lcb

aha! but since there is no God, it is Vork's personal responsibility to go help those people...will Vork go? will toto go? or will it be a Christian volunteer from Falls Church Virginia? (For whom the bell tolls?)Who will go to feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort widows and orphans....Here I am Lord, send me.

Amen-Moses

I suppose I could point out that it ws missionaries that spread most of those terrible diseases in the first place but I won't.

Amen-Moses

Viti

I hardly think Xians have the market on compassion and kindness. I would also propose that the missionaries main goal is to win converts...the expected payment for services rendered is acceptance of Jesus.

lcb

will Lady Shea go? Lady Shea will feed the hungry and heal the sick without ANY agenda or payment necessary-even better than christian volunteers. SO, will Lady Shea go? ?

Viti

I do plenty of volunteer work, I just don't go around trumpeting it trying to get pats on the back. My parents (especially Mom) taught me to help others help themselves and do it quietly and stay in the background.

lcb

Lady Shea, no disrespect, but I have travelled pretty extensively (courtesy of uncle sam) and just about everywhere i have been, every orphanage, hospital, medical clinic, and feeding center i visited was set up and run by Christians.( that doesnt prove anything but it says something...it would seem-though not a 'scientific' observation- that that "quiet deep inner voice" seems to call some a lot more than others. acta non verba "deeds not words"/or the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.(i suppose now someone will talk about the inquisition or the spanish explorers...but i never saw those things, I have seen a Christian surgeon from Idaho fixing cleft palates of poor children in a clinic without air conditioning though....the French have a philosophical school known as "probabilism"( in a nutshell, you study, analyze, travel, watch and pick what best improves the human condition within the otherwise fairly narrow and selfish human world)...a survey at U.S. medical schools found that of all the graduating students who were willing to do full time charity medicine 98% were students who had very strong religious convictions (in fairness, some of these students were also Islamic and Unitarian, etc).

Viti

Why do they have to travel to other countries if their sole purpose is helping people? There are plenty of people/children in need right in their own back yard...the only reason I can see is that the US is already mostly xian, so they go to 3rd world countries so they can help those they also have a chance of indoctrinating into their faith.


Here is an organization I financially support and volunteer with, we sure could use some of those doctors and dollars! <a href="http://www.standupforkids.org/standupforkids/" target="_blank">Stand Up for Kids</a>

Of course 20-40% of street kids are GLBT who were kicked out of or ran away from their "Good Christian" homes....so they deserve to die in piles of garbage right?

Pomp

Friendly reminder: the EoG(s) forum is for the discussion of ideas, not people. Implying that specific individuals participating here (rather than, say, atheists in general) would not be willing to participate in charity work is probably not conducive to fruitful discussion, IMHO.

Tercel

BD,
Okay it's clear you're quite confused as to what I believe. I kind of assumed you knew, since I've explained it on atleast 3 different threads on the past week (!!! ) and of course assumed that this was one of them. Looking back on this thread I see it wasn't. Though if you'd followed the link I gave Toto on page 2 you'd see a speech by an Eastern Orthodox Theologian on the subject. Toto's suggestion that some of his statements represent his own thought and are not standard EO theology is partially true, but overall the speech pretty accurately characterises EO thought.
The following is link I gave Toto. I cannot exactly agree entirely with its assessment of Western Theology (since I'm a Protestant) though he makes some good points, and I do not agree with his assessment of atheists. However, please read it all as it explains almost exactly my beliefs on the afterlife and who goes there:
<a href="http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm" target="_blank">http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm</a>
A few of the details are his own development, but in general his view (on the subject of God and the afterlife) fairly represents the standard Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, which I share.

So if I may have a go at explaining it now...
To affirm salvation by works is basically to throw Romans and most of the rest of Paul's writings in the rubbish. Though some support can be found for a salvation by works position from the Bible it is at the cost of blatently ignoring the vast majority of what Paul says on the subject. An alternative is to affirm salvation by belief. If you hold the intellectual belief that Jesus was God and that he was resurrected you go to heaven, if not... bad stuff. This can draw much Biblical support from a reasonable number of statements associating "belief in Christ" with heaven. And yet such a position is at the expense of passages such as Matthew 25 which don't mention intellectual belief, and James 2 which states straight out that belief is not sufficient. And so many Christians say that its "faith" that's required for salvation. Now what this faith is exactly they generally go a bit vague on. But the general gist seems to combine belief with trust in God. Is such a position Biblical? Well there would certainly seem to be a number of verses affirming that "belief in Jesus" and "faith in Jesus" are important, but is this understanding what is meant in the right way? Matthew 25 still doesn't really seem to be acceptable under such an interpretation, the two passages in John 3:16-21 and 5:24,29 that combine faith and works in some muddy fashion don't seem to fit that well, Paul's comments in Romans 2:6-8 seem rather wierd, and the whole interpretation seems contrary to James' entire point of writing.

