quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: My point Squick, and maybe I didn't make it effectively with John, is that the NT is peppered with statements by Christ and the apostles about what we must do to be saved. To say this parable enumerates all the requirements seems to neglect a lot of other scripture.
Indeed. I believe very firmly in the unity of scripture, and that all scripture must be understood in the wider concept of the rest of scripture. It's very easy to take individual statements out of context to assert something that is untrue or misleading. Heck, Satan did it when he was tempting Jesus.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a pretty comprehensive knowledge of scripture. Perhaps you could point out these other instances where you think Jesus talked about salvation that contradict the ideas that he laid out in that parable. I think that might be interesting.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And God saw that it was Good." - Genesis 1, repeatedly.
Creation is Good but Fallen. Mr. Squicky, I think you got very close to what I was getting at. I don't deny original sin, however, I just deny that it is our positive and true nature. Catholics regard Calvinism as heresy precisely because of the common interpretation of the doctrine of total depravity.
The way Chesterton put it,"Man is sad because he is not a man, but a fallen god", describes it well. When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".
Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.
and lest anyone think I'm being very technically precise, remeber, I'm not a trained theologian, but a lapsed Catholic steeped in Lewis and Chesterton. There's bound to be some ambiguity in my word choice and etc. and for that I apologize.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".
Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.
Those two statements are in no way equivalent.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I've got a pretty comprehensive knowledge of scripture. Perhaps you could point out these other instances where you think Jesus talked about salvation that contradict the ideas that he laid out in that parable. I think that might be interesting.
Squicky, Jesus didn't contradict himself. And the Bible doesn't contradict itself either. Anything else that is said in the Bible, indirectly or directly about salvation, does not contradict, but completes and qualifies that parable.
In that light, one of my favourite verses :
quote:Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
quote:Originally posted by dh: Those two statements are in no way equivalent.
Hello. I'd like you to meet my friends, mr. example and mr. metaphor.
"How do you do?"
Edit:
I'm actually saying that they are, in many ways, equivalent. I'm not saying that they involve equivalent levels of grace or are equally sacramental, but I am saying that being "saved" is a lot like letting go of egos to become more sane.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't quite get me there. What basis do you have for accepting some ideas/beliefs/actions as good and rejecting others? For example what aspects of dh's view of God do you believe were less-than-good and why? Is it logical or is it just your feeling on the matter?
I get my morality from the same place everyone else. Cultural, familial and personal norms, common sense, history and the future. The fact that my morality does not come from one particular source, such as a text, or community, such as a religion, does not make it less powerful, but it does make it flexible.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".
Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.
Those two statements are in no way equivalent.
I agree. That's quite a leap, and it is not one that I agree with at all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dh: Those two statements are in no way equivalent.
Hello. I'd like you to meet my friends, mr. example and mr. metaphor.
"How do you do?"
Edit:
I'm actually saying that they are, in many ways, equivalent. I'm not saying that they involve equivalent levels of grace or are equally sacramental, but I am saying that being "saved" is a lot like letting go of egos to become more sane.
example
n 1: an item of information that is representative of a type; "this patient provides a typical example of the syndrome"; "there is an example on page 10" [syn: illustration, instance, representative] 2: a representative form or pattern; "I profited from his example" [syn: model] 3: something to be imitated; "an exemplar of success"; "a model of clarity"; "he is the very model of a modern major general" [syn: exemplar, model, good example] 4: punishment intended as a warning to others; "they decided to make an example of him" [syn: deterrent example, lesson, object lesson] 5: an occurrence of something; "it was a case of bad judgment"; "another instance occurred yesterday"; "but there is always the famous example of the Smiths" [syn: case, instance] 6: a task performed or problem solved in order to develop skill or understanding; "you must work the examples at the end of each chapter in the textbook" [syn: exercise]
met·a·phor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fôr, -fr) n. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare). One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).
Now that we've gotten to know your two friends a little better... care to elaborate on how exactly they have anything to do with what you said (which I don't see, blind little unlightened man that I am) instead of just being snarky?
EDIT to include the edit : I see. Now I can safely say that I totally and completely disagree with you. Thank you for clearing that up.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I find it hard to believe a "good" God condemns otherwise virtuous atheists to hell and says anyone who gives lip-service to being "born again" has a free pass. That would seem arrogance to me, and I don't think God is arrogant.
But then again, I think a lot of Christianity is missing the point on Christ's sacrifice. (More on that if requested.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dh, I'm not sure how that verse disagrees with the interpretation I'm giving. Could you explain?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
are you saying that you see no commonality between becoming saved and becoming sane?
are you *really* saying that you can't see the parallels? that "casting out demons" metaphorically speaking, on a psychologist's couch, has *nothing* in common with Jesus casting out demons in Judea?
