don't but if you do, it means you're manipulating yourself into thinking this is all there is to life. The worst part of this theology is that it doesn't really describe what we are doing wrong in real life, like for example polluting the planet or oppressing ethnic and religious minorities like Asians, Africans and Muslims.

What you do in this life matters!!! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Jesus said to love your neighbour, judge not and you will not be judged, the first will be last, last will be first, the arrogant will be humbled. The meek will inherit the earth. If what you do in this life matters then the choice you make is no longer part of a linear path. It becomes non-linear.

So rather than a choice to either go to heaven or hell, it becomes a choice to love your neighbour, to not be judgmental, to be humble, to be meek. You do it because you want the world to be a better place. You want to spread the love around, to spread the good will. A lot of the people who want to live "the good life" don't care much about anyone else. They just want to get rich and wealthy, to live in a big house, drive a fast car, marry a sexy, gorgeous woman, have lots of sex and lots of kids.

When you choose to live like people in the kingdom of heaven, you choose not to be like that person. This is the choice you were supposed to make.

It is the whole question of, do I follow the rules because I am a morally "good" person or do I follow the rules because I don't want to get punished for it?
If the reason most Christians are Christians is the latter, then I don't see the point.

Of course, doing good is more important than the possibility of punishment for not doing it. If you need to be punished for doing evil to stop you from doing evil, that shows that you are an evil person, does it not? It means you haven't really changed as a person. I think instead of what God will do (punish), it's a question of what He won't do (rescue).

Jesus' name means "God rescues," and Jesus said he came to "save" not to "condemn." It may seem like there isn't a difference but there is. It's the difference between picking up food and throwing it in the bin or leaving it to go bad. The former involves external intervention. The latter is a natural process.

I feel that if God wanted our choice to follow him to be at all meaningful, then He should at least make it between two appealing choices instead of an absurdly one-sided one.

Ok, two appealing choices. You can either be (1) one of the meek who will inherit the earth or (2) you can enjoy your life right here by being a citizen in a Western country. Learn the language, get the right qualifications, find a good-paying job, settle down, get married and have kids.

Just don't go and live in the USA. Their gun laws are too relaxed. You might get shot by someone. If not, you might be robbed by someone with a gun. If you want to live a good earthly life that's what you would do.
 
Hi blearyeyed —
Having been raised a christian my whole life, I have always had a few major questions that were never quite answered by the numerous Sunday services I've attended.
I regard the Liturgy as the engagement in a Mystery ... it fuels my search for answers, rather than provide them. The engagement in the Liturgy for me is a desire to be with, rather than engage in question and answer.

The concept that has always confused me is our supposed God-given "free will" to choose him and have eternal life, versus the much less attractive alternative. (The whole free-will concept has been discussed to death in other forums, the focus of my question is only indirectly related to this).
From the Catholic perspective, there is no alternative. It's eternal life in the Holy Trinity, or not.

My pastors have always explained to me that God granted us free will because he wanted us to consciously choose Him over the ways of the world.
That seems reasonable. If the option was removed, there would be no free will. I would also suggest that God wants us to work with Him, rather than for Him. It's a family business.

Ok, fine. But how meaningful is the choice to be with God when the alternative is an eternity in hell?
Depends on how you understand hell. The fiery pit is an analogy aimed at man's volitive nature ... it certainly seems humanity responds to this idea than the more metaphysical ideas.

I would say the choice is between being and non-being.

But really that question could be asked of human nature as such, not just of its religious expression. Why does humanity engage in wars when there are other ways of resolving conflicts without killing each other?

Really, who in their right mind weighs the two options and thinks, "Gee, this is a tough one." (This is, of course, assuming that one believes these two choices actually exist)
Why do people do things they know to be bad, when the choice not to do it exists?

My main questions are: What is the point of giving us life on earth only to live out this elaborate charade of making choices that aren't really choices?
But they are choices. Life is not a charade.

How meaningful is a choice to be with God when it is made out of fear from going to hell?
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And 'fear not' is the most-repeated phrase in the Bible. Nor is God an insurance policy.

