Really ... "no continuity" ...

I would like to respond more fully, but here are a couple of quick comments.

First, let's address the Ghandi statement.  I usually let this quote slide, but I'm thinking it is becoming a mantra (get it ... Hinduism ... mantra)    Ghandi's problem was not with the Church, but with the politics of "Christian" nations.  He experienced Apartheid in South Africa, and then the British ruled India.  In India, the greatest example of loving others comes from Christianity.  It is the Christians that sponsor and run the hospitals and the universities.  Among Hindu's the illiteracy rate is over 40% that can't even read.  It is the Christians that leave comfort and home and build clinics and schools in the villages.  When a person becomes a Christian in the villages, the Hindus refuse to let them draw water from the community wells.  When Christians drill wells in the villages, they allow all to come.  Is this not continuity with Jesus' teaching?  (By the way, and this is not pertinent to this thread, while Ghandi did not like Christians, it was not a Christian that assassinated him, but a fellow Hindu.  Interesting that the state church under the British was the Anglican Church, and under Ghandi it reverted to Hinduism (which most biographers don't talk about) and yet it was not a Christian fanatical that shot him.)

Second, that is why it is called Grace.  Grace accepts people where they are and then takes them to where they need to be.  So Christianity is not monolithic in its actions, because many Christians are "messy" and don't act like Christ.  This is not true of Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism.  To be characterized as one of these, you must first "become" or assimilate a certain level of thinking.  So, you are right.  Christians don't always act like Christ.  But once again, I don't think the problem is with Christians, but with so-called "Christian" societies.

Third, "Action speak louder than words"?  I contend that you can find no other group of people or organization that does more for those outside their communities than Christians.  In some ways (but not completely), I do find it disturbing that when help is needed, it is to "Christian" organizations and to "Christian" nations that the world turns to; yet it is "Christian" organizations and "Christian" nations that are not being loving and caring.  Really?  No connection at all? 

I wasn't contesting what other religions were doing.  I simply said that they were not doing "more" or what I said exactly was "no one does more".  That doesn't mean that the rest don't do any.  And I will stand by that statement.  Especially when it was in response to your statement   I contend that mine is more accurate than yours.    LOL


You are such a cynic.   

By the way, you may want to check out that Islam Relief Fund.  There are news articles on the Internet connecting several of their operatives to organized terrorism.  I'm not saying that they are not legit.  So don't fire back with everything they do.  Just saying they MAY not be TOTALLY legit.  I also noticed on their website that the vast majority of what they do is for other Muslims (although they said they help all regardless of "creed"). 

But I don't want to fight about the Islam Relief Fund.  I really wanted to focus on the comment that people don't believe the witness and writings of the Apostles because there is NO resemblance between Christianity today and the teachings of Christ.  Now that did catch my attention. 

Oh Paul ... ... ...


I believe it is your job to be a skeptic, but never a cynic.

Luke 7:50, Jesus said, "Your faith has SAVED you, go in peace."

Matthew 24:12-13, Jesus said, "Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold.  But the one who endures to the end will be SAVED."

Luke 19:9-10, Jesus said, "SALVATION has come to this home today, for this man has shown himself to be a true son of Abraham.  For the Son of Man came to seek and SAVE those who are lost."

John 10:9, Jesus said, "Yes, I am the gate.  Those who come in through me will be SAVED."

And there are others, but a few examples is enough.  Those whom you read that say that Jesus did not come to save, but to provide an example of passive aggression or something else are either unaware of scriptures such as these or are selective in what they believe or quote.


In other words, they have not devoted themselves to understanding and obeying his teachings, but they have deemed themselves competent to comment on and interpret his meanings.  Okay. 

Sorry for the confusion.  I wasn't commenting on that.  I was commenting on this.


My examples were to make the point that Jesus said the same thing.  That he was as concerned about "being saved" as his followers are and vice versa.


From my point of view, it's a bad analogy.  Given that I am one (consultant that is), it is my experience that people only hire those who have extensive experience in the area they want addressed.  No one hires a musician, a historian, a writer, a molecular biologist to provide another point of view on how they can better manage their supply chain.  In fact, it is even more specialized than that, a person may have business experience, but if it is not in the area they want addressed, they wouldn't look for their opinion.

Even if they did go outside their profession to get an "out of the box" viewpoint, it would first be evaluated by those who have experience before being applied or excepted.

But I understand your point and accept it.  I'm just glad that I can be one of those "mirrors".   

Point made.

What's next!   

How did you get from point 6 to point 7?

Going back to the sacrifice in the Old Testament which is a type of Christ's sacrifice, even though the sacrifice was made, the person still had "actions" that mattered.  One, the person had to voluntarily identify himself and his sin with the sacrifice the priest made.  Two, it was made clear under the Law, that the attitude of the heart, meaning to desire to do that which was loving, merciful, and just was more important than the sacrifice.  And Three, neither the sacrifice nor the attitude mattered, if it was not based on a love for God or for others.  And yet, love for God and for others required the sacrifice.

