TULIP (God calls some to atheism)

[Meriweather]

This seems odd. If you don't believe Christianity is true, why be a Christian? To suggest I am telling you what you believe is something of a projection on your part. When you make statements about heaven, for example, being a ''place of many dwelling places, and all are welcome.'', that is in contradiction to what can be found in the Bible. You may believe that but it is not consistent with what is in the Bible.

Do you know why early Christians were called Catholic? It is because catholic meant open and welcoming to all. The Bible indeed assures us there are many dwelling places (sometimes the word mansions is used). All are welcome. That does not mean everyone will choose to be there. Remember the story of the king who invited people to a wedding, and none would come--so he invited everyone else? They came, but one person did not exhibit expected wedding behavior, so he had to leave.

Heaven is not an exclusive club, but one that is inclusive. However, no one is going to be frog marched into heaven against his/her will. All are welcome. Doesn't mean all will come. Doesn't mean anything goes once you are there.

 

[Meriweather]

Where are these holy grounds and sacred places where atheists stand? You have made that statement before and I am not aware of what ground is holy or sacred to a non-believer. There is an obvious religious connotation to the the terms holy and sacred so such terms seen misplaced.

Once again, figurative speech.

Is it your opinion that no belief in God is a position that should be respected? Picture an atheist riding home after work on the train. He is minding his own business, reading a book. Should someone who knows he is an atheist sit down beside him and proceed to tell him how wrong he is? Is that respecting the atheist position?

 

[Hollie]

That is ultimately the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system promises some future association with the god or gods and it is a soothing balm for your concerns about mortality.

This has not been my experience with faith. Faith has never been anything I have had to wait for, wait on. It is about a way of living, a way of life, right now. It enriches life right now, not some time in a nebulous afterlife. If some people are only waiting for an afterlife, they may be missing a whole lot right now.

Your version of Christianity seems to be inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

There is not a lot of wiggle room there. There are specific requirements and conditions tied to the belief system. So I am to be damned because I don't believe? As you noted earlier, ''The Kingdom of God is eternal (as opposed to an eternity after death). It is always present, always within reach.'' Okay, so apparently Mark 16:16 is wrong. I don't need to be bothered with that, so, then to heaven I go. Well, then what need is there for Jesus? None. So why should anyone bother being a Christian or in fact any religion at all? Why not all be well-behaved atheists

 

[Hollie]

Where are these holy grounds and sacred places where atheists stand? You have made that statement before and I am not aware of what ground is holy or sacred to a non-believer. There is an obvious religious connotation to the the terms holy and sacred so such terms seen misplaced.

Once again, figurative speech.

Is it your opinion that no belief in God is a position that should be respected? Picture an atheist riding home after work on the train. He is minding his own business, reading a book. Should someone who knows he is an atheist sit down beside him and proceed to tell him how wrong he is? Is that respecting the atheist position?

On the other hand, do I really need people coming to my house on the weekends telling me I am risking my eternal soul by not accepting their belief?

 

[Hollie]

Where are these holy grounds and sacred places where atheists stand? You have made that statement before and I am not aware of what ground is holy or sacred to a non-believer. There is an obvious religious connotation to the the terms holy and sacred so such terms seen misplaced.

Once again, figurative speech.

Is it your opinion that no belief in God is a position that should be respected? Picture an atheist riding home after work on the train. He is minding his own business, reading a book. Should someone who knows he is an atheist sit down beside him and proceed to tell him how wrong he is? Is that respecting the atheist position?

I don't see the terms as necessarily figurative. The terms have clear references to religious connotations.

 

[Meriweather]

That may be your subjective interpretation but the verse from the Bible is in contradiction to your interpretation. What is your basis for such absolute authority on the matter?

I see no contradiction, not when taken in context with all that Jesus said. Should all Jesus' teachings center around a single verse? At the very least, shouldn't that entire conversation should be studied and considered?