But I think it is 1 John (and perhaps Ephesians) that gives the most detailed clues. Now 1 John is generally thought to be by either the same person who wrote the Gospel of John, or a follower of them. It deals with theologically matters more directly that John, so it is a useful interpreter.
What we are interested in is 1. how the author interchangably uses the words "fellowship", "union with", "belief in", being "in Christ", "abiding in him" etc as respresenting equivalent concepts and 2. what concepts he relates them to. The following quotes are some relevant verses from 1 John - Although I strongly suggest you read it yourself as the lack of context in my quotes here might make answering number 2 a bit difficult.

1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
2:4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
2:6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
2:8 On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.
2:9-11 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
2:28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.
2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
3:7-8 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
3:9-10 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
4:7-9 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
5:11-12 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

The author muddles together a whole lot of concepts about union with Christ and a nature of love and truth.
It seems quite obvious that what is being meant is something more than belief or trust. The author seems to think that his readers should be "in" Christ, and seems to understand this as meaning a renewed and Christ-like nature of love and true. John itself has many similar verses giving a similar impression:

6:51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
6:53-56 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
17:26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

Now anyone familar with Paul's writings will know that a renewed nature is not unfamilar to him. Indeed Paul spends quite a large proportion of his time exhorting the reader to put on the nature of Christ. Thus perhaps, the references to "belief in Christ", "faith in Christ", "union with Christ" are better understood as representing a mystical union, the saved being those who are ultimately prepared to put off their human natures and take on their spiritual nature of love, submitting their wills to Christ and accepting his love.

Colossians 1:27-29 God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, in order to bring each one into God's presence as a mature individual in union with Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

A better solution? Well Biblically it seems to give an increased explanatory power. The verses that were a problem for other interpretations are more easily explainable. It's comparatively easy to see why the NT authors spend the amount of time they do exhorting their readers to be better people, and the heavy emphasis on a new nature and better morality and more love in the NT becomes far more explainable.
Overall I think this view much better aligns with what appears to be the general spirit behind the NT author's discussions on the subject of salvation.
Having come to this conclusion myself, I was quite worried that no other Christians seemed to agree with me so I wasn't quite sure what to think. It was quite a plesant suprise to discover (while reading about the Eastern Orthodox Church) that the entire EO Church seems to share my conclusions.

Anyway, sorry if you don't feel my Biblical proofs on the subject are good enough, I haven't read any Orthodox theologians on the subject so I wouldn't know how they defend it. So I have only given you those verses which I, in my limited capacity, have noticed as being relevant support. If you really are still concerned that my position is not sufficiently Biblical, I suggest the best thing to do would be to dig up a book by an Orthodox Theologian and see what they have to say on the subject.

Hmm, the staining of my interpretation is probably more due to a lack of time taken in response. I was somewhat offended by your post and so did not give it the time that, in hindsight, it probably deserved. (Though I'm still not particularly impressed at being taken to task by an atheist for them not thinking my position sufficiently Biblical)

Actually, given your recent misunderstanding of my position, this comment seems quite ironic.

Well, yes, that is part of what accepting Biblical Errancy entails. I still wouldn't want to be flatly contradicting universally expressed opinions though, there are obviously limits.

I don't quite know about more easily. I do have the advantage of a better education, almost certainly a greater intelligence, and a definitely a wider viewpoint as far as living in a more advanced and educated society makes information and resources more accessable to me. However they were right there when it all happened and that obviously counts for a great deal, the information I have to work with must depend greatly on their reporting it.

Of course it matters what the Bible says.

There's no such thing as "is sufficiently Biblical" because it's a subjective judgement. I do care whether I think it's sufficiently Biblical. I do not just "mine" the Bible. In all cases I believe what I perceive as being the spirit of the overall Bible so long as it is not flatly at odds with logic etc.

I'd say that's quite a badly written article. Have you read Amos? (It's pretty short)

No, absolutely not. He is not moaning about worship of rival Gods in the quoted passage. God is rejecting worship of Himself because of the lack of social justice which is clearly presented in Amos as being the big issue. Read Amos. Amos does mention worship of rival Gods but 1. Not in the quoted passage or context and 2. it is not his focus, but rather an after thought.

I do not recall that at all. I see no reason to think that to be the case.

He seems to think it is. What can his essay on faith and works with an appeal to Abraham be in chapter 2 other than a theological position? To ignore James' statements on the basis that they "are not really meant theologically" is special pleading. I see no reason to think that to be the case.

