Ask a Christian Theologian

[gamebrain89]

How can God or Jesus expect you to accept him as your savior or else you go to Hell? If you live your whole life being a good person and basically following the commandments anyway, what type of God would send you to Hell just because you didn't believe in him? I don't want to think that the supposedly great creator of our universe would send billion of otherwise good people into a massive pit of never-ending pain and fire beyond anything ever imagined in our reality. A bit harsh?

There are many religions in the world and many people grow up with what their parents believed. If their parents were wrong they go to Hell? They were raised with this religion chances are they are going to stick with it.

Say there is a tribe in South America that has had no contact with religious outsiders. They all grow up not even knowing there is a God, just doing whatever ceremonies their ancestors passed down. Do they go to Hell?

I would like to think that doing good things, and living an overall good life would be enough to either just die, or not get thrown into eternal suffering... But I guess that's why Christianity never made sense to me. I always figured I'd just find out if God is a stand-up guy the hard way.

Hope you answer!

Edit: I know you were asking the OP, but he seems to be on vacation. Just thought I'd give it a shot anyhow. ^^'

I think the answer a few Christians are giving for that is: It isn't so much that you are a good person. But that it's far more important that you 'simply' believe. That just being good won't get you into heaven, you also have to have faith in god/jesus.

Don't got it? Well straight to hell you go my lad! Heh...
I think practitioners of other faiths are supposed to get into heaven too based on the notion that, they're technically still worshipping god, they just don't know it. An idea mind, I find rather strange, if not insulting, but then, I'm not of a faith so, I've nothing to get worked up about

Ok, here is my answer to the question about Hell.
The following information was taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Placed in spoilers as its rather long. This is directly from the book, as I mess things up when I try to paraphrase, and this has all the citations in it.

Spoiler

Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?

Eccl. 9:5, 10: ?The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.? (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*?Sheol,? AS, RS, NE, JB; ?the grave,? KJ, Kx; ?hell,? Dy; ?the world of the dead,? TEV.)

Ps. 146:4: ?His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.? (*?Thoughts,? KJ, 145:4 in Dy; ?schemes,? JB; ?plans,? RS, TEV.)

Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?

Ezek. 18:4: ?The soul* that is sinning?it itself will die.? (*?Soul,? KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; ?the man,? JB; ?the person,? TEV.)

?The concept of ?soul,? meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ?body,? . . . does not exist in the Bible.??La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

?Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ?soul,? it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ?soul? but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ?life,? or ?vitality,? or, at times, ?the self.???The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.

Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?

Matt. 25:46, KJ: ?These shall go away into everlasting punishment [?lopping off,? Int; Greek, ko′la‧sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.? (The Emphatic Diaglott reads ?cutting-off? instead of ?punishment.? A footnote states: ?Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;?hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.?)

2 Thess. 1:9, RS: ?They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.? (*?Eternal ruin,? NAB, NE; ?lost eternally,? JB; ?condemn them to eternal punishment,? Kx; ?eternal punishment in destruction,? Dy.)

Jude 7, KJ: ?Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.? (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God?s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were ?destroyed?; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)

What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?

In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the ?nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.? (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom?s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.?La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.

Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?

?Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.??The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she?ohl′ as ?hell,? ?the grave,? and ?the pit?; hai′des is therein rendered both ?hell? and ?grave?; ge′en‧na is also translated ?hell.? (2) Today?s English Version transliterates hai′des as ?Hades? and also renders it as ?hell? and ?the world of the dead.? But besides rendering ?hell? from hai′des it uses that same translation for ge′en‧na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai′des six times, but in other passages it translates it as ?hell? and as ?the underworld.? It also translates ge′en‧na as ?hell,? as it does hai′des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.

Sorry about the length.

 

[Milford Cubicle]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

 

[gomerkyle9]

Ok, here is my answer to the question about Hell.
The following information was taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Placed in spoilers as its rather long, and I mess things up when I try to paraphrase, and this has all the citations in it.