Whose absolute authority do you wish to include? Can it be found online? I would be glad to read it, but I thought we were just two people presenting our own various thoughts on a New Testament passage.

 

[Hollie]

That may be your subjective interpretation but the verse from the Bible is in contradiction to your interpretation. What is your basis for such absolute authority on the matter?

I see no contradiction, not when taken in context with all that Jesus said. Should all Jesus' teachings center around a single verse? At the very least, shouldn't that entire conversation should be studied and considered?

Whose absolute authority do you wish to include? Can it be found online? I would be glad to read it, but I thought we were just two people presenting our own various thoughts on a New Testament passage.

I suppose we're left to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts, well, not so much. The verse from Mark doesn't identify and doesn't affirm if the statement was made by Jesus or not. It seems pretty haphazard that we mere mortals are left to decide what to accept and what to dismiss.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose..

But Mom! Mom! Those brown ones are goat turds, not candy, and Johnny's grabbing all the biggest ones!

 

[Meriweather]

Your version of Christianity seems to be inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

There is not a lot of wiggle room there. There are specific requirements and conditions tied to the belief system. So I am to be damned because I don't believe? As you noted earlier, ''The Kingdom of God is eternal (as opposed to an eternity after death). It is always present, always within reach.'' Okay, so apparently Mark 16:16 is wrong. I don't need to be bothered with that, so, then to heaven I go. Well, then what need is there for Jesus? None. So why should anyone bother being a Christian or in fact any religion at all? Why not all be well-behaved atheists

Inconsistent with whose Biblical teaching? I tend to go back to original language, etymology of words (definitions and use do change over time). When first written, the thought being presented was not being damned to hell. That is modern English, modern Western culture. Early Gospels of Mark ended with Chapter 16, verse 8. No one is clear whether the later verses were added by someone else, or whether this later passage was lost and found later.

But going back to the etymology. The original meaning was loss. The verse, in its early meaning, was saying that those who believe will gain; it will be their loss for those who do not.

Do you remember Jesus comment that he came for those who were lost; that the healthy have no need of a physician? If someone has been blessed/lucky to have a life that has been happy, enriching, and not at all confusing, why would they need Jesus? The Bible states that God's law is written on our hearts. If we can read and understand our heart, then we do not need to hear it again from anyone.

Some of us live confusing lives and are struggling to find our way. We're lost. We are the ones that Jesus said he is there for. Some of us want to pay the closest attention possible to what Jesus said and meant, so we study the early meaning of words, the languages, the cultures, the history. Our lives are that messed up, and we want to get them straightened out. Properly.

I am always saying, modern English and using the perspective of modern Western culture does not give one a proper understanding of the Bible, especially not the Old Testament.

 

[Meriweather]

On the other hand, do I really need people coming to my house on the weekends telling me I am risking my eternal soul by not accepting their belief?

At home, we can always decide whether or not to open the door or whether or not to invite them in. On a moving train, no such option. Jehovah Witnesses have always been quick to give up on me, but they sorrowfully wish me well.

 

[Meriweather]

I suppose we're left to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts, well, not so much. The verse from Mark doesn't identify and doesn't affirm if the statement was made by Jesus or not. It seems pretty haphazard that we mere mortals are left to decide what to accept and what to dismiss.

I see it more as being left to decide how much study and research we are willing to put in.

 

[presonorek]

He who whittles himself to suit others soon whittles himself away.

I want to comment on this but it speaks for itself.

 

[presonorek]

You never heard of heaven or hell being themes in Christianity?

Christianity is about electing to enter the Kingdom of God (begins in this life, extends to the next). Hell is electing to deliberately reject God and to remain separated from Him. (Also begins in this life and extends to the next). I was taught this applies to Christians--those who have known God and His ways and then reject both. It does not apply to those who never chose Christianity to begin with. They are in the hands of a loving God, though they, too, will have a chance to reject God if that is their desire.