Why would an omnipotent God want/need the validation of his creations worshipping him to the point of threatening punishment if they don't?
He doesn't want/need our validation. Nor can we validate God. He's pointing out the end result of the wrong choices.

It is the whole question of, do I follow the rules because I am a morally "good" person or do I follow the rules because I don't want to get punished for it?
I would rather suggest 'the rules' are the way of it. 'The rules' are like the laws of nature, they are the way things are, the 'how to do it' if union with God is what you desire. The rules, as you call them, are not an arbitrary set of conditions.

If the reason most Christians are Christians is the latter, then I don't see the point.
The point then is for you to find the answers you're looking for.

I feel that if God wanted our choice to follow him to be at all meaningful, then He should at least make it between two appealing choices instead of an absurdly one-sided one.
There are multitudinous ways to serve God, so I think the question is flawed. But there is only one God, and to ask for multiple choices is asking God to be in two minds about the nature of God?

Just some thoughts,

God bless,

Thomas
 
High bleary-eyed! :) Not that I have anything to add to the above but am just being friendly and chiming in:
BlearyEyed said:
It is the whole question of, do I follow the rules because I am a morally "good" person or do I follow the rules because I don't want to get punished for it?

If the reason most Christians are Christians is the latter, then I don't see the point.
I sympathize. It is a question that many Bible characters were concerned with as well as many other historical figures. There is a lot of really good insights about this, and you can see what people chose.

It is the whole question of, do I follow the rules because I am a morally "good" person or do I follow the rules because I don't want to get punished for it?
Neither, and the rules don't always work. Being moral doesn't always work, though you have almost certainly benefited from the morality of others before you.

My main questions are: What is the point of giving us life on earth only to live out this elaborate charade of making choices that aren't really choices?
I was not able to answer this question easily for myself. This is where a lot of people decide to rethink what all the words mean like I did, or alternatively as I did later some just decide that they are beyond their kin. Those are the two typical approaches, but it is an area that is so personal that it is between you and God. Like I said above there are also many Bible passages about how various individuals dealt with this very issue. The Bible character named Job learns that his mind is simply too small to grasp the answer to one of his questions about the unfairness in his own life. (Job 42:3). Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane prays not to have to endure, if possible, the cross. (Mark 14:35). Others decided that there was value in being moral, come what may. (I believe this was Jesus' decision as well.) Moses argued with the L-rd. (Exodus 32:32) -- not that the L-rd admitted any wrongdoing. Actually both Job and Moses argued like you are doing -- along with many others. Arguing is just a stage of the program. I Peter 2:2 draws and analogy between this and being weaned off of milk. Once you have the milk of the word, then you develop the ability to process the more difficult stuff. The question of morality is a very common issue but one that children don't understand, so they are not presented with it. They understand rewards. They are taught how to be good long before they are faced, truly, with the decision to be good. Up until that time kids need a compelling reason of why they are being taught principles, because otherwise it is boring to them. Personally my favorite was the story of Jonah and the whale which later on had a point for me as an adult. We are kind of like Jonah, because we are saying 'Don't I have a choice?' Sure we do, but what happens to Ninevah if we choose not to go there? Terrible things!
 
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses.

I suppose that I should clarify that I was not referring to doing good versus evil as the choices. I was referring to worshipping God (the Christian God specifically) versus not worshipping Him. I simply can't bring myself to believe that the Christian God is the only way to "heaven"---whatever your definition of heaven might be.

I suppose I should also mention that I go to a church that preaches other religions to be invalid and that people who choose to follow those religions are hell-bound. That is mainly what has always bothered me about it. How could a religion that is supposedly founded on love and mercy be so hateful towards other religions? For example, Islam has been repeatedly called a "demonic religion" in many of our services and it made me very uncomfortable.

It's the age-old question of, "Will I go to heaven if I live my life in honesty and compassion, even if I never go to Church or read the bible?" How about tithing? Or singing in worship? Are all these steps necessary to go to heaven?

My church's answer is YES. And I don't understand why. (The frequent answer at my church is simply that it is what is written in the Bible. Which was never that satisfying of an answer).

