Clearly not a scientist. Many of what is depicted in the Bible was demonstrating the time period of which had occurred. Many of the atrocities you listed where local and national laws and rules, and not God's. Can you see this?
As a Catholic I was brought up to believe that people of other religions that have lived a righteous life can be granted salvation from God which would be true of any Christian as well.
Really? That's a pretty rare view amongst Christians, including Catholics. In fact, the only Christian that I can ever recall saying similar to that was Pope Francis and he was heavily criticized for it.
All Christians that I have ever heard on this issue (and I went to a great Catholic school for 4 years) take a more literal reading of John 3:16 and consider it binary -- there's no way any non-Christians gets salvation, according to every Christian I've ever known (and, like most Americans, I'm surrounded by Christians and Christianity).
I was raised a Catholic. I expect the concept the OP is referring to is Limbo. Basically the Catholic Church defines Limbo as a place where good people go in the afterlife and live in a state with all the trappings of Paradise but without the presence of God. A kind of second class heaven if you like.
Initially Limbo was the "Limbo of the Patriarchs", where good people who lived before Christ's resurrection could wait it out until Christ opened the gates of heaven. After all, it would be a bit strange of people like Moses, Daniel, David and Solomon were burning in hellfire for centuries waiting for the coming of the messiah. Later Limbo became the "Limbo of the Infants", the place where infants who died before they could be baptised were consigned. After all, a baby who died just a couple of hours old could not have sinned in his own life but was still cursed with original sin. This baby could not enter Heaven but should it really be confined to hellfire for eternity?
Ultimately this status was transferred to adults who had not been baptised but who had lived good and virtuous lives. After all, we are all God's children. So therefore individuals like Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale and Mahatma Gandhi are probably now in Limbo rather than Hell. ***
*** Note: According the the Catholic faith you have to be baptised a Catholic to enter Heaven, being baptised into another Christian denomination doesn't count. I have no idea whether other Christian denominations accept other groups baptisms as legitimate.
Really? That's a pretty rare view amongst Christians, including Catholics. In fact, the only Christian that I can ever recall saying similar to that was Pope Francis and he was heavily criticized for it.
All Christians that I have ever heard on this issue (and I went to a great Catholic school for 4 years) take a more literal reading of John 3:16 and consider it binary -- there's no way any non-Christians gets salvation, according to every Christian I've ever known (and, like most Americans, I'm surrounded by Christians and Christianity).
I was raised a Catholic. I expect the concept the OP is referring to is Limbo. Basically the Catholic Church defines Limbo as a place where good people go in the afterlife and live in a state with all the trappings of Paradise but without the presence of God. A kind of second class heaven if you like.
Initially Limbo was the "Limbo of the Patriarchs", where good people who lived before Christ's resurrection could wait it out until Christ opened the gates of heaven. After all, it would be a bit strange of people like Moses, Daniel, David and Solomon were burning in hellfire for centuries waiting for the coming of the messiah. Later Limbo became the "Limbo of the Infants", the place where infants who died before they could be baptised were consigned. After all, a baby who died just a couple of hours old could not have sinned in his own life but was still cursed with original sin. This baby could not enter Heaven but should it really be confined to hellfire for eternity?
Ultimately this status was transferred to adults who had not been baptised but who had lived good and virtuous lives. After all, we are all God's children. So therefore individuals like Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale and Mahatma Gandhi are probably now in Limbo rather than Hell. ***
*** Note: According the the Catholic faith you have to be baptised a Catholic to enter Heaven, being baptised into another Christian denomination doesn't count. I have no idea whether other Christian denominations accept other groups baptisms as legitimate.
Protestant faiths don't teach Baptism is required for entry into Heaven at all. They believe baptism is a public profession of faith. They'd think it a bit strange if someone weren't to get baptized, but they would say entry to heaven is about belief and repentance. There are cases where someone couldn't be baptized without severe danger after all - places where Christianity is outlawed.
Yeah, probably, but that sentence is almost gibberish. What does it even mean? What is he trying to say?
A large number of "atrocities " cited in the Bible weren't decrees, judgment, nor laws FROM GOD. They were (see above) created by men of that time and place to give context.
Really? That's a pretty rare view amongst Christians, including Catholics. In fact, the only Christian that I can ever recall saying similar to that was Pope Francis and he was heavily criticized for it.
All Christians that I have ever heard on this issue (and I went to a great Catholic school for 4 years) take a more literal reading of John 3:16 and consider it binary -- there's no way any non-Christians gets salvation, according to every Christian I've ever known (and, like most Americans, I'm surrounded by Christians and Christianity).
I was raised a Catholic. I expect the concept the OP is referring to is Limbo. Basically the Catholic Church defines Limbo as a place where good people go in the afterlife and live in a state with all the trappings of Paradise but without the presence of God. A kind of second class heaven if you like.
