God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Dicky Underpants]

DU,

Well observed. It's a pretty rigged game isn't it: "I made you such that you cannot just choose to believe something/if you don't believe it you're condemned a priori regardless of how good your actions and behaviour". Is this a just god we're talking about here or Fat Tony and the boys?

I think we're talking about the various groups of Fat Tonys, Giovannis and Paulos who wrangled among themselves in the emerging Christian church, each with his own idea of God, and the significance of Jesus. In the end, it was largely Paul's Jesus who won out (and to a large extent John's), but the various bits and pieces have been juggled about with ever since.

[wigginhall]

Some nice points there, Dicky.   It is striking how on the one hand, grace means that you can't earn salvation, and doing stuff is pointless, yet on the other hand, some Christians have a kind of zeal and earnestness, which suggests lots of trying and hard work.   Kind of a split mentality. 

I sort of get what they mean by grace, as you find this in some areas of Buddhism, that you can't reinvent what you are, or where you are, or what you are doing.   Or as some say, life is living me, not v.v.   On the other hand, capitalism teaches us that we can be/do anything.   Well, I like being passive, I suppose.

I like Fat Tony a lot.   I bet he loves his mum's pizza.

[DaveM]

And yet Matthew 25 says nothing about 'grace' - it's all about works (as is the 'straw' epistle of James). Sure, St Paul made the 'grace' idea central to his teaching, since he'd tried harder than most to keep the law, and failed. Christianity has over the centuries become a curious mishmash of these antithetical ideas. It produces some strange anomalies - Protestantism, which really bigged up the 'grace' idea, has also given birth to that humourless phenomenon "the Protestant work-ethic".

You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow.  It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here.  But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.

[ekim]

ekim,

Dunno - but whether it was the words of Jesus or of a follower, it still seems a pretty idiosyncratic entry rule for the heavenly rewards to follow. More Kim Jong-un than a god of the omnis I'd have thought.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entry rule'.  I don't think that we can be 100% certain that the recorded words of Jesus are verbatim or that those who wrote them understood what he was teaching, amongst other contaminants.  However from what has been attributed to him,  I would say that the message is not about rewards and punishment but more about accessing or surrendering to what is freely available.  Heaven is within and is available to all no matter whether considered good or bad but to access it there needs to be a turning towards it and away from the many other outer substitutions, which is difficult and uncomfortable in the early stages.

[Robbie]

Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?

Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entry rule'.

If you "believeth" you're in with a shout; if you don't, you're not. That's the entry rule.

I don't think that we can be 100% certain that the recorded words of Jesus are verbatim or that those who wrote them understood what he was teaching, amongst other contaminants.  However from what has been attributed to him,  I would say that the message is not about rewards and punishment but more about accessing or surrendering to what is freely available.

How is our inability to decide what we believe in compatible with something being "freely available", and why in any case would our belief rather than our actions be the determining criterion for an afterlife?
 

Heaven is within and is available to all no matter whether considered good or bad but to access it there needs to be a turning towards it and away from the many other outer substitutions, which is difficult and uncomfortable in the early stages.

No doubt that's your personal belief, but again why would there need to be a "turning towards it" at all rather than just doing lots of good and selfless things? Wouldn't a just god prefer that person over someone less good and less selfless, but who happened to have a specified belief?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.

That's the get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" generally produced when stories about "God" are incoherent, contradictory, immoral, inconsistent etc and it doesn't wash.

[Walter]

Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.

I am a kind atheist and if your Christian god exists I renounce him , he is a monster .

[Gordon]

You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow. 

Which sounds like the Courtier's Reply.

It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here.  But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.

Which sounds like more argument from authority and tradition. How do you know that these self-referential passages in the Bible aren't contrived propaganda: how have you excluded this risk?

[Walter]

Gordon
he probably hasn't , otherwise he wouldn't have made that mistake.

[Robbie]

Robinson,

That's the get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" generally produced when stories about "God" are incoherent, contradictory, immoral, inconsistent etc and it doesn't wash.

Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.

So he's sort of like Simon Cowell?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am a kind atheist and if your Christian god exists I renounce him , he is a monster .

I would hazard that the atheist who has feelings in this is feeling what Waugh describes as ''a twitch on the thread''

If one isnt particularly kind to Christians, since heaven will be full of them what possible beef could someone have with the Almighty for not letting them in.....and what motive would they therefore have for wanting in?

Jesus says ''The man who comes to me I shall in no ways turn away''.

[Walter]

I would hazard that the atheist who has feelings in this is feeling what Waugh describes as ''a twitch on the thread''

If one isnt particularly kind to Christians, since heaven will be full of them what possible beef could someone have with the Almighty for not letting them in.....and what motive would they therefore have for wanting in?

Jesus says ''The man who comes to me I shall in no ways turn away''.

Jesus?, are you referring  to that well known fictional character?

[Walter]

Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.

what do you base your opinion on ,in this matter , Robinson?

[Robbie]

So he's sort of like Simon Cowell?

I doubt he wears high waisted trousers.

[DaveM]

Which sounds like more argument from authority and tradition. How do you know that these self-referential passages in the Bible aren't contrived propaganda: how have you excluded this risk?

Good Evening Gordon,

I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.  But just one comment.

This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic.  For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe.  My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view.   Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.

Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc.  I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding. 

So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.     

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt he wears high waisted trousers.

though slopy shoulders possibly

[Nearly Sane]

Good Evening Gordon,

I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.  But just one comment.

This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic.  For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe.  My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view.   Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.

Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc.  I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding. 

So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.   

You want the Faith Sharing Area, dear chap. Not the Christian Topic.

[Gordon]

Good Evening Gordon,

I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.  But just one comment.

This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic.  For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe.  My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view.   Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.

Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc.  I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding. 

So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.   

Not so subtly avoided, and given your stated position on discussion I'll just ignore the fallacies in your reply.

This is a Forum for the discussion of R&E, amongst other topics of interest, and it isn't a religious site. We have however provided a Faith Sharing Area where you can discuss your views without the inconvenience of challenge from those of us who aren't theists.

[SweetPea]

You want the Faith Sharing Area, dear chap. Not the Christian Topic.

Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....

[Nearly Sane]

Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....

No, atheists do not do any gate keeping. This is the same format that existed on the BBC website. This board like the Muslim board, or the Pagan board is for discussion.

[SweetPea]

No, atheists do not do any gate keeping. This is the same format that existed on the BBC website. This board like the Muslim board, or the Pagan board is for discussion.

Well, I tend to differ on the gatekeeping because that's how it must look to anyone not familiar with the original BBC format.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I tend to differ on the gatekeeping because that's how it must look to anyone not familiar with the original BBC format.

So how is posting 'gatekept' by atheists?

[SweetPea]

So how is posting 'gatekept' by atheists?

Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.