Spoiler

Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?

Eccl. 9:5, 10: ?The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.? (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*?Sheol,? AS, RS, NE, JB; ?the grave,? KJ, Kx; ?hell,? Dy; ?the world of the dead,? TEV.)

Ps. 146:4: ?His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.? (*?Thoughts,? KJ, 145:4 in Dy; ?schemes,? JB; ?plans,? RS, TEV.)

Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?

Ezek. 18:4: ?The soul* that is sinning?it itself will die.? (*?Soul,? KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; ?the man,? JB; ?the person,? TEV.)

?The concept of ?soul,? meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ?body,? . . . does not exist in the Bible.??La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

?Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ?soul,? it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ?soul? but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ?life,? or ?vitality,? or, at times, ?the self.???The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.

Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?

Matt. 25:46, KJ: ?These shall go away into everlasting punishment [?lopping off,? Int; Greek, ko′la‧sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.? (The Emphatic Diaglott reads ?cutting-off? instead of ?punishment.? A footnote states: ?Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;?hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.?)

2 Thess. 1:9, RS: ?They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.? (*?Eternal ruin,? NAB, NE; ?lost eternally,? JB; ?condemn them to eternal punishment,? Kx; ?eternal punishment in destruction,? Dy.)

Jude 7, KJ: ?Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.? (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God?s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were ?destroyed?; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)

What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?

In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the ?nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.? (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom?s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.?La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.

Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?

?Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.??The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she?ohl′ as ?hell,? ?the grave,? and ?the pit?; hai′des is therein rendered both ?hell? and ?grave?; ge′en‧na is also translated ?hell.? (2) Today?s English Version transliterates hai′des as ?Hades? and also renders it as ?hell? and ?the world of the dead.? But besides rendering ?hell? from hai′des it uses that same translation for ge′en‧na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai′des six times, but in other passages it translates it as ?hell? and as ?the underworld.? It also translates ge′en‧na as ?hell,? as it does hai′des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.

Sorry about the length.

That's an interesting take on things that I've never heard before despite asking many religious people... That would make more sense than an eternal pit of fire, to me at least, But we won't know for sure until we die... Thanks for the answer!

 

[Alex_P]

Some of these were from America, and I realise that there were some Catholic priests in America who comitted peadophilia. However, I do not see reason in tarring every Catholic with the same brush and declaring my faith wrong simply because the acts of a few priests.

There is an institutional problem here, both with the Church's direct actions in hiding abuse and the general culture of silence.

The sensationalism and Catholic hate that swirl around this matter disgust me, but the problem of abuse is definitely more than just "the acts of a few priests." The Church as an organization has much to answer for.

-- Alex

 

[TheDean]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

 

[GothmogII]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Not risking anything, if the child remains a believer when they grow up, not a problem, if it doesn't, same.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

Then why get him baptized? It isn't some 'get in free' card. God isn't going to say 'Oh! You were baptized? Well then, c'mon in.'

Baptism for a child is about a dedication by YOU, the parent(s), to raise him according to the teachings of Christ. The baptism itself is meaningless if you're doing it 'just because'.

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Dean? You're still here? A few people here are actually adding some intellectual debate to the thread, or asking good questions. Do you plan to join in or just continue with responding to posts like these with insults to my faith?

You know you still haven't answered the last post of yours I responded to.

 

[LewsTherin]

Spoiler: Wall'o'text

I'm not a theologist. I'm just a simple Christian woman. Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ. Christ treated all people with kindness, no matter who they were or what they had done. He would sit at the tables of some of the most abhorred men like they were his next-door neighbors. He was perfect, and had a destiny that was fully revealed to him. I will never be perfect in this life, and I do not have my destiny laid plain before my eyes.

Christ told us in Luke 6:37-42 about the dangers of judging others and hypocracy. That doesn't mean I never do it, because of the above acknowledgement of imperfection, but I understand that to usurp God's right to judge will bring me only misery in the end. I do not know the future or have unlimited knowledge of the present and past, or have the ability to see into others' hearts and minds. I do not have the right to judge them. Because I believe that only God has that power, I believe that only God has that right.

