Rational Ag

The one that bltl6 and G B Mayes seemed to agree on.

I know that everyone has a different opinion, but since those were the two responding I thought I would talk with them about their particular definition.

Me either, but I was trying to stay on topic and maybe get these guys try and come to a consensus.

-Rational Ag

[Edited because I can't format]

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

bltl6

Rational Ag-

I was going to "give you a break" on your sarcasim by not getting upset by it. Seems like you still have a lot of it though. Whatever, I'm sarcastic too at times.

I did go to the Mormon cite (if you had read a previous post of mine) and said that while it declaired Christ as savior, judge, etc., I didn't see a statement like, "We believe Jesus *is* God."

Son of God is true, but not complete. Some believe that Jesus was simply the first created thing that God created. Then, JC and God together created everything else that is. If I am wrong about this, show me. I couldn't find it in the cite. I even went as far as (and I even said this) giving them my name and address to come visit me. I want to be wrong on this issue, but I don't think I am.

I've had Mormon friends, have been to a Mormon church, own a copy of The Book of Mormon, and have looked at this issue (because it's a big one).

Mormons are some of the nicest people I know, but I don't think that they believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. Therefore, they don't meet the definition of a true Christian, and are therefore not.

Mageth

Therefore, they don't meet the definition of a true Christian, and are therefore not.

Correction: they don't meet your definition of a True Christian. I'm sure the LDS has a definition of "True Christian" which Mormons meet (and which you may or may not!)

Rational Ag

"Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge. Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth (John 1:10; Hebrews 1:2)."

According to them, Jesus is your Savior, your Judge, and he created the earth.

How do you define God? Can just any old person be your savior and create the earth?

Do you define how one can be considered God differently?

Anyone who can create a planet is pretty damn divine in my book.

-Rational Ag

Ender

The only true christian is the man who died on the cross. ( i allow for people who already hold similar instincts, like Ghandi or other ascetics, but not necessarily that they must believe that Jesus was God)

Those totally bogus "Christians" we see today are Pauline Christians. They believe that a simply psychological state of mind is enough to transform the entire instinct of the individual into at least something resembling Jesus Christ's character. This belief is the crux why Christians keep failing- it is a characteristic or instinct that drives the actions of the individual, not mere activity of a superfluous mind.

~WiGGiN~

ManM

IvanK,
You are right in pointing out that the passages are not right next to each other in the text. I am simply interpreting the bible in the light of my Church's tradition. Certainly you can interpret it otherwise if you wish. Moving on, I think I see the opposition you are trying to set up here. In one place, Jesus says he desires us to be one, and in another he says he will bring divisions. And so the divisions are meant to make us whole? It sounds counter-productive...

But let's keep in mind that Jesus desires us to be one, as he and the Father are one. And so his desire is that we be one in the sense that the trinity is one, that is, through the spirit of love. Being 'one' in any other fashion is not what Jesus desires. Let me try to use an example. Let's suppose a group of people are united in hate. The teachings of Jesus then inspire one of the members to acquire a spirit of love. He immediately is separated from the group. It is in this way that Jesus divides. Yet, Jesus still desires we be one through a spirit of love. This understanding resolves the contradiction.

Moving along, in order to try and prevent further confusion, let me give a short synopsis of what it means to be 'saved'. As I've said before, I do not go along with the conception of salvation put forth by western theologians. Instead, I believe (in accordance with the Orthodox Church) that heaven and hell exist only from our point of view, not God's. Jesus granted us all salvation from death, but he made it very clear that some of us won't find the next life pleasant. In the next life, there will be no more ignorance or pain. We will all live in paradise, but the conditions of paradise will make it uncomfortable for some people, especially hypocrites. Jesus saves us from death, and so it may properly be said that there is no salvation without him. What saves us from hell is our reaction to the new reality we will find ourselves in. This reaction is a function of our personality, and this is where we find both the utility and the liberality of Christianity. It is quite possible that someone who has never heard of Christianity may live their life in such a way as to experience no shame in the next one. That is where the quote from Romans comes in. Those who have lived good lives will naturally enjoy the next one, not because God rewards them specifically, but just as a natural result of their personality. Yet, Christianity provides a method for acquiring the type of personality that is necessary for salvation. The spirit of love, humility to admit weakness, the strength to forgive... These things make the difference between heaven and hell. Christianity provides both the knowledge of eternal life and a method to prepare for it. Hence it is of utmost importance to spread this message.