The majority of Christians are intent in remaining within the Kingdom of God in this life; heaven will take care of itself. It is a place of many dwelling places, and all are welcome.

The authors of the Bible have a different opinion about who attends that eternal party in heaven. It's a rather exclusive club with identifiable requirements.

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

That is ultimately the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system promises some future association with the god or gods and it is a soothing balm for your concerns about mortality.

I have read the Bible 3 times cover to cover and it surprised me that there was so little emphasis on heaven and hell. It was so easy to gloss over. The religion I grew up in talked about it constantly. I guess that is ok because 2 Timothy 3:16 tells that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. I guess once upon a time folks in my tradition found it important. Folks in other Christian denominations may not hear this emphasized as much.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Hollie]

Your version of Christianity seems to be inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

There is not a lot of wiggle room there. There are specific requirements and conditions tied to the belief system. So I am to be damned because I don't believe? As you noted earlier, ''The Kingdom of God is eternal (as opposed to an eternity after death). It is always present, always within reach.'' Okay, so apparently Mark 16:16 is wrong. I don't need to be bothered with that, so, then to heaven I go. Well, then what need is there for Jesus? None. So why should anyone bother being a Christian or in fact any religion at all? Why not all be well-behaved atheists

Inconsistent with whose Biblical teaching? I tend to go back to original language, etymology of words (definitions and use do change over time). When first written, the thought being presented was not being damned to hell. That is modern English, modern Western culture. Early Gospels of Mark ended with Chapter 16, verse 8. No one is clear whether the later verses were added by someone else, or whether this later passage was lost and found later.

But going back to the etymology. The original meaning was loss. The verse, in its early meaning, was saying that those who believe will gain; it will be their loss for those who do not.

Do you remember Jesus comment that he came for those who were lost; that the healthy have no need of a physician? If someone has been blessed/lucky to have a life that has been happy, enriching, and not at all confusing, why would they need Jesus? The Bible states that God's law is written on our hearts. If we can read and understand our heart, then we do not need to hear it again from anyone.

Some of us live confusing lives and are struggling to find our way. We're lost. We are the ones that Jesus said he is there for. Some of us want to pay the closest attention possible to what Jesus said and meant, so we study the early meaning of words, the languages, the cultures, the history. Our lives are that messed up, and we want to get them straightened out. Properly.

I am always saying, modern English and using the perspective of modern Western culture does not give one a proper understanding of the Bible, especially not the Old Testament.

Your comments speak to a haphazardly written and edited Bible. Eternal damnation for not believing is pretty clear. Why equivocate over that verse but choose to accept others? We once again have ''circled back'' to the dynamic of shoddy translation, multiple authors and no clear message, I have to point out that any attempt to even suggest that there is any reliable record of ''what Jesus said'' is problematic as most of the writers of the Bible (most of whom are unknown), never met Jesus and penned their stories one hundred years or more after his death.

 

[presonorek]

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

That is ultimately the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system promises some future association with the god or gods and it is a soothing balm for your concerns about mortality.

When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he wasn't speaking of the afterlife, but a way of living this life. Remember the verse where he said sinners and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of religious leaders? Jesus often said, "The Kingdom of God is at hand", meaning within the reach of everyone, right now.

The Kingdom of God is eternal (as opposed to an eternity after death). It is always present, always within reach.

That may be your subjective interpretation but the verse from the Bible is in contradiction to your interpretation. What is your basis for such absolute authority on the matter?

Her basis for authority is the Bible. Some Christians reject the Bible as authority. She is learning that lesson.

 

[Hollie]

I suppose we're left to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts, well, not so much. The verse from Mark doesn't identify and doesn't affirm if the statement was made by Jesus or not. It seems pretty haphazard that we mere mortals are left to decide what to accept and what to dismiss.

I see it more as being left to decide how much study and research we are willing to put in.

That's fine but how does anyone research supernatural events? If Christians were willing to be objective, they would admit they have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. They are simply accepting they were.