Do I know exactly what happens after someone dies? Not even the angels have the full knowledge of God's plans (Mark 13:32). I can't know what exactly is going to happen to someone after they die; I can't know their destinations. People that have knowledge of Christianity and reject it are the ones that I grieve for; my religion has clearly laid out what happens to them. But even then, I can't be sure that that's exactly what's going to happen. I just don't know, and I never will be certain.

Being a follower of Christ is about following his example. Would Jesus scream "You're going to hell!" to a homosexual and spraypaint ******! on their garage door? Certainly not. Would he stand a soldier's funeral carrying a sign saying the dead soldier is going to hell? Never.

Matthew 22:34-40 and Mark 12:28-34 tell of the greatest commandment. It was the first of ten handed down from God to Moses. It is restated by Christ though in such a way as to define it precisely. To say that "you shall have no other gods but ME" is a good start and then to say "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" really lays it out. If you are doing the latter, there is no more room to have something else come before God. The second Jesus gave after it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In Mark, the person whom Jesus is speaking to replies as he realizes that doing these two things are "more important that all burnt offerings and sacrifices." And Jesus gives him the figurative "thumbs-up," that's he's got it right. And if you do these two things, you have done it right. You aren't perfect and you will stumble and fall, but in the end you know the reward will be great.

After Jesus rose from the dead he gave us the Great Commission (as found in Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, and Acts 1): "go into all the world and preach the Good News to all creation." I have a God-given directive to tell you of the Good News: Jesus Christ rose from the dead and those that believe in Him will be saved. That's all. My job is done. If you choose to believe, then my heart rejoices for you. If you choose not to believe, there is nothing I can do about that, and my heart grieves for you. But even if you don't believe, I'll still play with you, go to movies with you, and have dinner with you. Just don't expect me to behave any differently around you. I'll still pray before I eat. I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but if my eyes close and my head drops a bit, you can assume I'm not (just) inhaling the aroma of my steak.

I'm sorry that there are Christians out there that give Christians like me a bad name. But sometimes others forget that Christians are people too. We have bad days. We have addictions, sometimes. We get road rage. The difference is that we feel badly for having behaved in such a way and try to do better because we believe there's a reason to BE better. Sometimes we even need a swift kick in the pants to see that we've been wrong. We're people just like you.

The best part about being a Christian is that it costs me virtually nothing. There's a psychologial or theologial principle whose name escapes me, but the point of it is, what does it cost me in the long run to believe? I behave in a way that is prosocietal and as a reward I get everlasting happiness. If there IS no god and I behave in a way that is prosocietal and am happy because I have been a good person, am guilt free, and am content and there IS no afterlife in heaven, what did it cost me? I died happy. I had a good life, living for something I believed in that made me a better person. What do people really want out of life? Generally, it's happiness. And some say that money, drugs, or sex will get you that. Money can make living easy, but it doesn't make you happy. Drugs and sex can feel good, but the happiness doesn't last. To be happy, you have to LIVE. You have to work at living. Believing in God makes me happy. It makes me want to live, to better myself. Some people say they don't need God to do that, and maybe they don't. But I believe that everyone needs God for one reason or another. But I'm only me, I don't know what your reason would be. But even if the only reason you needed God now was to have a perfect afterlife later, isn't that reason enough?

Christians believe that the reason why we need God is that sin or doing wrong stains our eternal soul. It makes us unworthy of being in the presence of perfection aka God. Before the coming of Jesus, the Jewish people believed that blood sacrifice was the only way to make that sin go away. Jesus came, died, and rose from the dead so that we would never have to kill goats, calves, and doves ever again to be perfect before God because he gave the ultimate sacrifice for us. Belief that Christ DID THAT is what makes us clean and worthy of God's presence and grace. If you ask me, havering on about whether dudes are doing dudes and chicks are doing chicks is a mite insignificant after that.