I will reword my question from before and take the concept of "hell" out of the equation for the sake of simplicity: If the reason Christians choose to be Christians (not simply doing good vs. evil, but being Christians specifically) is only to reap the reward that is "heaven" then I feel that the motivating factor is self-serving and therefore meaningless.

Saltmeister: I agree with a lot of what you said. It is exactly why I feel very uncomfortable with the teachings of my church. It seems very fundamentalist and oversimplified. If you're a muslim, you go to hell. If you're a pagan, you go to hell. If you are homosexual, you go to hell.

I guess I tittled my original post "Christianity and the charade of human life" because I wanted to know the Christian answer as to WHY God put us on this earth in the first place. If, like you said, we need to be rescued from the world. So that we could grow spiritually?? If you look at it from the Christian mindset, our spiritual purpose seems to be to simply put all our faith in God, follow his commandments, and worship him.

Christianity is not ONLY about doing good things (if that were the case, I would have absolutely no problem with it). It is also about worshipping only the Christian God, tithing, singing praises, and "faith."

I never understood the concept of faith. How is blindly believing in something spiritually commendable?

I am afraid to ask these questions at church or to my parents because I know they will simply say that I must not try to understand the things of the Lord with the knowledge of the world. That all the human knowledge in the world can never explain the power of God. That I must have faith.

The idea is that humans are so limited in our understanding that we must put our faith in God, who understands completely.

What I don't understand is, if God made us like this in the first place, how can he expect us to believe in something we don't even have the ability to understand? And then not "rescue" us if we don't?

Dream- you touched upon this in your reply when you mentioned the story of Job. You also mentioned how morality is not an easy concept for children to understand and that is why the concept of reward and punishment is introduced first. I understand this.

Just to emphasize, my main problem is not the choice between good and evil, but the choice between Christianity and other spiritual alternatives. the Bible is very clear of its rejection of other religions.

Again, I have to clarify that these are the specific teachings of my church. I realize that other churches may have different views on this mattter...


Thomas: Thank you for your detailed response to my queries. I do have another request: could you please elaborate on how "fearing God" is the beginning of wisdom? This is another concept that is frequently taught in my church, which I've always had trouble understanding.

To me "fearing God," connotes obedience out of coercion. Much like a slave does his work because he is afraid of his Master and his whip.



Thank you all again for your responses.
 
Neither, and the rules don't always work.
Man-made rules maybe ... but the will of God is a constant.

Being moral doesn't always work,
Ooh, steady! One can say doing the right thing is not always easy, nor does it necessarily get the result you'd like, but it is never not the right thing to do ... and doing the wrong thing is never right.

But there is always 'the human margin' and as Wil and I have discussed elsewhere, far from being 'a grey area', it's the most colourful bit!

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses.

I suppose that I should clarify that I was not referring to doing good versus evil as the choices. I was referring to worshipping God (the Christian God specifically) versus not worshipping Him. I simply can't bring myself to believe that the Christian God is the only way to "heaven"---whatever your definition of heaven might be.

I suppose I should also mention that I go to a church that preaches other religions to be invalid and that people who choose to follow those religions are hell-bound. That is mainly what has always bothered me about it. How could a religion that is supposedly founded on love and mercy be so hateful towards other religions? For example, Islam has been repeatedly called a "demonic religion" in many of our services and it made me very uncomfortable.

It's the age-old question of, "Will I go to heaven if I live my life in honesty and compassion, even if I never go to Church or read the bible?" How about tithing? Or singing in worship? Are all these steps necessary to go to heaven?

My church's answer is YES. And I don't understand why. (The frequent answer at my church is simply that it is what is written in the Bible. Which was never that satisfying of an answer).

I will reword my question from before and take the concept of "hell" out of the equation for the sake of simplicity: If the reason Christians choose to be Christians (not simply doing good vs. evil, but being Christians specifically) is only to reap the reward that is "heaven" then I feel that the motivating factor is self-serving and therefore meaningless.

Saltmeister: I agree with a lot of what you said. It is exactly why I feel very uncomfortable with the teachings of my church. It seems very fundamentalist and oversimplified. If you're a muslim, you go to hell. If you're a pagan, you go to hell. If you are homosexual, you go to hell.

