The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Go the way you go, and trust what you choose.

Ricochet wrote: I'm not. At the level of being a religious practician, like going to church, praying and such, it's zero,

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 20 2009 at 11:01

Ricochet wrote: On the other hand, as much as believing is the goal, I reject the idea that plain faith and nothing else than that brings salvation, like my fellow baptists colleagues constantly emphasize(d).* I perfectly understand the concept of proofless faith, but I don't like the idea of it being the sole criteria of spiritual fulfillment.

1. Invincible Ignorance: All tose persons who don't know about the existence of God, despite how good they can be, are born and die condemned, in other words, God created them for the sole purpose of comdemning.......Absurd.
2. Criminals saved: A terrible person that is a faithful Christian may be saved while a great persopn that is not a Christian is dommend,. This could lead us to find Hitler in heaven and Ghandi in hell, according to some Christian denominations also Mother Teresa would be condemned, because they consider us catholics not Christians.
3. Obedience to parents: A Jewish kid that obeys the 10 Commandments, but is raised under the laws of God is also condemned, because he never will accapt Christ, being that to honor his parents he respects the Jewish religion, the same could co to Moslems or whatever religion we are talkinag aboutr.
4. Old Testament:  All the prophets of the Old Testament are condemned, becausethey never knew Christ.

It's the acts and the heart of a person the one that saves them, faith helps, but I believe it's not 100% required to people of other religions.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Ricochet wrote: On the other hand, as much as believing is the goal, I reject the idea that plain faith and nothing else than that brings salvation, like my fellow baptists colleagues constantly emphasize(d).* I perfectly understand the concept of proofless faith, but I don't like the idea of it being the sole criteria of spiritual fulfillment.   I also disagree with the concept of "SOLA FIDE" because it takes to contradiction:   Invincible Ignorance: All tose persons who don't know about the existence of God, despite how good they can be, are born and die condemned, in other words, God created them for the sole purpose of comdemning.......Absurd. "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:21-22) Criminals saved: A terrible person that is a faithful Christian may be saved while a great persopn that is not a Christian is dommend,. This could lead us to find Hitler in heaven and Ghandi in hell, according to some Christian denominations also Mother Teresa would be condemned, because they consider us catholics not Christians. According to the Bible, Manasseh, the cruelest king Israel ever had, reigning 55 years and slaughtering his own children, eventually repented and knew the Lord as God.  God restored him despite decades of evil. (2 Chronicles 33:11-13).  The Bible is clear that there is no amount of sin a person can commit that will "disqualify" them from salvation . Who is the judge of who can enter the kingdom of Heaven? Man or God? The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more. (Romans 5:20) Obedience to parents: A Jewish kid that obeys the 10 Commandments, but is raised under the laws of God is also condemned, because he never will accapt Christ, being that to honor his parents he respects the Jewish religion, the same could co to Moslems or whatever religion we are talkinag aboutr. Galatians 2:16 says this: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Old Testament:  All the prophets of the Old Testament are condemned, because they never knew Christ. Hebrews chapter 11 clearly says that Abraham was saved by faith (the whole chapter is devoted to Old Testament saints who looked forward to coming to Christ.  The prophets even spoke of Christ (Jesus himself said he was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies). It's the acts and the heart of a person the one that saves them, faith helps, but I believe it's not 100% required to people of other religions. Iván

Not to be argumentative, just pointing to what the Bible says.  But you are correct that works are important- James 2:20 says "Faith without works is dead."  But Ephesians 2:8-9 says that it is faith (and not works) that initially saves a sinner.  The works come as a result of true faith.

Sorry, my atheist-agnostic-non-religious fellow PA-goers.  I suppose if we must we can move this conversation elsewhere.

Epignosis wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   I also disagree with the concept of "SOLA FIDE" because it takes to contradiction:   Invincible Ignorance: All tose persons who don't know about the existence of God, despite how good they can be, are born and die condemned, in other words, God created them for the sole purpose of comdemning.......Absurd. "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:21-22)

The way I see it, that doesn't answer Ivan's questioning properly, it only anchors in the last sentence.
Ivan's questioning doesn't reflect integrally 'sola fide" either, cause it sounds more like "those who are not religious, not converted or such are condemned", which is basically a global problem, perceiving persons of a different religion or of no religion at all.

The point adressed about "Sola fide" (by me) was that it isn't enough. I don't care necessarily about the dogma, I just have to observe real life: good works, spiritual righteousness and all that are not unconditionally guaranteed by faith.


The reply to the Ivan's second point (I won't quote it, to not enlarge the post) is also improper, from my perspective, as it aims at atonement. Two big crucial words here: Manasseh repented after a life of tyrant. Sola fide would actuall bless Manasseh with the option of leading a tyrant life till the end, carelessly, and just intermingling statements that he has "faith in God or Christ".

Furthermore, if Manasseh declares faith, but goes on with his cruelty till his dying breath, the sola fide contradiction between "faith" and "works" (the latter being guaranteed by the first) ocurs. And here's where Ivan was more precise.


--

You're right, this is kinda religious talking in a non-religious thread. Better to move it (although I personally don't know how long I'll keep replying. I'm not an expert, I'm just commenting based on pure personal reasoning).

Erm, how do you know Jesus said either of those things, Rob? 

Hey here's a question for you, do believe all those paintings showing him as Caucasian male with long hair and a beard are accurate?

Also, have you seen Life Of Brian and what do you think about it?


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 20 2009 at 16:47

Epignosis wrote: James wrote: Erm, how do you know Jesus said either of those things, Rob?  How do I know you actually just said that (and not a pesky sibling or friend pretending to be you)?

1. I don't have any pesky siblings, only normal ones
2. I'm at home and I don't get visitors because I live miles away from them
3. they wouldn't know your name was Rob
4. nobody has a crap writing style like mine

I don't believe Jesus was divine or anything, he was just a man.

Now, I DO think he was a very enlightened man. He probably preached about love, be good to your fellow person, try to do what's right. You know the general foundations of all religion....

However, I think his teachings have been corrupted/twisted. After all the Bible was written some time after his death, by his followers, (not to mention it's been edited a few times). There are other things as well, but I'm positive the Bible is not true, (guess I wouldn't be here otherwise).
This is the sticky wicket:

When I ask people if jesus WAS just a man, what difference would it make? Why do you all insist he's divine? Everything he said and stood for would still have happened, it won't diminish it's impact.

Only reason I get usually is: It would invalidate Christianity OR you can not worship a human.
The first one makes me laugh, Jesus is divine because the church says so! If he wasn't it would prove Christianity false! It's not like there was Jesus and the church came after....THAT argument almost makes it sound the other way around.

As for not worshipping humans. Well, I don't worship ANYthing, even god. So I suppose thats why I'm a deist...

James wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Hey here's a question for you, do believe all those paintings showing him as Caucasian male with long hair and a beard are accurate? Also, have you seen Life Of Brian and what do you think about it? No, I'm not a Christian but I do believe there could well have been a guy who Jesus was modelled on.  Some kind of priest or such like. Did he look like me (as in long-hair and with a beard)? No. Did he look more middle eastern/Arabic? Most likely. So why the Caucasian long-haired and bearded image of Jesus? And this may sound like a bit of a silly question (and it's not really so relevant now) but if he was portrayed with long-hair and with with a beard/goatee, why was long-hair on males so frowned upon by western religions up until recent times (and I'm sure some still don't like it)?

Most likely Jesus would have had long hair and a beard.  Most men in the Ancient Near East valued long hair and beards.

But white?  No way.  Even if he was fairer skinned, he stayed outside much of the time (at least after 30).