You know, there's even a 3-step program to becoming a Christian. It's pretty streamlined. First, you have to admit that you do bad things of your own free will. Pretty easy. This next one is harder. You have to believe that Christ came, died, and rose from the dead. Considering that this goes against everything we believe about the natural world, I understand why some people have trouble with that. The last part brings the first two together. If you can get to step two, then step three is a little easier. All you do is say, I do bad things and I'm sorry. I want a place in heaven. Will you save my eternal soul and in return I will let you run things down here for me? Considering that God is perfect, it's got to be pretty handy having someone that knows the itenerary running the show. Really, the hardest part about becomming a Christian is getting over step two. That's called faith, now. The thing is, it didn't have to be taken on faith two thousand years ago. There were witnesses. Hundreds of people. (1 Corinthians 15, Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, Acts 1)

Christianity is a choice. For some people it's easy, for some people it's impossible. And it's got its hangups like every other religion in the world. An imperfect man has been meddling in the perfect plan of God and having arguments about what belongs in the manual and what doesn't. But Christianity really isn't about that stuff. Christ asked it of people two thousand years ago and he asks it of us now: Follow me. He taught me everything I needed to know. One, believe - not hard, Jews have been doing it for a few millenia. And two, behave - theoretically not hard, there's only two rules anymore.

I know this opens me up to a whole lot of scorn. But I'm not doing this because I expect or even want a reply, positive or negative, of any kind. People ask all kinds of silly questions about Christianity that don't even really matter. What matters is what's above. And a whole lot of these silly questions would be answered if some people would pick up the manual and READ it. I don't know if they're afraid they'll burst into flames or it'll plant some horrible idea in their minds that they have to be nice. Even I haven't read the entire bible fron beginning to end (yet) but I'm getting there. Let me answer a quick few with my paltry knowledge. YES God killed everyone but Noah and his family. Why? Because in Genesis 6:12 it says "God saw how corrupt the world had become, for ALL the people on earth had corrupted their ways." He wasn't killing innocents. Everyone was guilty. Did God kill everyone from Sodom and Gomorrah? YES, and why? Because in Genesis 18, starting at verse 16, Abraham pleaded with God to spare them if he could find even ten righteous people there. God sent two angels and they found Lot and his family (a wife and two daughters). Four people were led away, and three were saved, because Lot's wife turned back to watch the destruction and "became a pillar of salt," aka died. All you had to do was read the very first part of the bible.

A few more important things get set out in the second half of Exodus and most of Leviticus. The old laws. Alright. Really. How many laws are there in all the United States? Moses just hauled thousands of people out of slavery and now they are free. They needed a government. They needed rules and laws. God set out the basic ten laws, and then proceeds into the details. We have something like that called the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Ammendments. Except our Constitution has a little more in it than the Ten Commandments do. God wasn't laying down the details for people several thousand years later. Moses might have been raised as the son of a Pharoah, but that doesn't mean he knew squat about being one. They needed a leader and some guidlines right away. God made a bunch of disposessed slaves into a nation. Nations need laws. When Christ came later, he reaffirmed the first law, and then said, really, you don't need the rest so long as you do this other one, because all the rest come from it. Because he knew with his death and resurrection, that a lot of the rest would be unnecessary.

Before everyone keeps running with silly questions, pick up a "Quest Study Bible" and read it. It answers common and sensible questions in the margins. The NIV (new international version) is a decent translation and it's the version for the Quest Study Bible, and HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) is good, too. KJV (King James version) makes my head hurt and beginners should steer clear. Start in Genesis and get through Exodus. Then skip a bit and either pick it back up in Joshua (and read Numbers if you have to, it's a bit of a jump) or go from there to the New Testament and read on until the end, even Revelations. Leave Psalms for the very last, it's long.

