So I think somewhere around 2002 or 2003 I became bothered by a number of dangerous questions. I brought them up a lifequest and with most other religious people that I knew. The discussion seemed mostly to lead to other problems with Christianity and more and more doubts. And then I found out that the Jesus of faith might not have much to do with the actual historical Jesus. I tried to read scholars to disprove this, but it seemed that the more I read on apolegtics and the historical jesus the more sensible the skeptical position became. This is the process that sunk the ship of faith for me. Afterwards faith seemed to be for me impossible or dishonest for me personally (too many doubts and too many reasons to think otherwise.)

It seems that I have not made much progress with the historical jesus area, perhaps the Christ of faith is the same as he jesus of history, but the more I read the more difficult of a conjecture this becomes.

So why don't I go back and see if I can get answers to a few old dangerous questions. Because right now even if the would be apologist could carry the day on the whole historical jesus issue it would still leave a large number of dangerous questions nagging at me that when I try to take Christianity at it's word, I am perhaps deceiving myself.

So let me re-ask some old dangerous questions, maybe there is an answer that I have missed.  Here is a big one: hell and universalism. 1) Why would a loving God send people to hell? Is hell real? What is it really like and who goes there? 2) Why should one be Christian instead of some other religion? How does Christianity stand in relation to other religions? Is Christianity the only true religion? If so, why didnt God reveal Jesus to so many of the other peoples of the world? Do those people go to hell? If Christianity is true, why didnt God send an angel to reveal Jesus to Mohammed, or Buddha, or to people in Africa or Australia? Why are so many people of the world just finding out about Jesus now? Why wait so long?

Well I came to the realization the other day that even if I could settle the issues of the historical jesus and somehow find myself agreeing with the evangelical interpretation of the jesus of history as being exactly the same as the christ of faith, there would still be so many other questions and problems with belief. And if there is no hell what did jesus die for or save us from anyway? I am trying to open to the other viewpoint and on some points I feel that I have gained a little ground on the historical jesus debate. Maybe some Jews were expecting a suffering servant messiah a la Isaiah 53, but what about the other prophecies that seem to be taken out of context? Maybe one can argue for a historical reliability of John, but one ends up having to make quite a few twists and turns to maintain this and in the process Bloomberg looses the ability to maintain that John 3:16 was an actual quote from Jesus. I try to listen carefully and keep and open mind. In some ways I would like to be proven wrong, but the more I read and debate the more the evangelical evidence ends up coming across to me as more and more like just "sound and fury."

 Hello Rubicon and Anxiety!! This is my first post and I hope that I can share my faith in Jesus Christ with you all.

God doesn't send anyone to Hell. You send yourself there. God has done everything He possibly can to keep you out of Hell and still leave you as a person with free will and not just a robot. That's the way He made us--after His image, after His likeness, the power to say ?yes? or the power to say ?no,? the power to reject our own Creator, and of course to take the consequences.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." John 3:16-21

Hell is definitely real!!Because we can't see it with our own eyes doesn't mean it's not a real place.
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Matthew 23:33

I don't think anyone has experienced Hell and come back to tell us how it felt to be there.I believe anyone who says they have been there is fooling you.Anyone who has not accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour will spend eternity in Hell.There are many passages that clearly explain this.Look at John 14:6-7

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6-7


Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others. That may sound terribly dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion. Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could ?claim? to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims ? it?s an absolutely phenomenal study.

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
       I am God, and there is no other;
       I am God, and there is none like me. Isaiah 46:9

We are still in the age of grace and the gospel is still being preached to many new people each and every day that have not had a chance to hear the gospel.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

During one of Mohammed's trips as a trader, he had a vision from a being he perceived to be an angel who said, ?There is only one God, and His name is Allah. Worship Him.? Islam was founded in 610 A.D. so you have to take into account that this was obviously thousands of years after Genesis and I don't believe God would reinvent the wheel. I believe this is Satan disguised as an angel of light.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13-14

Buddhism has many good principles and practices but still there is no mention of a saviour to redeem us of our sins.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." John 3:16-21
 I hope that I have answered some of your questions.
May God Bless You!!

That is interesting. When does the being open minded or being open to being proven wrong turn into the desire to be proven wrong? And when does the desire to be proven wrong slip or mutate into the desire to believe even to the point of self deception?