Not at all, that would only be the case if people's beliefs were consistent and they 100% of the time carried through on the implications of their wrong beliefs.
It is my experience that most people simply hold inconsistent beliefs that result in their disbelief in God not actually making a huge difference.
Remember that on the other side of the coin there are plenty who hold a belief in God but inconsistently do not do what is/hold other beliefs that are entailed by that. Changing the one belief on the issue of God would, for many people make stuff all difference. And, of course there are those for whom belief in God has a negative effect and thinking they they have full knowledge of the TRUTH turn into bigots and zealots.

I'll grant that in objecting to the one point I may have gone too far in the other direction. However I am not about to agree that having people believe in God is God's main aim or even a particularly important one.
Again: I believe God does care about what we believe but only so far as it serves to effect our actions and nature.

Actually, I think it can. As I said to Doubting Didymus: "It is the evidence for the Christian Church I see in today's world which make me specifically a Chirstian. Be these Miracles, Near-death experiences, spiritual feelings, personal testimonies etc."

Well of course.
I would note that I did finish with an apology for the length of my post though.
I would also note that you did not reply to my discussion of why I was a Christian and thus the part of the post you responded to was only 1700 words long and only 1000 if you don't count quotes.

This is rather ironic though, since this post is 5000+ words!
Hopefully this will sort most everything out and leave only a few small tidbits to tidy up (cross fingers).
It's just that whenever I discuss things with you both my posts and yours inevitably get large, which I don't like.

Okay, I hope that's a bit clearer now. I hope you can understand the difference between salvation by works and salvation by nature. The two are not equivalent, but anyone raised in the Protestant tradition probably has a innate tendency to call anything that is not belief as "Works".

I seem to agree with all of that completely.

I see nothing wrong with this either if faith is associated with a Christ-like nature as opposed to belief.

This emphasizes well the difference between faith as nature vs works and beliefs. The first sentence shows how works are not faith, and the second should how a belief is not faith - obviously a person can possess belief on their own efforts, and just as obviously they cannot be born again and be holy as God is holy by their own efforts.

And so on...
Now I tried to find a piece in your link was more relevant, but they say precious little. But I found this tidbit in the paragraph on "Concerning the Life That Is To Come":
Now you'll of course recognise that sentiment from the link I gave earlier. But what is being said here when unpacked? Quite a lot. Basically it's saying the saved and the damned depends solely on the reception of God's love. I don't see the slightest mention of belief in there as being relevant.

Actually I think they are both very similar, after all they are being derived from the same Biblical evidence. The only difference is that the EO are concerned about the Protestant heresy that belief in iffy claims about Jesus is somehow required as part of "faith".

Yeah and what does that tell you about what is meant by "faith"? Since when has belief produced good works? Since when has a renewed Christ-nature not produced good works?

Almost by definition any works which do not flow from one's true nature are incidental. You should be careful here as the EO Church admits that non-believers are capable of such works - due to the fact that they do have a nature in Christ despite not knowing it. Remember 1 John: Christ is light and truth and love, whoever has these things has Christ.

To tell people the Good News. Why do you think it's called "good news" and not simply "an ultimatum of eternal judgement". It's not some neutral force with the power to eternally judge people depending on how they respond to it, but rather it's called the gospel (good news), the same word that was used to refer to a messenger bringing good news of a victory in a war. To think of the gospel as anything other than good news is to make a mockery of the name.

Because it's good news that's worth knowing for it's own sake. But evangelism was not the main point of Jesus' ministry, remember the two commandments he stated were the greatest were to do with love. To preach the Gospel was simply a necessary command to the disciples to spread the movement. It is not some great ultimate command in itself.

Mystery. To reconcile man unto God. By representing all man, and living a life in perfect obedience to God, so that the very natures of man and God might be combined again.
~shrugs~ A few catch phrases, but I can't really say I fully understand. The Church calls it a "Mystery" and I'm happy with that. Though there's plenty of theologians out there who like to theorise.

Well this harks back to the whole question of Divine Hideness doesn't it. I don't claim to fully know the answer to that one either. Mystery.

Tercel

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Asolutely, a person who wants to help others and happens to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim will connect the charity with the religious belief. And of course the organized religions provide the necessary logistical support for this effort. I consider the whole thing laudable.

But I think you are confusing things here if you are arguing (1) that the charity is the effect of the religious faith and (2) that this effect is evidence of the truth of that faith. Both of these propositions seem to me doubtful. I've heard Christians ask derisively where the atheist hospitals are. Well, there are *secular* hospitals, but atheists are not an organized group. Most of us don't belong to any atheist organizations at all, and even the largest of these have nationwide, fewer members than Jerry Falwell's local parish.