I'm sorry I've havered on, I don't think I've ever created a wall of text quite this bad before, but I tend to post like this when I have something to say. These threads suffer from the worst kind of ignorance. Please read up on something you don't understand. You don't have to say anything back whether you like it or think the worst kind of drivel is seeping out of my brain. Just think on it. Thanks.

Yay! Someone else gets it!

 

[Ultrajoe]

Arcadia, while i admire your ability to write such an impressive summation of your faith...

It's the fact that you see these questions as silly. You say it right there in your 12th paragraph. Along with the bible passages as proofs and recommendations of study texts for further reading.

It's not you, we have no problem with you.

It's the fact that you see, and say, that every questioning person here is ignorant. A harmless belief, of course, but one i imagine you are set in your convictions towards. It is this certainty that we feel the need to question. The bible is illogical, thats fact, it's not an attack. And as a reasonable person of obvious intelligence i'm sure you can see it for the important parable and lessons it teaches.

It's the fact that you see a need for a bible to enjoy such lessons. It comes across as... well... cultish brainwashing.

That's why we question, not out of spite of ignorance. But because we want to do away with spite and ignorance on our part. I personally see the bible as a crutch, a fantastic innovation on behalf of human culture but now outdated. We have more impressive cultural repositories now, the very internet i type this on chief among them.

We have no problem with you, your beliefs, or your opinion of them. It's that you see, and i quote: "What matters is what's above". In reference to your previous paragraphs, of course. We dont see it that way. We see the petty details and contradicting bible passages, the nuances and history, the doorknockers and the evangelists.

It's all very well to say 'A few are giving us the bad name'... but you still have that bad name for good reason. I wont hold it against you, but you cant blame others for doing so.

So, we will still ask the silly questions. We will still get it wrong, i'm sure. But this is how we find solace, inner peace and 'LIVE' as you put it. Upwards and onwards. We find the same fulfillment with none of the sunday sermons, if you'll excuse the expression.

So please, don't dismiss our questioning as petty ignorance, an inability to see the larger picture. And i wont dismiss eucharist as cannibalism ( yes, i'm over simplifying, but it makes the point without another paragraph tacked on)

 

[Alex_P]

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Feh! A baptism is not a brainwashing.

An infant won't even remember it.

-- Alex

 

[Milford Cubicle]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

Then why get him baptized? It isn't some 'get in free' card. God isn't going to say 'Oh! You were baptized? Well then, c'mon in.'

Baptism for a child is about a dedication by YOU, the parent(s), to raise him according to the teachings of Christ. The baptism itself is meaningless if you're doing it 'just because'.

If it was entirely up to me, I wouldn't get him baptised. I don't believe in God. But it's not entirely up to me. His mother wants him baptised, as do most of our respective families.

I would've much prefered if we waitied until he was old enough to make his own mind up about religion, then if he was keen to do it, I'd have no problem with it. I think it's unfair to pick a religion for someone who has no understanding of it.

 

[TheDean]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Not risking anything, if the child remains a believer when they grow up, not a problem, if it doesn't, same.

You're risking brainwashing and ondoctrinating an innocent child.

 

[TheDean]

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Feh! A baptism is not a brainwashing.

An infant won't even remember it.

-- Alex

I was never baptised or christened because my parents wanted me to be able to make my own choices. Everyone should have that choice. It symbolises givingt he child to "god". not good at all. You are effectively giving yourkid up to be a slave for eternity.

 

[TheDean]

I'm getting my son baptised on Sunday. The vicar came round last night, and amongst other questions, asked us "why do you want to get Jack baptised?".

Other than the honest answer, (i.e. I wanted an excuse to get drunk on a Sunday afternoon without the wife having a go at me about being an alcoholic) I couldn't actually think of a viable reason.

Then why get him baptized? It isn't some 'get in free' card. God isn't going to say 'Oh! You were baptized? Well then, c'mon in.'

Baptism for a child is about a dedication by YOU, the parent(s), to raise him according to the teachings of Christ. The baptism itself is meaningless if you're doing it 'just because'.