It's a simple matter to explain away some or the absurdities of the Biblical tales, but here again, we have to ''circle back'' to our individual level of comfort as to how much we choose to pick and choose those stories we want to believe and those we choose to describe as metaphor and fable.

 

[Hollie]

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

That is ultimately the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system promises some future association with the god or gods and it is a soothing balm for your concerns about mortality.

When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he wasn't speaking of the afterlife, but a way of living this life. Remember the verse where he said sinners and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of religious leaders? Jesus often said, "The Kingdom of God is at hand", meaning within the reach of everyone, right now.

The Kingdom of God is eternal (as opposed to an eternity after death). It is always present, always within reach.

That may be your subjective interpretation but the verse from the Bible is in contradiction to your interpretation. What is your basis for such absolute authority on the matter?

Her basis for authority is the Bible. Some Christians reject the Bible as authority. She is learning that lesson.

It's an odd dynamic. It doesn't make sense to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

 

[presonorek]

I suppose we're left to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts, well, not so much. The verse from Mark doesn't identify and doesn't affirm if the statement was made by Jesus or not. It seems pretty haphazard that we mere mortals are left to decide what to accept and what to dismiss.

I see it more as being left to decide how much study and research we are willing to put in.

That's fine but how does anyone research supernatural events? If Christians were willing to be objective, they would admit they have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. They are simply accepting they were.

It's a simple matter to explain away some or the absurdities of the Biblical tales, but here again, we have to ''circle back'' to our individual level of comfort as to how much we choose to pick and choose those stories we want to believe and those we choose to describe as metaphor and fable.

Christianity is so vast historically, philosophically, philanthropically, and organizationally that it really doesn’t need any talking magic men, special blood, ghosts, or goblins. I’m with Thomas Jefferson. If you can eliminate 100% of the superstitious elements from Christianity then Christianity would fit me like a glove. I have a very hard time believing Jesus answers prayers for people to find their car keys and ignores prayers for a 3 year girl battling leukemia. From my observation that person eventually looked enough places that they found their keys and the little girl was too sick to live.

In my tradition (and I have yet to find a Christian tradition that differs) there is a contest to give prayer requests for people in a worse off condition. 95% of these prayer requests are medical related.

I would join a church, submit to God, shave my head bald, live on only vegetables, beat myself with chains daily, or whatever was required if I could be a member of a church that forbids discussion about prayer.

Prayer request contests are the most horrific part of Christian culture. My prayer will never fix anybody’s problem. If you have medical needs go to the doctor. Stop coming to Jesus. It is so nauseating. In the Jewish tradition levitical priests were doctors but that tradition hasn’t carried over. You can’t be healed at church. Make an appointment with a doctor on Monday morning. That doctor will do your scratched fingernail so much more good than I can with my prayers.

 

[Meriweather]

I have to point out that any attempt to even suggest that there is any reliable record of ''what Jesus said'' is problematic as most of the writers of the Bible (most of whom are unknown), never met Jesus

Mostly agree. In both the Old and New Testaments what we have is an author who has a message for an original audience. What was the intent of the original author? Who was the original audience? This is why I focus so much on original language, and the cultures and histories of Biblical times. Mark is thought to have had some relation with Peter at some point. He may have met Jesus. Or not. John is a different story, a bit more complex to figure out. Matthew and Luke never met Jesus, and like Mark, seem to rely heavily on that source referenced as Q. No one knows who he was or if he ever met Jesus, either. So what we do have are early Christians who learned about Jesus and have a story to relate. What is their intent? What is they want their audience to remember and understand? Who was the original audience?

My interest lies in getting closer than the modern Western culture, modern English perspectives.

 

[Meriweather]

Her basis for authority is the Bible. Some Christians reject the Bible as authority. She is learning that lesson.

Considering my background, you may wish to rethink this. Learning? Try, "She was taught that as a toddler."