I didn?t see this response till much later (now in fact as I was looking back to see where the tread wandered.) So I suppose I will respond in kind even though pages have been written since. I feel like I should respond to your answer since I started the thread. Though I feel like I don't have much new to say. 

I am glad I make you smile. J Your friendship makes me smile. Theology on the other hand is downright depressing.

At this point it?s like it takes an emotional effort to engage with a lot of statements like these. I mean when you reason it?s reasoning? When I reason it?s rationalism?.   I am not using reasoning? Really? This seems so circular. Perhaps when you are using rhetoric and I am using reason. Perhaps I am not using reason at all, just stringing together random statements.

What can I do with a statement like this? ?.. except call it a verbal dodge or guess at what you meant?

So maybe what you mean is that I am coming from a metaphysically naturalist view point and therefore automatically ruling out faith without investigating, without questioning, without giving faith the benefit of the doubt.

However I feel this is the exact opposite of what I am doing. The doctrine of hell and eternal punishment is an important  Christian doctrine and I am trying to show why I don?t think it makes sense in theory or in practice. I have not ruled out the possibility of the supernatural. All it would take for me to believe in the supernatural is evidence. But before we can even get to evidence, we have to ask if Christian beliefs are coherent, consistent and reasonable. If it can be shown that hell is a reasonable belief and is consistent and coherent then that is one step towards faith. If not it is one step away from it.



What axioms would these be? It sounds like you are trying to work the conclusion covertly into the premise of the argument, but this is circular.

Well may be using logic is too rationalist of a response, so maybe I should respond to this more personally. I said ?Why would God give us reason that is designed so that when we use it, it leads us away from him,? not just as a reason or a logical objection, but as a summary describing my experience when I try to find a reason why we should believe various things about Christianity.

My experience has been asking questions about faith gets you mostly either illogical answers or appeals like ?Well we just have to accept that whatever God does is just, If God tortures people then divine torture is just, but we humans may never comprehend why torture is so right and so perfect.?

Just how does one keep to God?s axioms and  avoid thinking that hell is torture and torture is wrong.


Well Bruce, this is a good answer, but my dear you know that really you are just using rhetorical skill, where as I am using reasoning . 

Seriously this is just what I was talking about when I said ?My experience has been asking questions about faith gets you mostly either illogical answers or appeals like ?Well we just have to accept that whatever God does is just, If God tortures people then divine torture is just, but we humans may never comprehend why torture is so right and so perfect.? ?

As far as atheist justice, I think the proper question is ?what is a Humanist Philosophy of Justice.? But unfortunately I have neither the time nor the space to elaborate for you such a long and complex subject.
It?s like asking the question ?what is humanism or atheism and why do you find it compelling?? I feel like I have not the space to answer such a long question here. I could mention that the founding fathers were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment and (here comes that R word) Rationalism and Enlightenment principles. In fact we could have a whole college course on the relationship between the Enlightenment and the founding of the American Democracy and it?s constitution. So in part much of today justice system is influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and I think it is some of it?s best parts, impartiality, due process, innocent until proven guilty by evidence. Certainly there is much more to the matter, but I think that Rationalistic thinking has made quite a few positive contributions to the system of justice.






That?s if there is an afterlife and it would be nice if there is one. But can we wait till we are dead to decide what to believe.

Even if those all agree what about the rest of the world? Even if 2/3?s of the world agree as you say, what about the rest of the world. For God so loved most of the world ?. for God so loved 2/3?s of the world??

But really how does one choose which religion or whether no religion is right? Do we just go with what we were raised?   What if we feel that God is talking to us through Islam or through Hinduism?  How do we decide that we are not just deceiving ourselves? Or do we ?foolishly? use reasoning to try and find our way.

How do we know that we are really following God and not just deceiving ourselves?



So when non-believer?s reason it is mearly ?human reasoning? but when Christians reason it is
divine reasoning or the holy spirit guiding?


I think you would laugh me out of the room if I tried to use these arguments for atheism. Atheism is so true that our human reasoning can never comprehend how true it is?..  J I try to show you how I come to think what I think is true.


I mean I see what you are saying. It all comes down to if the bible says hell exists it must exist and it must be just, who knows how, but it just must be right. God?s justice is so far beyond our comprehension that he could choose to eat babies for breakfast and it would still be just and right. Who are we to question the bible if it sounds absurd?

How do we know that we are ?renewing our minds? and not mislead? If our philosophical systems won?t work with in our relationship with God, how do we know that we are not letting total nonsense creep into our relationship with God.
It all sounds so circular.
How do we know we are receiving true revelation and true guidance from the Holy Spirit and no from our own mind?