Julian

Then why does one need the scriptures at all? If the whole deal is what kind of person we choose to be, then 'salvation' simply depends on us making a choice that is beneficial to ourselves and the world around us (good) as opposed to what is ultimately bad and risky and certainly detrimental to others (bad). Now, I certainly agree with this, but I see no cause to involve religion into such a viewpoint. That leads us naturally to this:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, New York Times, April 20, 1999

Dignity comes from us doing the right thing, standing up and knowing right from wrong and following the proper course. To say that religion made us do the right thing, when it is clearly people themselves, is to detract from human diginity. You see lots of religious people doing bad things, you also see them doing good things, but you see lots of examples of good people doing bad things in the name of religion. I would suggest that without religion we would have far more good in the world. But this is taking us off-topic somewhat, so let me swing back to the relevance to the scripture currently under discussion.

In the third chapter of second Peter, he clearly draws a parallel between godly and good and between ungodly and bad. While I appreciate and agree with your conclusion, you are clearly reading the scripture and enforcing your own viewpoint, which is contrary to what is written in the text. So why can't you just have your viewpoint, i.e. be a good person, and forget about religion alltogether? It seems unnecessary for you. Just an observation. Either way, you seem to pick and choose the bits that agree with your pre-existing philosophy and reject the parts that don't. Hell, I can do that too with the bible, but it certainly wouldn't make me religious or even impressed with the writings since I could probably do the same thing with any old book beyond a certain length.

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

You completely misunderstood what I said. My point is that there are far fewer professing Christians living in Muslim countries than in countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. We can assume from this fact that for some strange reason God chooses far more people who live in predominantly Christian countries to reveal himself to than he does from people who live Muslim countries. Perhaps Muslims are limiting where they will allow God to choose the elect. If they aren’t, God has sure gone out of his way to make it look that way to many people. Of course, the best conclusion is that that is good evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. If God does not exist, it is to be expected that geography and prevailing religious beliefs would easily trump any influence from a God. If God does exist, it is to be expected that he would choose the elect from geographic areas of his OWN choosing, NOT from geographic areas of SOMEONE ELSE’S (Muslim’s) choosing.

Johnny Skeptic

But can a person be a liberal Christian and go to heaven?

Just ask the scholarly Gakusei Don who debates at this forum and he will tell you how much better than I can. I am pretty sure that he is a liberal Christian. So can the distinguised scholar, author, and college professor Dr. Elaine Pagels. She is a liberal Christian, and the author of the award winning 'The Gnostic Gospels'. Why don't you start a thread at this forum titled 'My problems with liberal Christians' and let's see how well you can argue your positions. In my own unscholarly words, there is no credible evidence that a declaration of inerrancy, no matter how many times it is stated or copied, does not prove or disprove the claim.

I suggest that you buy a book that is titled 'The Case for Liberal Christianity', by Donald E. Miller, New York, Harper & Row, 1981. 154 pp. $9.95.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, you are representing God’s position, and your position, not mine. While God is willing that some will perish, (I actually agree with you that that is the case. I have just been arguing, along with the majority of the Christians, that some Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish.), and while God endorses unmerciful eternal without parole, I am not willing that anyone perish without having the opportunity to know the truth, and I do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

It most certainly is not up to skeptics to reasonably disprove inerrancy. Rather, it is up to Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant to reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to trust the Bible. No intelligent, moral being would needlessly inspire the writing of a book as confusing as the Bible is. For the better part of 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. Now whose fault was that? Aren't Christians supposed to get wisdom when they ask God for it?

That is false. As I have said on numerous occasions in many threads at three forums, the real issue comes back to whether or not rational minded and fair minded people are able to will themselves to accept a God’s whose character is questionable.

If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being who he would accept if he knew that the being exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are uncertain that the God of the Bible exists. You obviously do not have any problems loving a God who opposes people not for what they know, but for what he says they OUGHT to know. You obviously do not know the difference between IGNORANCE of a truth that is UNKNOWN, and REJECTION of the truth that is KNOWN.

Lest you claim that if Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, no one would become a Christian who was not previously convinced, I will tell you that modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

Humans place great importance on physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. There is great rejoicing among everyone, including Christians, when preventions and cures for diseases are discovered. ANY being who healed all of the sick people in the world, whether a human being, an alien, or a God, would be greatly appreciated. Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in copies of ancient records. Helping people in TANGIBLE ways, not just in SPIRITUAL ways, helps to gain their trust and confidence that you have their best interests at heart. As it is, Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, great fear spread among the people. It is much too much of a coincidence that the issue was over money and not something else. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. Hypocrisy is sufficient ground to reject any being. If God has no interest in keeping his own rules, he should not expect rational minded and fair minded people to love a being who is a hypocrite. If God wishes to punish rational minded and fair minded people for refusing to accept his numerous detestable actions and allowances, that is his choice, but rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. If God has the right to be a hypocrite, then he also has the right to be a liar, right?

