Nice post and good examples. I’d like to learn more about the US history you speak of. Any links? I believe the phenomenon of Christianity was a by product of the era, and about the only possible tactic for an oppressed people to overthrow the tyranny of the Romans. But once it got a little too successful, it became apparent hat Christianity could mount a challenge to nation states, and become a power in its own right. This seems like an good explanation to me why Origen rewrote the Bible and destroyed all previous versions of the Bible. I also think it is no coincidence the church has amassed the wealth and influence it has. Why mount an army to fight the emperor/kings when you can simply convert the people and get your share off the wealth?
But religion must be seen to serve a purpose and have legitimacy or it cannot spread. So I believe Christianity has some very good value to society. I would even make the case that it strongly influenced the development of the western world, as opposed to the plateau of development in eastern civilizations, at least until opened by the west.
The greater question though, is that if God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why does He allowed so much of the rest of the world’s population to be destined for hell because they do not believe in Jesus? The concept of free will is insufficient to explain this, because and omniscient God would know man would develop these “false” religions that would create false worship and waste so many lives. So either God was not able foresee this, in which case He is not omniscient, or He could not prevent it, in which case He is not omnipotent. In either case, He is not the God I understand Christian religion purports Him to be. So what is the answer?
I prefer to think that God is omnipotent ans omniscient, but He did not mandate that only Christianity is the path to salvation, that other religions are nothing more than the different roads to the same goal, and are as many and as varied as the different types of attitudes, personalities, and levels of development among people as there are around the world. To me, this overcomes the dilemma I stated before. Then the purpose of religion is to serve as a moral code to maintain stability, morality and growth in civilization. In this way God may have had a greater, more encompassing view or religion, than simply focusing on the particular beliefs of a particular sect.
One other thing that bothers me about Christian thinking. I do not understand how a soul comes into being only with the birth of a child but then can endure forever. Why must a soul have a finite beginning but and infinite end? If a soul can live forever, why could it not be possible for a pre-existing soul to enter a new born baby? If this is so, then reincarnation becomes a possibility and the Hindus may have something to look at.
I do not know of any religion that can put forth and proof of God. To believe, one must make a leap of faith. Either you believe, or you don’t. So why the orthodox rail so strongly against the atheists seems a little hypocritical to me. Atheists have made the same leap of faith as believers, only in the opposite direction. The only ones who are different, in my opinion, are agnostics.
Gotta agree with you there. You’ll note that in my first response I mentioned that women weren’t allowed to divorce their husbands. I’m well aware that women were considered to be property. Their consent was not required for marriage, they could be divorced, put away, sold into slavery (bondage), or whatever. My position is simply that as a Christian, I have to believe that God is a just and fair God. Unless He specifically says otherwise, I have to assume that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and applies equally.
And that’s the end of any theological discussions from me. CeMar asked a question about Christian teachings and I gave what I clearly stated was my personal opinion. As I said in my last post, this is just my personal opinion – feel free to take it or leave it.
Easy now... I am not attacking anyone's faith or belief. We all wandered into this loose cannon of a thread with wariness and caution. I was merely offering another view. I think Cobra made some valid points, as well as everyone here. I was just throwing in something else to consider. Were we speaking of a mere mortal like a Roman Emperor or someone like that, it'd be no big deal.
Quote: Unless He specifically says otherwise, I have to assume that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and applies equally.
Well, see, this is my exact point. No, you do NOT have to assume. You choose to assume. The bible, as it is written, does not address this issue. Period. It is the same exact quandry that 'the church' has been facing for hundreds and hundreds of years as the needs and wants of societies have evolved. It was one of the main reasons Vatican II came into being. The church could change its views to meet the needs of its followers, or it could watch itself crumble and loose its place as the oldest standing political power in human history.
I am not judging anyone's faith, nor their pursuit of it. I was just encouraging those who study the bible to expand their exploration a bit, that's all.
Cobra:
Write me at corri@ftio.com and I'll be happy to provide you with historical references.
Cobra I am a Christian. I do not have all the answers but I certainly love your questions. Causes one to research. I belive if one honestly seeks the unvarnished truth it will find them.
When I get time I will respond but I need time to wordsmith the responses and get a motive check. I really need to break my soapbox myself before someone breaks it with me on it.
Just do not argue with me about lights in Wrigley Field.
"All I want is a weeks pay for a day's work" Steve Martin
Thanks for the history lesson. I kind of go along with most of what you said and have some trouble with some religious practices because of what was the norm then, do we really understand it now. I am big on doing what is fair and just but some religions say that is not enough.