Initially Limbo was the "Limbo of the Patriarchs", where good people who lived before Christ's resurrection could wait it out until Christ opened the gates of heaven. After all, it would be a bit strange of people like Moses, Daniel, David and Solomon were burning in hellfire for centuries waiting for the coming of the messiah. Later Limbo became the "Limbo of the Infants", the place where infants who died before they could be baptised were consigned. After all, a baby who died just a couple of hours old could not have sinned in his own life but was still cursed with original sin. This baby could not enter Heaven but should it really be confined to hellfire for eternity?
Ultimately this status was transferred to adults who had not been baptised but who had lived good and virtuous lives. After all, we are all God's children. So therefore individuals like Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale and Mahatma Gandhi are probably now in Limbo rather than Hell. ***
*** Note: According the the Catholic faith you have to be baptised a Catholic to enter Heaven, being baptised into another Christian denomination doesn't count. I have no idea whether other Christian denominations accept other groups baptisms as legitimate.
Ah, I see. Thank you. I had not picked up on that.
Yeah, probably, but that sentence is almost gibberish. What does it even mean? What is he trying to say?
"Clearly not a scientist. Many of what is depicted in the Bible was demonstrating the time period of which had occurred. Many of the atrocities you listed where local and national laws and rules, and not God's. Can you see this?"
God only knows, but I'll take a stab at it. I read it like "much of what is depicted in the Bible is typical of the time period in which it occurred." I think he is trying to say that the Bible is written in a way to ensure a measure of compliance with period norms, written in a way that is the best they could get people to buy into given the local culture and polities and the understanding of the world at that time.
Its just as possible its a deliberately poorly written statement to get us to ponder while he sits back and laughs about people thinking over it.
Yeah, probably, but that sentence is almost gibberish. What does it even mean? What is he trying to say?
A large number of "atrocities " cited in the Bible weren't decrees, judgment, nor laws FROM GOD. They were (see above) created by men of that time and place to give context.
Which ones would these be? The flood that wiped out everyone but one dude's family? The murder of Abel? The eviction of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? The 10 plagues? The burning of 2 cities? Cursing all the descendants of one man? Stoning people who chose other religious beliefs? People living in the desert for 40 years and starving? Someone turning into a pillar of salt?
Sin is what separates people from God. Sin is what sends people to hell.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 NIV
Without Jesus Christ, there is no forgiveness of sins.
“For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Colossians 1:13-14 NIV
SMH. Humans were here for 198,000 years before Jesus, or any religion. Throughout the history of human beings (117 Billion) only about 3.2 billion were ever Christians.
I was raised a Catholic. I expect the concept the OP is referring to is Limbo. Basically the Catholic Church defines Limbo as a place where good people go in the afterlife and live in a state with all the trappings of Paradise but without the presence of God. A kind of second class heaven if you like.
Initially Limbo was the "Limbo of the Patriarchs", where good people who lived before Christ's resurrection could wait it out until Christ opened the gates of heaven. After all, it would be a bit strange of people like Moses, Daniel, David and Solomon were burning in hellfire for centuries waiting for the coming of the messiah. Later Limbo became the "Limbo of the Infants", the place where infants who died before they could be baptised were consigned. After all, a baby who died just a couple of hours old could not have sinned in his own life but was still cursed with original sin. This baby could not enter Heaven but should it really be confined to hellfire for eternity?
Ultimately this status was transferred to adults who had not been baptised but who had lived good and virtuous lives. After all, we are all God's children. So therefore individuals like Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale and Mahatma Gandhi are probably now in Limbo rather than Hell. ***
*** Note: According the the Catholic faith you have to be baptised a Catholic to enter Heaven, being baptised into another Christian denomination doesn't count. I have no idea whether other Christian denominations accept other groups baptisms as legitimate.
Ah, I see. Thank you. I had not picked up on that.
Many conservative Catholics are upset with Pope Francis, who they complain is changing church doctrine, but they hardly blinked when Pope Benedict got rid of Limbo, a Catholic doctrine that had been taught for centuries.
The concept of salvation is far more complex than a non-believer can accept. They lack the ability to discern things to know what was written, and what is said to them about what was written.
However, I will try to put it in the simplest terms that I can for everyone.
First, man was created in the image of God, in order to be a reflection of God in this world. Man sinned, and thus was fallen. The Old Testament was written to explain just how difficult it was for any man to live up to the standard of perfection, making man realize that he could not save himself. Once the standard was set, God sent His Son to show the grace of God in His offering up of Himself to pay the price for sin. Once man admits that he is incapable of living up to the standard, he can then come to Christ in humble repentance. Those who do so will receive eternal life with God, and those who reject the free gift will become eternally separated from Him. What this separation is actually like is beyond our ability to explain, but I can safely say that it will be without all of the blessings that being with God can offer a soul.