If you can convince me that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, or allowing people to be injured and killed in hurricanes, and refusing to clearly tell people that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, are in any way beneficial to God, and to mankind as a whole, I might be willing to become a Christian.

I am only interested in accepting a God who will look out for MY best interests, and EVERYONE ELSE’S best interests, not HIS OWN best interests. In the U.S., we believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You believe in a government of God, by God, and for God. Such a government is arbitrary, tyrannical, and dictatorial.

Some non-Christians are more loving, kind, generous, and forgiving than the typical Christian is. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe that powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is the most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Now how did Paul know that? The point is, who is actually masquerading, Satan or God? Maybe Satan is the good guy who is trying to help mankind and an evil God is trying to discredit him.

If God has the right to tell people that killing people in wrong, and to kill people himself, then he also has the right to tell people that lying is wrong, and to tell lies himself. If God chooses to tell lies, you can bet that he is not going to tell anyone about it. If the God of the Bible exists, at best, he actions and allowances indicate that he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being would heal a devout and faithful Christian named John Smith of cancer on Monday morning, and kill John Smith with a hurricane on Monday afternoon right in the middle of John's celebration over his healing with his wife and four small children, all of whom desperately need him as a husband, father, and breadwinner.

jakejonesiv

OK, I can understand that. It is very close to the opinion expressed by Robert Price on ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES, aired May 24, 2006.

"PRICE: Well, I think that line is important to draw between the transformative, inspiring character of the gospel material which I certainly experience and the issue of historically what actually happened.

My only contention is that you can't make the one do service for the other. The profound meaning that Christ in the New testament have for me does not, however, allow me to say what probably happened in the past."

Note: I do not necessarily agree that the gospels are trasfomative, inspiring, or profound; but I can see why Dr. Price might think so. I might also note that many of the Dutch Radicals were Reformed ministers.

Well, on second thought, no. Certain texts are going to have more historical credibility than others. The gospels rank pretty far down the list on that criteria.
But aren't you leaving out the part about faith? Are you at least inspired by the text, and that is an internal experience.

I have to admit that I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain?

The Christian scriptures, IMO, hold no privleged position whatsoever. Nor do any other ancient texts written with a religous agenda (John 20:31). Secular histories may be more reliable, but still subject to scrutiny.

No offence intended, but my impression is that postmodernism is anti-rational.

If Jesus and Socrates are just the same to you, why are you a Christian? It just doesn't make sense.

Jake Jones IV

rhutchin

If we assume the truth of the premise that "Christians go to heaven," then the designation of "liberal" Christian represents some deviation from a Christian (however the term is defined, which apparently is not liberal). So it really depends on what the difference is between a Christian and a liberal Christian. It is possible for that difference to be such that the liberal Christian does not gain entry into heaven.

rhutchin

If...if...if...

If Johnny Skeptic were a servant of the devil, he would try to get people to think that God was something other than that which the Bible says He is. Hmmm. That is what Johnny Skeptic is doing. Hmmmm.

Johnny Skeptic

But if the original Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that the copies of manuscripts that we have today are the same as the originals?

At any rate, you do not have any intelligent arguments to make whatsoever because you do not have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven. Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe that powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is the most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Now how did Paul know that? The point is, who is actually masquerading, Satan or God? Maybe Satan is the good guy who is trying to help mankind and an evil God is trying to discredit him.

If God has the right to tell people that killing people in wrong, and to kill people himself, then he also has the right to tell people that lying is wrong, and to tell lies himself. If God chooses to tell lies, you can bet that he is not going to tell anyone about it. If the God of the Bible exists, at best, he actions and allowances indicate that he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being would heal a devout and faithful Christian named John Smith of cancer on Monday morning, and kill John Smith with a hurricane on Monday afternoon right in the middle of John's celebration over his healing with his wife and four small children, all of whom desperately need him as a husband, father, and breadwinner.

rhutchin

If God is real, He can do anything He wants. If God is deceiving people, there is no way to know until you die. So, as Pascal might ask, which is worse, (1) to believe the Bible is true and find out it was a deception or (2) to believe the Bible is a deception and find out it is true?