fett on 14/1/2007 at 19:09

---

I won't attempt to place words in Thirith's mouth, but I can speak for a large portion of the christian community on this. I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I probably need to expound on it a bit.

'Faith' is a very murky (and quite overused and abused) term that, as I mentioned in a previous post, is hardly ever used by christians in the same context by which it's defined repeatedly in the Bible.

For that reason, 'faith' has become for many, a general term to describe a sense of comfort or security with their belief system, and especially their identification with the christian sub-culture.

I would venture to say that the majority of the sub-culture doesn't even really understand deeply what it is that they believe. Quiz the average christian on things like:

1) Why is the doctrine of the virgin birth crucial to redemption?
2) What is the necessity of penal substitutionary death as opposed to mediative corporal satisfaction?
3) What are the significance of the temple sacrifices as they relate to permanent atonement vs. temporal satisfaction?

This sounds like alot of theological bullshit, but in fact, each of those questions strike to the very heart of whether or not Jesus was even qualified to die for their sins<save them<guarantee eternal salvation.

I promise you hardly 1 in 10 can even speak intelligently on these issues - even if you dumb the language down. Why are they so ignorant of these very core issues of faith?

a) Because the sub-culture emphasizes feeling over thinking. Post-modernism has permeated the church just as it has the mainstream culture (possibly moreso). They will call it 'peace' or 'the Holy Spirit' or 'divine comfort' (there are a million terms) but the bottom line is that believing simply 'feels right'. Defense of their faith usually devolves quickly into ad hoc arguments for the uniqueness of the Bible, the seeming timelessness of the faith, etc. Ironically, the strongest defense is historically fulfilled prophecy (which is what converted me originally), yet prophecy is without question the single most neglected and misunderstood subject in all of Christendom for the last century or so.

b) Because the sub-culture is comfortable. Imagine that you were raised in church and now have 2 kids of your own who attend public school. They are subjected daily to media and other input that (in your opinion) have a negative impact on them. Profanity wasn't used in your household, and neither was alcohol or drugs. R-rated moves weren't allowed, and mom and dad didn't sleep around. Middle-America still looks slightly like this, despite any religious convictions - especially my parents generation.

What I'm saying is that church is SAFE. No profanity. No threat of being exposed to offensive media. In fact, the kids will be involved in the youth group - influenced in positive ways. You don't know what the Bible really says yourself, but you're positive it discourages drunkenness, drug use, promiscuity, disobedience to mom and dad, gang involvement, etc. These are all values you want to instill in your kids. This creates a commonality that is intellectually completely aside from theology. 200 years ago, people had theology in common which resulted in common belief and behavior. Today, people who are seeking a safe social group, and common behavior, take on christian theology as part of the package - and then call it faith (again - light years away from the Biblical definition).




A lot of crappy things not worth going into here. My involvement with 'the church' began as a purely academic pursuit, and I got sucked in because the evidence for the Bible being 'extraterrestrial' is overwhelming. Once I grasped the prophecy and the history, it disturbed my logical mind so badly I almost had a nervous breakdown. I surrendered to the idea that an all-knowing God was the only explanation for this book (and I still can't completely let go of that notion all these years later). My lengthly involvement with christians on an academic level served to insulate me from the reality that the message simply does not change people. Eventually I started looking around. I was able to observe hundreds of people over the course of almost 15 years and still cannot point to a single individual that I knew personally who was changed by the message of Jesus, the 'filling of the Holy Spirit', or the consistent teaching of the Bible. This book claims to have the power to supernaturally change people and make them into the image of this man Jesus, but it simply fails to deliver in my opinion. To the contrary, I found that people had a tendency to degenerate away from this ideal the older, and more frustrated they became at the lack of change in their own lives (myself included). These are folks who studied the Bible daily, prayed consistently, etc. - all the prescribed disciplines that are part and parcel of a 'relationship with God' - most of them were not very 'religious' as this forum would define it, they were genuinely seeking to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and be changed to be more like him.

My conclusion is that is simply doesn't happen, which calls into question the other claims of the Bible. As for the fulfilled prophecy, I still don't know what to make of it. I still lose sleep at night wondering if I've reached the wrong conclusion, because the prophecy and the logic of the theology are indisputable.

Sorry for the long post...

fett on 14/1/2007 at 20:27

---

Bingo - BUT, as it pertains to redemption, it also makes Jesus 'the god-man' (early church language). Since a 'created' being is ineligible to redeem from sin, the sacrifice had to be not only a 'sinless man' but also 'divine' in order to mediate between man and the first person of the Trinity. This affects every event from the garden of Gethsemane to the final judgment.

Now ask your average believer to define 'original sin'. :laff: :laff: :laff: :laff: :laff: :laff: :laff: :rolleyes:

jay pettitt on 14/1/2007 at 20:53

---

Can I be the first to say: Dude, get over yourself.

edit
damn you page 8 and your context disrupting ways and Raven for sneaking a thread inbetween. >8(

jay pettitt on 14/1/2007 at 20:57

---

No, but we could meet out back and fisticuffs anyway.

paloalto on 15/1/2007 at 02:51

---

From another stand point God's existence does not depend upon a single person bieleving in him.If he exists it is independent of bielef.And some aspects of the laws which govern everyone are impersonal,meaning the laws treat everyone equally.

An example would be the law of karma.It is simply a mechanical law set up based on the idea that there is a God standard of what Love is which is not always the same as what humans call love.When people invert Love into forms of hatred,jealousy,anger,condemnation of others etc. the law of karma kicks in to return to that indivdual what he has given out.It operates independently of relative human standards.

My point is this,based on laws which operate mechanically whether you bieleve in God or not you are still operating under the law.
And if the law is written as it is said," in your inward parts,"you would still have many of the qualities of God whether you acknowledge Him or not.

Also the idea of God brings up the notion of perfection.While Christians bieleve that it is impossible to attain "salvation" on your own which I bieleve to be a perversion of Christs original message,Hindus put forth the idea of perfecting oneself through many lifetimes.The story of the Fall talks about a fall from grace,a fall from a state of original perfection.And the Fall was from a free will choice.So for me the notion of God brings up the possibility of reclaiming that orignal state of perfection through desire and application of Christ's message.Without the idea of God ,that possibility does not exist since you are left with the relative states based upon the human consciousness.This hope operates at the soul level and I do think without it it is far more possible to enter into a downward spiral of despair and nhilism.
Of course there are many other factors which contrbutes to a persons makeup depending on the choices they make.