This is a very brief explanation of how I believe it from scripture, but I think it explains it well enough for everyone to understand my thoughts. Yes, there are a lot of specifics not included, but there is enough for the points needed to be made.
Non-believers can feel free to flame this post.
I'd like to start with your first sentence. Its a tenet of Christianity that anyone could be accepted into the religion, or accept salvation, whatever. This is why they proselytize. Its why many, especially in the west, are so familiar with their beliefs and know little about Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc.
You are correct, but that does not negate anything I wrote in the post you quoted.
What does it mean to "treat people fairly"? That seems nebulous to me and could vary greatly from person to person. And WHY is theft wrong? What if someone is starving and has to steal to survive? What if a person steals from a wealthy entity to give that money to the poor? Without a foundational of morality, subjectivity of perspective allows a lot of leeway for deviation.
None of them have given any of this any thought.
They don't even understand the difference between subjective and objective morality.
Ooooohhh. So it's your strong belief in/adherence to an "objective morality" that compels you spend all day spewing nothing but insults and venom towards anyone who disagrees with you on an internet messageboard. And here I was thinking you were just a miserable sack of sh*t.
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
I agree with 55 YO. You are so wrong that I actually feel badly for you.
I agree with WinstonSmith as well, you copied and pasted your post.
The Sermon on the Mount was a call for "civil disobedience" against the Romans???????
I don't know what you do for a living or if this was fed to you by a Professor while you were in College, but...you need help. Jesus IS the savior for all of us and to write the words down that you did in your post is bizarre and again, so wrong that I feel badly for you. All men are mortal, good luck when your time comes as you've missed the boat. You need major prayers.
Here's the main message of Sermon on the Mount, not what you have claimed.
At the heart of the Sermon on the Mount is a message of love, compassion, and selflessness. Jesus encourages his listeners to love their enemies, to forgive others, and to care for the poor and marginalized.
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
I agree with 55 YO. You are so wrong that I actually feel badly for you.
I agree with WinstonSmith as well, you copied and pasted your post.
The Sermon on the Mount was a call for "civil disobedience" against the Romans???????
I don't know what you do for a living or if this was fed to you by a Professor while you were in College, but...you need help. Jesus IS the savior for all of us and to write the words down that you did in your post is bizarre and again, so wrong that I feel badly for you. All men are mortal, good luck when your time comes as you've missed the boat. You need major prayers.
Here's the main message of Sermon on the Mount, not what you have claimed.
At the heart of the Sermon on the Mount is a message of love, compassion, and selflessness. Jesus encourages his listeners to love their enemies, to forgive others, and to care for the poor and marginalized.
The concept of salvation is far more complex than a non-believer can accept. They lack the ability to discern things to know what was written, and what is said to them about what was written.
However, I will try to put it in the simplest terms that I can for everyone.
First, man was created in the image of God, in order to be a reflection of God in this world. Man sinned, and thus was fallen. The Old Testament was written to explain just how difficult it was for any man to live up to the standard of perfection, making man realize that he could not save himself. Once the standard was set, God sent His Son to show the grace of God in His offering up of Himself to pay the price for sin. Once man admits that he is incapable of living up to the standard, he can then come to Christ in humble repentance. Those who do so will receive eternal life with God, and those who reject the free gift will become eternally separated from Him. What this separation is actually like is beyond our ability to explain, but I can safely say that it will be without all of the blessings that being with God can offer a soul.
This is a very brief explanation of how I believe it from scripture, but I think it explains it well enough for everyone to understand my thoughts. Yes, there are a lot of specifics not included, but there is enough for the points needed to be made.
Non-believers can feel free to flame this post.
All very nice fluffy stuff, but why do you get sent to hell if you don't buy into it but otherwise live a life doing good deeds and being a loving parent, etc.? Gandhi goes to hell but the Catholic priests who conspired to molest little boys go to heaven (so long as they "repent")?
Or maybe Man created God in his image because Man, having achieved a higher form of intellect over the animals could not accept his mortality and needed to believe that there would be life after death. Wrapping all that up in a bunch of books with compelling stories about miracles and commandments from God allowed man to be God on earth and create places of worship where man could control his fellow man for his own benefit and power.
It is called free will. You choose to be with God or to be free of Him. As for Gandhi, that is not up to me. If God wants to save him, He can. If He wants to condemn the molesters forever, I am also good with that. In fact, I believe He will do so, because they had free will to reject God. (I am not a Calvinist who thinks a person cannot forfeit their salvation.)
The rest of your drivel is not worthy of a response.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