In this context I can answer your questions. There is no chance of eternal life without Jesus conquering death, hence none are saved (from death) without Jesus. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible for someone to be prepared for the next life without ever hearing about Jesus. But the likelihood of someone properly preparing for the next life is increased exponentially by the belief and practice of Christianity.

Your quote from Mark 16:16 rests in the context of the great commission, and I suspect should be interpreted in that light. Those who hear the message and believe will be saved. Those who hear the message and reject it are rejecting the spirit of love which leads to the enjoyment of eternal life. By cutting off their means of enjoying eternal life, what more can be said but that they have damned themselves? And so I suspect that Mark 16:16 applies only to those who hear and do not believe. It does not conflict with the idea that others who have not heard of Christianity might still be saved.

And if your bible is clear as mud, I suggest diluting it with holy water... Wait, that won't work... Nevermind...

bltl6

You're right. It's a total circular argument. It would be better to debate theological issues to answer this question. But since most here don't even hold to the Bible being true, or that there is a devine being (or at least a personal one), it makes this topic a very difficult one. All I can do is present *my* understanding and conviction on the issue and hope it makes some since, given where I'm coming from.

bltl6

I already explained how I think they view God the Father and Jesus as two different beings, not one. Christians don't worship two gods. We worship one. If Jesus wasn't God, then I wouldn't place any more value on him than I would the apostal Paul.

If you can't find the statement I asked for (like I couldn't find it), then maybe I'm right about their view of Jesus.

IvanK

I confess there's a lot about Orthodoxy that I don't know. I'd guess if I looked into it I'd find the same thing I have with Roman Catholicism, that the logic of its theology holds together well once one accepts its assumptions.

But those are pretty big assumptions to swallow, particularly in the absence of clear and unambiguous evidence. You're correct that most Western Christians would say the chances of someone who had never heard the message of their Gospel being saved would be slim to none. They base that idea, as I understand it, on the language of the Great Commission: Jesus commands his disciples to go into all nations and preach to all men that all might hear and be saved; threfore without the hearing there is no salvation.

That the text is ambiguous at best is demonstrated by the quotes I've posted above. You interpret, you believe, you suspect certain things might be so. In addition I suspect you and others have what is called in the Western traditions the evidence of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it a strong inner conviction that you're at least somewhere along the right path leading toward the Truth.

As you may have guessed I and most freethinkers lack this conviction; we instead are convinced that the Universe is natural, that it needs no supernatural basis or being, that our own lives and those of every other living thing are temporary, beginning at birth and ending at death, and that there's no reason to count on a future state of either reward or punishment.

As I understand it the split between east and west occurred over a disagreement about the nature of the Godhead which expressed itself in a difference of one word in a creedal statement. So I suspect our other True Christian (TM) friend would have a bone to pick with you and those who believe as you do.

What I think this long screed and the four pages that have gone before is getting to is that it's not at all productive in a human sense to pick fights over these kinds of fine capital-P Philosophical differences by declaring only some people to be True Christians, or True Moslems or True Buddhists or True Agnostics or True Wiccans or True what-have-yous. That kind of behavior only leads to divisions of an unhealthy nature at best and the kind of intractable mayhem we have in places like the Middle East and Ireland at worst. It might be possible through discussing our differences, however, to arrive at some shared common understanding. That to me would be more like coming together in a spirit of love. If that gets me a soft seat in the afterlife, fine, but I'll still do nothing out of fear of hell or hope of heaven.

Thanks again for being so clear; my apologies for being so rough on you earlier and in particular about being sorely mistaken about your complete lack of trollishness.

ManM

IvanK,
Your analysis of the situation sounds good to me. My only goal in this discussion was to show that the system could be understood in a consistent manner. As in any intellectual framework, the initial assumptions are not proven by the system. God is the beginning for me. He is an object of faith, not proof. I have no assurance that I am correct in my faith; I simply choose to believe.

I also agree with your analysis of the True Christian (TM) debate. I think it is more a matter of pride, and yes, it is very divisive. True Christian, fake Christian, whatever... We are all human, and for once in history we should treat each other as such.