I guess I tittled my original post "Christianity and the charade of human life" because I wanted to know the Christian answer as to WHY God put us on this earth in the first place. If, like you said, we need to be rescued from the world. So that we could grow spiritually?? If you look at it from the Christian mindset, our spiritual purpose seems to be to simply put all our faith in God, follow his commandments, and worship him.

Christianity is not ONLY about doing good things (if that were the case, I would have absolutely no problem with it). It is also about worshipping only the Christian God, tithing, singing praises, and "faith."

I never understood the concept of faith. How is blindly believing in something spiritually commendable?

I am afraid to ask these questions at church or to my parents because I know they will simply say that I must not try to understand the things of the Lord with the knowledge of the world. That all the human knowledge in the world can never explain the power of God. That I must have faith.

The idea is that humans are so limited in our understanding that we must put our faith in God, who understands completely.

What I don't understand is, if God made us like this in the first place, how can he expect us to believe in something we don't even have the ability to understand? And then not "rescue" us if we don't?

Dream- you touched upon this in your reply when you mentioned the story of Job. You also mentioned how morality is not an easy concept for children to understand and that is why the concept of reward and punishment is introduced first. I understand this.

Just to emphasize, my main problem is not the choice between good and evil, but the choice between Christianity and other spiritual alternatives. the Bible is very clear of its rejection of other religions.

Again, I have to clarify that these are the specific teachings of my church. I realize that other churches may have different views on this mattter...


Thomas: Thank you for your detailed response to my queries. I do have another request: could you please elaborate on how "fearing God" is the beginning of wisdom? This is another concept that is frequently taught in my church, which I've always had trouble understanding.

To me "fearing God," connotes obedience out of coercion. Much like a slave does his work because he is afraid of his Master and his whip.



Thank you all again for your responses.
 
If I were a visiting alien from a distant solar system and earth like planet, I would observe Earth history from an unbiased basis. I would study the dominant religion, Christianity. Based on its scripture, I would most likely conclude that the Anthropomorphic God (Allah, JHWH, and Christ) deliberately set up a series of "sting operations."

His aim seems to have been to set up a series of choices for humans. Choose the correct path and you gain salvation in Heaven.

Sting One: Magical creation of man and woman in a garden where all needs were met. Then God set up a Tree in the middle of the garden. It was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yet God forbade the humans from eating the fruit (knowledge and knowledge of morality). He gave humans curiosity, desire for knowledge, inquiry, and a desire to do the right thing. In other words, he made humans whose brains were hard wired seek knowledge by inquiry. We all want to know why and what is right. Yet, when humanity sought that knowledge (eating the fruit), humans were condemned.

Sting two: He gave humans "free will," but added a penalty if that free will led to a choice contrary to the mysterious mind of God. Again, it is a sting. If man chooses to follow his natural biological genetic programmed reproductive brain programme, he is condemned if he chooses a mate not approved by God then he is condemned. Unapproved mates include sex by unmarried men, sex with unmarried woman, and sex with same sex partner. Man again often ends up with a ticket to Hell. Women are punished for being raped by a man.

Sting three: God insisted that humans believe in him. He insisted that man believe in God's correct name and anthropomorphic personality. Most importantly, he insisted that man "choose" to believe or go to Hell. However, like all stings God put false clues before man. Man is supposed to believe in a being that is invisible, inaudible, illogical, immeasurable, and undetectable by honest inquiry. God remains hidden and invisible. Man is programmed to think that only real things are visible, palpable, audible, measurable, and demonstrable. God is not visible, palpable, audible, measurable, or demonstrable in any way to our senses. Man had to abandon his senses, his rationality, his analytic mind, and his brain wired scepticism. How in the world could rational humans believe in such an unlikely invisible thing? God helped man make the right decision by promising to send him to Hell for not believing in this unlikely being. Hell was the only choice for other then simply doubting the implausible.