I wonder how that phrase came into common use?
and you're damned right I'm being snarky. I don't like when people put words in my mouth or jump in to discredit me when I'm trying to draw a parallel so someone who doesn't understand a piece of Christian belief (because people keep shouting "turn or burn" from the rooftops) might get a clue that there is something more to Christian belief than that.
quote:Originally posted by dh: I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion.
I like it, because it implies that even non-Jews can have a place in the world to come. Which is what we say anyway.
quote:Originally posted by dh: It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.
<shudder> I honestly don't get how you can accept something like that. The idea that you worship someone who insists, first and foremost, on you joining his club, and only incidentally worries about you being a good person. Think how you'd relate to an earthly group that demanded such a thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".
Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.
What you are attempting is simply impossible. You are attempting to describe "giving into God" in secular terms that omit God altogether. This is completely impossible. Giving into God is not the same as "letting go of false egos" and receiving your birthright as a Son of God is a completely different concept than "becoming sane". You are confusing the spiritual with the psychological. It's like trying to explain archeological realities using nothing but janitorial jargon. It is completely impossible.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think changing the meaning of discipleship to self-actualization will help people in the long run.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with your description because I do not believe that equating discipleship with self-actualization helps anyone in the wrong run.
The ends may be something of the same for your brain, but on involves surrending to the Lord and he giving you yourself, and the other is discovering yourself on your own.
I advocate the second, but the point is that the person the Lord can make of you is light-years ahead of the person you can make of yourself. For that, it does require a surrender. It's hard, but watering down doesn't make it easier - just harder to find the beginning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with your description because I do not believe that equating discipleship with self-actualization helps anyone in the wrong run.
The ends may be something of the same for your brain, but on involves surrending to the Lord and he giving you yourself, and the other is discovering yourself on your own.
I advocate the second, but the point is that the person the Lord can make of you is light-years ahead of the person you can make of yourself. For that, it does require a surrender. It's hard, but watering it down doesn't make it easier - just harder to find the beginning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It makes me sad that you don't respect theists' experience as much as they respect yours
I do, actually. I just don't believe for a minute that most theists derive the majority of their ethical system from God, whether via direct communication or scripture. They get it from their society, which in turn claims to have gotten it from God -- which is a huge difference, and doesn't make an appeal to "God" as a moral authority any more compelling to me than an appeal to mankind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything is a technicality. Clearly God agrees-or at the very least, agreed once-else why have Ten Commandments?
If you don't believe in technicalities, you certainly don't go about creating ten very specific written rules for a lifetime of behavior.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything is a technicality. Clearly God agrees-or at the very least, agreed once-else why have Ten Commandments?
If you don't believe in technicalities, you certainly don't go about creating ten very specific written rules for a lifetime of behavior.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: While I agree with what Lewis wrote, I think it's prone to misinterpretation. I don't believe anyone could be saved without eventually recognizing that Christ is God. Thus a noble and good non-Christian would still have to admit to the truth of Christ's divinity before being saved, just as Tisroc had to recognize Aslan as the source of all good and reject Tash. I don't think it's an automatic, rather that it is a choice.
So I guess I'd say that good works alone are not a guarantee of salvation; they must be accompanied by an acceptance of Christ. That acceptance may come early or late, but must come before a person can be saved.
Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation". We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.
Of course, one of the major objections a lot of non-Mormons have to this is the Mormon habit of taking genealogical research of non-Mormons and baptizing people who would rather have died than submit to such a thing.
Granted, it has no effect. But it's majorly offensive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of glad that Lisa's post keeps getting repeated as it bears repeating.
And I think that the idea of spiritual sanity works. When we choose to say "yes" to God, God works with and in us to free us from that which separates us from God - addictions, distractions, whatever. And this is cyclical. When we (with God's help whether we know it or not) become more free, we are more ourselves rather than less. And closer to God. So, yes, self-actualization.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I believe that's a violation of the user agreement. If you can't bring yourself to respect other people's religion, then stay out of the thread.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.
Of course, one of the major objections a lot of non-Mormons have to this is the Mormon habit of taking genealogical research of non-Mormons and baptizing people who would rather have died than submit to such a thing.
Granted, it has no effect. But it's majorly offensive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I believe that's a violation of the user agreement. If you can't bring yourself to respect other people's religion, then stay out of the thread.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The ends may be something of the same for your brain, but on involves surrending to the Lord and he giving you yourself, and the other is discovering yourself on your own.