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Dean? You're still here? A few people here are actually adding some intellectual debate to the thread, or asking good questions. Do you plan to join in or just continue with responding to posts like these with insults to my faith?

You know you still haven't answered the last post of yours I responded to.

I'm not trying to insult anyone or anything. I'm replying to post,s that' all. I exhausted all my own arguments long aog on the original thread.

And did you quote me?, because i only check if i get quotes in my inbox.

EDIT: olk, i did reply on pg 18 i think, right after the quote from you, but it didn't quote, so it went in as a reply. But it is there.

 

[gamebrain89]

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Feh! A baptism is not a brainwashing.

An infant won't even remember it.

-- Alex

I was never baptised or christened because my parents wanted me to be able to make my own choices. Everyone should have that choice. It symbolises givingt he child to "god". not good at all. You are effectively giving yourkid up to be a slave for eternity.

Baptism is a sign of dedication. I think it is rediculous that people dedicate their infant children to something that the child can not even understand for at least another 10-15 years. Baptism is a personal decision that should be made by a mature individual, not forced upon an infant.

 

[TheDean]

woah! hold right up man. don't get your kid baptised so you can drink. That is the worst thing you could ever do. Do'nt risk his future believing fantastical crap for nothing.

Feh! A baptism is not a brainwashing.

An infant won't even remember it.

-- Alex

I was never baptised or christened because my parents wanted me to be able to make my own choices. Everyone should have that choice. It symbolises givingt he child to "god". not good at all. You are effectively giving yourkid up to be a slave for eternity.

Baptism is a sign of dedication. I think it is rediculous that people dedicate their infant children to something that the child can not even understand for at least another 10-15 years. Baptism is a personal decision that should be made by a mature individual, not forced upon an infant.

Exactly. It's good to see someone agrees with me. Plus you had the added bonus of putting in a nicer way that i did.

 

[GothmogII]

It's weird, as I recall, Jesus himself wasn't baptised until he was a full grown adult. So, history (such as it can assumed to be) agrees with you somewhat on the issue. At least with regards to ceremony. Sealing the deal as it were.

 

[Baby Tea]

Baptism is a sign of dedication. I think it is rediculous that people dedicate their infant children to something that the child can not even understand for at least another 10-15 years. Baptism is a personal decision that should be made by a mature individual, not forced upon an infant.

It's weird, as I recall, Jesus himself wasn't baptised until he was a full grown adult. So, history (such as it can assumed to be) agrees with waiting till you're old enough.

Please, let's not turn this into a debate about infant or adult baptism. Because it'll just boil down to Calvanist theology VS Armenian Theology.

It isn't soteriological if someone is baptized at infancy or adulthood.

I'm not trying to insult anyone or anything. I'm replying to post,s that' all. I exhausted all my own arguments long aog on the original thread.

Fair enough, then please don't call my faith 'fantastical crap'. That's insulting.

 

[Alex_P]

I was never baptised or christened because my parents wanted me to be able to make my own choices. Everyone should have that choice. It symbolises givingt he child to "god". not good at all. You are effectively giving yourkid up to be a slave for eternity.

I was baptised as a young child. Didn't make me Christian. Didn't make me remotely more interested in believing in God. If I were to become a Christian today, it wouldn't be in the Orthodox Church, so... didn't do anything for my denomination, either.

So, as far as I'm concerned, baptism is just an empty little ritual. Do it or don't, it doesn't matter for shit anyway.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

If it was entirely up to me, I wouldn't get him baptised. I don't believe in God. But it's not entirely up to me. His mother wants him baptised, as do most of our respective families.

I would've much prefered if we waitied until he was old enough to make his own mind up about religion, then if he was keen to do it, I'd have no problem with it. I think it's unfair to pick a religion for someone who has no understanding of it.

You should consider offering your family a compromise: the kid gets baptised but you never take him to church afterward.

-- Alex