Sting four: Man is required to believe in a fantastic and irrational story. That is that God impregnated a virgin girl to produce a man-god, Jesus, who would also be his own father, God. He would be killed and resurrect from the dead in 36 hours. It is a daft and irrational story. So why does man believe it. Again, he is given a choice. He can accept the daffy story to be saved for heaven. Alternatively, he can reject it as narrative rubbish and he will be sent to Hell.

There are many other lesser sting operations designed to tempt man to sin. Wait, I thought Satan was the one to tempt us. Not so, if we carefully read the scriptures and church doctrine based on tradition.

Just do this or I send you to hell.
Just love me or I send you to hell.
Just fear me or I send you to hell.
Just obey the rules of Moses and the Pope or I send you to hell.
Just obey the rules of Proddy Pastors or I send you to hell.
Just believe without question or I will send you to hell.
Just reject any knowledge contradictory to Book of Genesis or go to hell.
Just marry a virgin in a Priestly verbal ritual or go to hell.
Just have sex with her only or go to hell.
Just have missionary sex with her or go to hell.
Reject science if findings contradict the Genesis 1and 2 or go to hell.

Fear is the fuel of Christian Mythology.
Hate is the weapon of Christian Mythology.

Amergin
 
I personally see things from a Spiritualist point of veiw. I feel that live on earth is the nearest anyone will get to Hell. This is because nearly everyone acts in the name of greed to acheive their ends. And to follow this greed means you'll treat your fellows badly to reach your aims. All the problems in life are made made. We find solutions to one problem which creates many more problems.

I feel the purpose of existance is to abandon earthly needs, ego and greed and reach a more Spiritual way of living. I feel this was the Buddhas teachings, Jesus's teachings and Indian religions seem to follow the same teachings.

Our lives are difficult because thats the way we and others make them. The Buddha talked about suffering and helping others who suffer. Jesus talked about loving your neighbour as you would love yourself. Thats your free will and your free choice, help others or help yourself. Help others and you make the world a better place. Helping yourself is always at the expense of others and in most cases causes others problems.
 
I hope some day everyone will wake up and reject everything that causes division amongest us. Everyone can then be themselves and live in peace with each other. Until this happens the world will be the same as it is now. When I read a lot of the posts, a lot of you pigeon hole different religions and different points of veiw. All religions basically have the same message but used different words to basically say the same thing. If you can understand this you won't need to pigeon hole anothers religion as you will see your religion says a similar or the same thing but with different words. If anyone tells you differently then the're bringing division between you and others. The're the very people who make trouble for others, disunity and conflict.
 
....Our lives are difficult because thats the way we and others make them.
Hi P&K
Sure seems true. Was wondering though, is there any instance that a problem is not caused by man? I agree what the solution is, that which is taught in many parts of the world as some variation of whats understood as the golden rule.
..... Until this happens the world will be the same as it is now......
Yea, until people wake up and decide to help each other, it will be hell on earth as usual.
Maybe it will in 2012, when the big change is supposed to start. :)

Joe
 
Maybe it will in 2012, when the big change is supposed to start. :)

could be the date of the next global financial crisis

and it will be worse than last time

there will be massive unemployment, mass panic, huge disruption to the global economy, crime rates will go up, total anarchy

society will fall apart and Humpty Dumpty won't be able to get back together again
 
Amergin: You have articulated my concerns exactly. I have never been comfortable with Christianity in particular because of all those things you mentioned.

Thomas: I should have clarified that it's not the choice between good and evil that I have a problem with. If Christianity was only about morality then I wouldn't be so worried. But it is also about rejecting other religions to the point of condemnation, and the concept of "faith."

Faith is something I never understood. How is blindly believing in something for which I have no proof spiritually commendable?

I have often heard the explanation that humans are so limited in our understanding that we must put our faith in God, whose wisdom is complete.

What I don't understand is, if God made us with such limitations in the first place, how can he expect us to believe in something we don't even have the ability to understand? And then condemn us if we don't?

And for that reason I feel that the premise set up by Christianity in particular is convoluted and nonsensical.

This disturbs me greatly, having been raised a Christian my whole life, but I simply cannot ignore my doubts.
 