We are working from a different idea of self-actualization, then. That's probably imprecise wording on my part then.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you really suggesting that it's likely Jesus didn't live 2K years ago, starLisa? I'm sensing another bears and minks moment coming if you are...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm kind of glad that Lisa's post keeps getting repeated as it bears repeating.
Well, it kept repeating (as did some of the other posts in this topic) because there's something screwy with the board, and I didn't realize that it'd gone through the first time.
I think I've deleted all the copies.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: starLisa, I believe that's a violation of the user agreement. If you can't bring yourself to respect other people's religion, then stay out of the thread.
Hmm... dh says I'm going to go to hell if I don't accept the Christian deity. That's not a violation? That's respectful of others? No, it's not. But it is a truthful expression of that religious view. Mine is no different (other than being correct, of course <grin>).
This thread is not entitled "Hey, Hatrack Christians".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Up until now I have given starLisa the benefit of the doubt. I will no longer do so.
Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean, what you've given me the doubt for, why I've required the benefit of the doubt, or why you're not going to give it any more.
Y'all want to start a thread called "Hey, Hatrack Christians", I'll keep out and keep my opinions to myself. But this thread is a classic example of Christians assuming that they're the only theists. In another topic, "Christian vs. Atheist" was the dichotomy being presented as well.
It's tiring and it's offensive, and no one seems to think that they're violating the guidelines of the forums by doing it, because they can't fathom why anyone would consider it offensive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Are you really suggesting that it's likely Jesus didn't live 2K years ago, starLisa? I'm sensing another bears and minks moment coming if you are...
Don't hold your breath, Rakeesh. I was 100% wrong on that one. Not this one. We have records of a Yeshua who lived about 100 BCE (or so). He was a "Notzri", which referred to his being a member of a group by that name, and not to any city of "Nazareth", which didn't exist until Queen Helene stopped in for a visit.
This Yeshua did miracles by using God's name, but then, he's far from the only one to do so. He's said to have learned Egyptian magic as well. And he had five disciples, some of whom had names very similar to the disciples mentioned in the Christian scriptures.
There was a whole slew of messianic characters back around those times. But no record of the Christian deity except for one passage in Josephus, which is an obvious later addition.
You want to argue about it, that's cool. It's not that important to me. Whether as an actual historical person or as a fictional character, I don't think much of what he is said to have done.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation". [/QB]
Lisa, you're rude. And periods should go inside quotation marks when finishing a sentance.
quote: We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us. [/QB]
I don't believe people basically suck. I still see a need for "salvation." When you do something wrong, copping to it, regretting it and commiting not to do it again are all integral; but they are collectively insufficient for making a full restitution. Thus the need for a Savior.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do. And I'm sorry if I was snippy. This time of year is a little annoying. I love Christmas decorations. I love most Christmas music. I grew up watching Susie Snowflake and the Rudolf and Frosty cartoons. Just by growing up here, I was immersed in it, and I have very fond associations with it.
But the cultural imperialist attitude of so many Christians is a lot more obvious around this time of year. And this thread is like the worst of the worst.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: This thread is going the wrong way. Please repent (as in, turn and head in another direction), or the thread will be locked.
--PJ
May I ask for a clarification? I'm just curious to know what the "wrong way" is. Should I assume that it's okay for Christians to relegate everyone else to eternal damnation (horrid notion), but that differing views are ipso facto offensive?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some of my favorite childhood memories include sharing holidays with my (from what I could tell) very orthodox best friend. We were in third grade. I went to holiday services (I especially remember Sukkot and the festival after it) with her, and Rachelle and her brother helped us decorate. We also put on our own Christmas play and Rachelle was Santa and I was Mrs. Claus.
It was good to share without any thought that either of us had a monopoly on how to be with God.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation".
Lisa, you're rude. And periods should go inside quotation marks when finishing a sentance.[/QB]
No, rude would be if I were to point out that someone rudely correcting my grammar probably shouldn't misspell words while doing so. It's "sentence".
As far as your "correction" is concerned, that's the American convention, yes. It's different elsewhere, like in the UK.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English says that the important thing is to be clear. I think I was clear.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't believe people basically suck. I still see a need for "salvation." When you do something wrong, copping to it, regretting it and commiting not to do it again are all integral; but they are collectively insufficient for making a full restitution. Thus the need for a Savior.
I was talking about what's necessary to get right with God. I should have added that before you do that, you have to make it right with the person or person's you harmed. Restitution. If you hurt someone and try to just repent to God, God doesn't accept it. No "absolution" can help if you don't make restitution to the victim.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
