A Question for All Christians

[KDude]

I revised that btw. (not for any particular reason other than to add things)


I will just respond on one point... that there is no "basis" in being nice without theology. Sorry, but I disagree. There are plenty of nice people who don't know a thing about theology. Ethics are not necessarily based on authority or theology.. they're based on knowing what hurts others and what doesn't - and identifying.. seeing one's self in the position of weakness or pain.

Even Jesus himself would disagree. He did not say "Be good to others because God says so and is in authority.. also, check out this theology book, yo." He said "Do to others as you would have them do to you." It was an emphasis on identifying with people. It makes no appeals to anything other than what you know about yourself.

 

[Beorn]

I revised that btw. (not for any particular reason other than to add things)


I will just respond on one point... that there is no "basis" in being nice without theology. Sorry, but I disagree. There are plenty of nice people who don't know a thing about theology. Ethics are not necessarily based on authority or theology.. they're based on knowing what hurts others and what doesn't - and identifying.. seeing one's self in the position of weakness or pain.

Even Jesus himself would disagree. He did not say "Be good to others because God says so and is in authority.. also, check out this theology book, yo." He said "Do to others as you would have them do to you." It was an emphasis on identifying with people. It makes no appeals to anything other than what you know about yourself.

You're missing my point. Christ himself said "evil men are good to their children." By basis I don't mean ability I mean grounding in unchangeable standards.

Love your neighbor is a general principle... but you seem to not be interested in Christ's other commandment... "Love the Lord with all your heart."

You really can't be serious that Jesus doesn't appeal to God the Father as an authority. I would be hard put to find many passages where he doesn't appeal to God the Father. Jesus isn't all puppies and flowers in the NT he says some pretty harsh stuff. Like the following:

4 “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies?2 And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.
8 “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, 9 but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. ”

 

[KDude]

i didn't say he didn't appeal to god in general. he was a religious man, that much is obvious. i'm talking specifically about his ethics - namely the golden rule. he is only appealing to our better selves in that statement. it doesn't "coerce" one into an act of good other than making one look inward. the golden rule has intrinsic value, and could be said anywhere in the world, without context, without mention of God or church, and still be understood. it doesn't acknowledge one bit that people are enslaved to sin, are incapable of righteous acts, need theology, need atonement, or sacrifice.. in order to carry it out. if he really believed that, he would have never said it. it would have been utterly in vain.

[edit] btw i never said anything about ignoring "loving the lord with all my heart". i said i wasn't a christian. big difference. i may love the lord, i may not.you'll never know. it's not relative to ethics though...people can be good without theology. that's all i'm saying. ethics that go beyond the call of duty to one's "children", mind you. ethics that are deeper than merely wanting "puppies and flowers". if you're going to trivialize the potential for good in humanity that much, i have nothing left to say. it's the very reason why i do not like to identify myself as "christian".

 

[cafe]

I think I'd be a little disappointed at first, and then I'd be pretty relieved that nobody was going to hell.

 

[Litvyak]

I think I'd be a little disappointed at first, and then I'd be pretty relieved that nobody was going to hell.

I love this perspective.

 

[Lark]

Many of the fundamental beams that hold the house of Christianity up are built on the stone of original sin and forgiveness. When the Origin of Species was tossed into the realm of intelligence, sin became obsolete in the wake of species and scientific inquiry. Still, many Christians hold on to this precept by using their imagination to circumvent the story of original sin, or by clinging to the fundamentals in rejection of the theory of evolution.

So, I have a question for any Christian who believes in original sin. I'm not trying to taunt or challenge it, but rather I would like to see people's imagination expand.

If Christ were to come back right now, be resurrected a second time and told you: "I'm sorry, there is not an afterlife. My Father can resurrect me, but he cannot resurrect you."

Could you forgive him?

Original sin is turning away from God, the creation story is just story depicting that, the RC church and many other Christian congregations dont have a problem with evolution, infact I reckon it is what sets man and God apart as creators, man can create but nothing like that.

I'd want to know more about this supposed Christ and supposed father if what you desribe ever happened and I'd suspect a charalatan, if there was no afterlife, no pie in the sky or believers reward? It would not change anything.

 

[foolish heart]

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

 

[Beorn]

i said i wasn't a christian.... if you're going to trivialize the potential for good in humanity that much, i have nothing left to say. it's the very reason why i do not like to identify myself as "christian".

Fair enough. I was pulling an all-nighter last night and if I treated you unfairly I apologize.

Original sin is turning away from God, the creation story is just story depicting that, the RC church and many other Christian congregations dont have a problem with evolution, infact I reckon it is what sets man and God apart as creators, man can create but nothing like that.

FTR, my denomination doesn't take any specific view on evolution even though we are very conservative and evangelical. Though we must insist on a literal garden of eden and Adam and Eve... because as the OP suggests original sin is quite critical to many Christian claims.

if there was no afterlife, no pie in the sky or believers reward? It would not change anything.

This viewpoint baffles me. If your faith isn't based on truth what's the point? Do you think religion has some sort of inherent value regardless of the truth of its claims?

 

[Lark]

This viewpoint baffles me. If your faith isn't based on truth what's the point? Do you think religion has some sort of inherent value regardless of the truth of its claims?

My faith isnt based upon reward, I do not believe what I do or act accordingly because I believe I am storing up a return on investment.

 

[Beorn]

My faith isnt based upon reward, I do not believe what I do or act accordingly because I believe I am storing up a return on investment.

What is it based on?

 

[Lark]

What is it based on?

Life and ministry of Jesus, maybe there is no afterlife, whatever is Gods will.

 

[Invisiblemonkey]

Theological impossibility aside, yes. He did a lot during His time on earth, not to mention the argument that puddleglum made in the silver chair (Basically, it's an argument that states, "Even if it isn't true, I'm happier, and a better person for it.") and if a void is anything like temporarily induced emotionlessness, it's not THAT bad. I do, however, hold that the fact that a person doesn't account for time spent while unconscious to be proof that the void doesn't exist... But that's not what this is about.