Amergin: You have articulated my concerns exactly. I have never been comfortable with Christianity in particular because of all those things you mentioned.

But what is Christianity anyway? I have heard, perhaps 20-50 times (I haven't kept count), concerns and objections before that are similar to your's.

Ok, you have objections about Christianity, but I have objections about your objections to it and it has to do with the "straw man" you have presented. Is this really Christianity? By "straw man," I don't mean you're attacking Christianity, as is the common purpose of straw men. I'm just saying that your objections have more to do with your perception of what Christianity is.

To me, the "real Christianity" is something more elusive than what you, your Christian friends and your church may define as this "straw man." I base my beliefs about Christianity not on the concept you described above, but on what I learn from looking into the history of Second Temple Judaism. That involves studying the beliefs of various groups in Second Temple Judaism, like the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Essenes.

There is a lot to be learnt and I have only skimmed the surface.

I actually don't know precisely what Christianity is, although I have some idea. I used to think I knew and my beliefs were very similar to the straw man you presented, but I now think the straw man is wrong.

Judaism preserves many of the beliefs of the Pharisees, but the beliefs of the Sadducees and Essenes have largely been lost. Christianity borrows some Pharisaic and Essenic ideas -- maybe even some Sadducaic ones like the non-belief in the Oral Torah. It also takes ideas from the Greek and Roman world. Christianity was a hodge-podge of at least four thought systems.

The trouble is that most people don't actually "study" Christianity. They just read the New Testament.:rolleyes: The real Christianity is buried in history and people just don't study the history.

But it is also about rejecting other religions to the point of condemnation, and the concept of "faith."

Does Christianity actually reject other religions, or is it Christians who say that these religions are false?

Faith is something I never understood. How is blindly believing in something for which I have no proof spiritually commendable?

I don't believe that all belief in something of which there is no conclusive proof is "blind belief." People have their reasons, but I don't think you should call it "blind."

We don't have to justify everything we do in life. That would be a waste of time. Faith is something we develop in our minds to rationalise our actions based on what we cannot know either in the near future or perhaps in our whole lifetimes. Is that blind?

Bankers, accountants and people who run businesses have to make financial and business decisions. They have to make assumptions based on what they do and don't know. They have no conclusive proof of their assumptions but time is short. They have to make educated guesses. Is their decision-making blind?

I have often heard the explanation that humans are so limited in our understanding that we must put our faith in God, whose wisdom is complete.
That would have been true of prior generations. People today have access to a lot more knowledge. Yet, life is still too short to examine it all. During our brief lifetimes, as we struggle to make a living and to enjoy the fruits of our labour, we need to decide what purpose our life is to take.

And for that reason I feel that the premise set up by Christianity in particular is convoluted and nonsensical.
I don't believe Christianity sets up any premise, but to build on the one that already existed. I have done enough "study" and "research" to come to the conclusion that Christianity is not an independent religion. It doesn't exist in its own right. Christianity was just a stepping stone to something else. I don't want to go into too much detail, so I will give a summary.

1) As Abraham figured out, there is one God.
2) God rescues the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.
3) The Israelites settle in Canaan
4) They break the covenant they made with God at Mt Sinai and start worshipping other gods
5) Foreign powers invade and overpower Israel and Judah
6) The foreign powers drive them out of their own land
7) The Jewish people return from exile and await the Messiah
8) They expect a messiah who comes to fulfill the messianic prophecies according to the Pharisaic tradition, but there is none who does
9) There is a possibility that God may "accept" or "spare" Gentiles (non-Jews) as implied in the story of Jonah
10) The Jewish people are reminded to love their neighbour, to be humble and not to judge their neighbour

I left out the part about Jesus dying for people's sins because based on what I have learnt, it is not as important as some say it is. Most of the important goals of telling this story (baptism of the nations) have already been achieved and fulfilled. Very soon, we will have to move on to something else.

You don't have to regard everything in Christianity as "fundamental." There is a lot of "filler" content in Christianity. You have to know what to regard as "secondary" to Christianity. A lot of stuff in Christianity is a part of our "heritage," not actually a core part of Christianity. For example, the theology and philosophy we borrowed from the Greeks and Romans is not fundamental to Christianity.