I think there was a point in time years ago where I wanted to believe so deeply that I was willing to grasp at any reason to make Christianity believable, to silence doubt and experience faith. But then there came a point where this was no longer tolerable, it became intolerable to support faith with reasons that I knew didn't even make sense. And since this is no longer tolerable belief becomes impossible.

But I don't want to be closeminded and deaf to the otherside of the arguement and I enjoy the debate. Granted though, I am not very hopeful that the christian apologist can carry the day. But, let's not be to quick about it. Let's see where the discussion goes.

Who's deciding this?  Mankind?  A man?  An intelligent man?  As one theologian said "Even the best of man is still man."  Whose reasoning or value system should we use to answer this question?  Maybe take a majority vote of the human race, and let the majority rule?  Or do we just rely on a "reasonable mind"?

Let's suppose that I say it is and you say it is not.  Then what?  Is your reasoning more "reasonable" than mine?  How do we determine what is "fair" or "just" in a world that, if there is no God, is nothing more than chaos and random forces of energy interacting?

Enough questions, but I liked asking them.    My point is from what perceptive do we answer this?  As a Christian, I find it logically consistent to say yes it does.  But I don't believe you will find my viewpoint valid.

There are two reasons why I say yes.  One, the consequence of sin on our world and on the lives of others.  Everything in this universe atrophies because of sin.  St. Paul in Romans 8 contends that the all of nature groans under the curse of our sin, both past and present.  Can we look at our world today and disagree?  The lives destroyed by greed and violence where many in the world starve while a few over consume to feed their egos and greed, where children suffer and die at the hands of violence of others, and etc. etc. etc.  What is a "just" punishment for the evils of man?  Who decides?

But the second reason is that I don't believe we arrive in eternal punishment because of our crimes.  We arrive there because of our choices.  We choose to live without God.  And the relationship we develop in this life is continued in the next.  And an eternal life without God is an eternal hell.

But you and others have heard all this before.  If there is a God, He has not supplied enough "proof" to intellectually convince some.  If there is a God, it will be interesting to hear how they will stand before Him and accuse Him of His failure.

St. Paul wrote, "They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.  For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky.  Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature.  So they have no excuse for not knowing God.  Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give them thanks.  ...  Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools."  He wrote to the Corinthians, "Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise.  And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.  God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important."

I'm not saying because one questions that makes one foolish.  But I am saying don't make the mistake of believing that intellectual reasoning is the same thing as wisdom.  It is far from it.

St. Paul was a very intelligent and educated man that has reasoned his way to a conclusion he thought could not be wrong.  But he had an experience that changed all that.  Maybe, sometimes, experience is as valuable, or even more valuable, than intellectual reasoning.

 

Bruce:

I have a problem with this language usage, the "as a (insert belief system here) I find it logically".  Are you suggesting logic is relative to belief systems?

I'll point you to the discussion Paul and I had about perception in the other thread.

Would you like to say this in a different way?

I guess you didn't understand my point. The Old Testament had many Messianic prophecies concerning the coming Messiah who would be our redeemer.The New Testament was the fullfillment of these Messianic prophecies as well as prophecies that have not come to pass.
Point being that since Islam was founded in 610 A.D. and the Muslims believe that Allah was God is clearly misleading and inaccurate because Jesus already died for our sins 610 years earlier. Jesus already paid the price for us so there is no need for a second saviour.The people in the Old Testament had faith in God,the people in the New Testament had faith in Jesus Christ.
God and Jesus Christ are one in the same.No need to reinvent the wheel.

The use of logic is not relative, but the outcome of logic is.  All logic is based on a set of axioms (or beliefs if you like).  I can use logic within the axioms set by Christianity and be consistent.  However, if someone else chooses to use different axioms they will reach different conclusions using the same logic.  Sorry, but my studies in theoretical mathematics taught me a long time ago that the same logical operators can produce many different systems (or systems of beliefs) based on the axioms used to build the model.

As a Christian, I believe that there is a God.  I believe that God has communicated and is communicating His nature and His Will both through the Scriptures and through His Holy Spirit.  I build my "system" from these axioms, and have found the results to be "truthful" in explaining my experiences and the world environment I find myself in.  In other words, I find the logical system built on these axioms to be "proven" by experience (I would almost say by experiment, but I don't want to imply scientific replication.)

I read your discussion on perception, but it makes no allowance for revelation thereby discounting (or even eliminating) the existence and role of the Holy Spirit who "leads us into all truth".