ManM

ex-preacher,
I had to let go of western theology a few years ago when I realized it was just plain inconsistent. The line of thought started by Augustine ends in this omnimax monarch we both find a problem with. You are correct in saying that the majority of the western theologians have held the position that God created hell. I simply challenge them on two fronts. First and foremost, their belief leads to deep theological problems (as atheists love to point out). Second, I don't think their belief has a good historical sanction. If Augustine's books were written in Greek at the time he might have been condemned like Origin.

Now on to the heart of your questions. Why did Jesus' prayer fail? Why did God say no to Himself? This is only a problem if we assume that Jesus' (God's) desires had power over that which he prayed for. Tell me, why would you pray for something which was in your power to do? People pray for things when they need help, not when they don't. Jesus' prayer only makes sense if we are indeed truly free to oppose God's desires. We are free, and so God is not. We have the power to choose our own beliefs, even against the wishes of God. And so what can God do? He did what many others do in times of helplessness. He prayed. But this is one prayer that God can't answer. Only we can answer it.

brian,
I'm with ex-preacher on this one. I somehow doubt that Jesus had in mind such a loose grouping of denominations, especially when you take into account the fact that they have historically fought and killed each other.

brian

brian,
I'm with ex-preacher on this one. I somehow doubt that Jesus had in mind such a loose grouping of denominations, especially when you take into account the fact that they have historically fought and killed each other.[/QB][/QUOTE]

The piont that both of you bring up is valid. It does seem a bit simplified to say that "the four pionts" are all that Christ meant...

But I certainly didn't mean that all of the desension within the church is o.k. and furthermore somehow a part of God's plan for the church.

the disagreements are sins of people not down falls or short comings of God.

But, I still stand behind the basic idea that true Christians are in fact simply those that beleive the "good news" which is as "simple" as I said it. It seems eronious but it's not!!!

I was in a religion class in school and was very interested to hear the prof. talking about Christianity as a mere western religion of church politics and the like. While these things come into play, "true believers" understand that these denominational diferences are not what makes one a christian. It is simply that Jesus is the Christ and has redeamed us from all of our sin.

(forgive my spelling)

HelenM

This is the wimpy 'free-will' answer - maybe God didn't want unity more than he wanted free-willed human beings...

The Calvinist answer is, God has 'two' wills, as it were: the "I would like this" that has to happen because he's God and the "this would be nice but my glory (TM) comes first" will. So, everything that didn't happen - with hindsight - was evidently the second kind of "I would like this", not the first. I forgot the posh names of them . ('Decretive' is one, I think...)

(If it's theology there's always an answer... )

love
Helen

JL

So my burning question bltl6 is do you consider those Christians who currently or historically have, in their own words, found reason to persecute or harm others (that we would consider innocent) within the Bible and the Christian faith itself to be True Christians? How do you discredit them if your criteria are strength of belief and the outward expression of it? To do so seems to me equivalent to saying the 911 hijackers weren't religious because you don't agree with their beliefs.

ex-preacher

If it's theology, there are always a multitude of answers . . . but only one is right (if that).

bltl6

I would obveously discredit the hijackers because they calim the muslem faith and are therefore not Christian, and in my opinion, worship the wrong god.

However, your question is difficult to answer because I can't say for fact who is and who is not a True Christian. Like I said earlier, because it has to do with the heart, and I cannot really know and judge the heart of someone, I can't know really where someone is comming from. So, it's possible that priests who involved themselves in the inquisition were True Christians in a salvation since, but not in a practicing since. They would still suffer loss for there sins (1 Cor. 3), but most likely, the men involved in that horrible event were not believers because I just don't see someone with the love of Christ in them acting in such a way.

The church had lots of political power back then and certinly with being a priest came power. It's easy to see why many became a priest. It wasn't because they held to Christ's teaching of love and soforth, but because they were evil men wanting the power that came with belonging to the church. I'm sure this evil went all the way up to the Pope at times.

There is a legand that an underground church, apart from the Roman Catholic one, thrived. I don't know what documention there is on that, and it makes since there wouldn't be much, as the Catholic church wouldn't want to bring attention to it, nor would the underground church want to draw attention to themselves. But the Protestant movement did take off prety fast once it got going, and the Roman Catholic church has since then apoogized for the inquistion.

Are you not a Christian because it pisses you off that theoreticaly someone could commit a horid sin and still be accepted into Heaven?

bltl6

FYI--I've heard it called God's soverign will and God's permissive will.

KeithHarwood

The position of the comma determinews whether the "this day" belongs to Christ saying or to being in paradise. The comment wasn't directed to you personally. It was merely an example of the apparently trivial matters that cause people on one side of the argument to accuse the people on the other side of the argument of not being True Christians(TM).

One of the reasons I like science is that it provides means of settling divisive questions without bloodshed or schism.

(OK, burning at the stake doesn't shed blood, but you know what I mean.)

IvanK

So, he desires us to be one, but he came not to bring peace, but a sword, and to divide son and father, daughter and mother and daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. Is that what your very clear record is telling us? In that case about the only logical conclusion is that he was some kind of raving maniac, since his desires seem to be so at variance with his actions.

I don't either, and furthermore I think the Bible confuses the issue rather than makes it clear, and so you don't need either the Bible or Jesus to be "saved" if by being "saved" one merely means trying to be nice to people in general.

ManM

IvanK,
A doctor desires us to be healthy. However, that very same doctor is sometimes required to bring forward the scalpel and cause us pain. Is this doctor a raving lunatic?