The New Testament expands on the ten points above, but I think it is quite ok to merely understand the ten points above without the NT if you can't bear to read it!!!!:eek:

Having said that Christianity borrows from the Pharisaic, Essenic, Sadducaic and Hellenic thought systems, the question of what Christianity is or isn't is a question of what Christianity was trying to say by mixing these four components together.

But first you must distinguish the four components.
 
Saltmeister: Your knowledge of Christianity is definitely a lot more in depth than mine. Indeed, it is probably a lot more in depth than 90% of people who call themselves Christians. You seem to have done an extensive amount of research and study into the matter--which I respect.

My concern is that it if it takes that much study to even begin to understand what Christianity is REALLY about, then I would say 90% of people who call themselves Christians only understand it at a much shallower level and operate on the premise I stated above.

If that is the case, then every Christian who goes to Sunday services must be wasting their time. Personally I have gone almost every Sunday of my life and my idea of Christianity is still very much the "straw man" argument I presented.

In fact, many Christians--even Pastors--probably should stop calling themselves Christians, for they are horribly misrepresenting what it must really be.

Also, the pastors at my church (plus a substantial percent of the congregation) would probably be very very uncomfortable with what you said. Many Christian denominations operate on the belief that the bible is to be taken as the literal word of the one true God--not simply a love-thy-neighbor philosophy that borrows a lot of filler from other thought systems. This is the premise that many Christians operate on, and that is the premise that I am challenging.
 
Hi blearyeyed —
But it is also about rejecting other religions to the point of condemnation, and the concept of "faith."
Well there are metaphysical arguments for the absolute nature of each tradition which by nature rejects other religion. However, the Catholic Church, for example, does not reject other religions. Indeed, there is meaningful dialogue between the world's great traditions.

Faith is something I never understood. How is blindly believing in something for which I have no proof spiritually commendable?
I can readily accept that many accept in faith that which they receive, without question — but then most people accept the culture in which they live in blind faith — I think the majority of secularists are expressing blind faith ... certainly the argument of many atheists I've spoken to are so flawed as to be as naive as any 'eyes wide shut' believer in anything.

Why do people believe in things which have nothing to commend them?
Why do people do and believe in things which they know be harmful to themselves, or/and others?

But to assume that faith by definition is blind is erroneous, and nor is faith simply a deficiency of knowledge. From my viewpoint, the idea of spirituality as such is commended, and commendably so, in the Word of Scripture, and the lives of the saints.

I have faith in science, and although I have experience enough to say that science is reliable — I can boil a kettle, ride a bike — there is much in science I accept in good faith (I believe in Quantum Mechanics, but all I can do is repeat what I have been taught), and much that I think too many accept in blind faith, that is wrong and untrue.

I have often heard the explanation that humans are so limited in our understanding that we must put our faith in God, whose wisdom is complete.
But that does not say that we are so limited we can understand nothing.

What I don't understand is, if God made us with such limitations in the first place, how can he expect us to believe in something we don't even have the ability to understand?
But Christianity does not say that. Christianity says we are made to know God, and in a deeper and more profound manner than we understand 'knowledge' currently ... but to assume that the finite can contain the Infinite is stretching things, a bit

And then condemn us if we don't?
Man is not condemned by God, and not for not knowing God.
Man is condemned by his own actions, and furthermore by his own culpability — he is condemned for doing what he knows to be wrong.

And for that reason I feel that the premise set up by Christianity in particular is convoluted and nonsensical.
And I would be obliged to say, speaking as a Catholic, you have an erroneous assumption of what Christianity is.

God bless,

Thomas
 
could be the date of the next global financial crisis

and it will be worse than last time

there will be massive unemployment, mass panic, huge disruption to the global economy, crime rates will go up, total anarchy

society will fall apart and Humpty Dumpty won't be able to get back together again
Aye, Mr. Salt, but that's just it. Folks got to learn how to get control of all that fear and or greed, so it all don't turn into scrambled eggs. Thing's looking that bad from the land down under?
 
Back
Top