Satanism

[Melusine]

Even though I'm getting very tired of the typical Dramnek mode of answering your posts, Cerek , I do see his point that it's unfair the only standard by which God judges whether you go to Heaven or Hell is whether you accept Christ as your saviour and ask sincerely for forgiveness. (though I must admit it's hard to read through all the prejudiced acidity in those posts of his... [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

This would mean that someone could lead a very good life, tolerant of people, tolerant of most religions (Jews, Muslims etc), giving to charity, helping people, being in a loving marriage, raise their children well; and go to hell anyway, whereas a complete and utter a-hole who spent his whole life drinking, doing drugs, whoring, hurting people, being a completely useless part of society and maybe even killing people could, at the end of his life, suddenly realise what he's done and how stupid he's been, sincerely repent and beg Jesus Christ for forgiveness and BE SAVED! Sorry, but no matter how much I stand open for Christianity, that seems to me just plain WRONG. The first man has, on the whole, lead a better life, and I think the lives of people should be judged as a whole, not by just one aspect of it.

As far as I know, however, not all Christians go by these criteria, there are even some open-minded ones I think who say that any truly goodhearted person will go to Heaven. That seems like a better way of thinking about it to me. But anyway, just like you, Cerek, said you know you can't convert everybody here, so I know that you'll probably counter my objection with an explanation. This was just a point I'd like to make, to show one of my main objections to your practise of the faith. I know that other branches of Christianity have other 'criteria' for people to go to Heaven or Hell - some a lot worse than yours (predestination comes to mind) and some maybe a little more tolerant. I hope you can see why the concept is hard to accept. I mean, in the 12 or so years that you had not accepted Christ as your saviour yet, you KNEW that if you died at that point you'd go to hell, right? To me, that's very hard to understand. Either the concept of ETERNAL damnation was alien to you at the time (i.e. you didn't fully realise the horror of it) or you've got some steel nerves there.

[ 05-18-2002, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Neb]

Originally posted by Melusine: This would mean that someone could lead a very good life, tolerant of people, tolerant of most religions (Jews, Muslims etc), giving to charity, helping people, being in a loving marriage, raise their children well; and go to hell anyway, whereas a complete and utter a-hole who spent his whole life drinking, doing drugs, whoring, hurting people, being a completely useless part of society and maybe even killing people could, at the end of his life, suddenly realise what he's done and how stupid he's been, sincerely repent and beg Jesus Christ for forgiveness and BE SAVED! Sorry, but no matter how much I stand open for Christianity, that seems to me just plain WRONG. The first man has, on the whole, lead a better life, and I think the lives of people should be judged as a whole, not by just one aspect of it.

I'm not calling anyone Jack Chick here, but it just struck me that this looks almost exactly like what he's said in some of his comics.....

In fact that belief which is written there would be against the words of.... Jesus, I think it was, "You reap what you sow". If that is true then how could a lifetime of evil suddenly reap niceness just by repenting? How could a lifetime of good reap horror just because of not accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, an act which is neither good nor evil as it does not harm or help any others.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: It seems rather cruel of god to create us with the full knowledge that the majority of us will go to hell, does it not? In fact one could say that, that seems rather a rather perverse and evil thing to do, indeed it seems to go against the whole idea of god being merciful. Indeed it goes against the idea of him being just as well, since he punishes people for something they could not stop from doing since he made them that way, and has full knowledge that most of them will not or cannot be saved by accepting him. Also if man has an inherently sinful nature, why does god set such high standards for us? Since if we have a sinful nature, we are obviously not capable of reaching them.

Certainly "one could say that". It is an incorrect assumption based on a lack of personal knowledge, but you're welcome to say it. I know from personal experience that God is a kind and loving Creator. I have felt His touch personally and know His true nature.

AFA as God setting standards that "we obviously aren't capable of reaching", that's also a completely erroneous statement. Obviously we ARE capable of reaching them, otherwise there would be NO Christians at all (since we could never reach that status).

The problem with that is, that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It needs no external justification, therefore it is unscientific, and yet in this age we base all of our serious knowledge around scientific techniques and/or methods. So basically what this is asking you to do, is to have double standards, one for religion where you must take it *all* on faith, and one for other articles of knowledge which can either be proved if you really wish to, or proved as part of the process of them becoming knowledge.

What's wrong with it being a self-fulfilling prophecy? If it works, it works. Just like with the plastic cup, God's true nature is easy to discover if you test it.

You may base all of your serious knowledge on scientific techniques, but I don't. AFA double standards go, different subjects require different critiria. Art and music are not "judged" by the same method as math or science. The latter do have specific criteria that all answers MUST conform too, but the former are judged subjectively. There is no specific and unbendable criteria by which art and music are judged as good or bad.

If God is God, he is omnipotent; therefore he could strike down Satan at once, yet he lets him do whatever he likes. Odd no? If we are gods children and all so special to him, why does he allow the vast majority of us to go to hell, and why did he create us with the flawed natures that make this so? also this is not giveing us free will either, since like a compass turns to magnetic north all the time, so shall we always turn to sin.

It is odd, yes, that God "allows Satan to do whatever he likes" and that He doesn't strike him down, even though He could. Why does He do that? I honostly don't know. God does have a plan for us and Satan plays a part in that plan. God will vanquish Satan once and for all, but He will do it on His timetable, not ours.

Also, God does give us free will. You could accept God if you wanted to, but you choose not to. That is your choice, not His. We are all sinful by nature, but sin does not keep us from Heaven. There is only ONE person in the entire history of Mankind that did not sin, and that was Jesus Christ. Every single Christian that has lived, from the original Apostles down to the Pope (and every single pastor, preacher, deacon, and Bible-thumper in between) sin against God every single day in one form or another. Does this keep them out of Heaven? NO. They acknowledge their sins and sincerely repent. God then forgives them of these sins and they start with a clean slate. Heaven is just as full of sinners as Hell is, the only difference is that some acknowledged their sins while others denied them.

I also can't completely agree that the "vast majority" of people will go to Hell. Many new people come to Christ every day. I wouldn't presume to know "which side is actually winning."

[ 05-18-2002, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[caleb]

What happened to your post cerek? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

Edit: Ah much better [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 05-18-2002, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

[K T Ong]

Some of my objections to the Christian religion are actually just the same as what Melusine said. But I've been afraid to express them openly on this thread for fear of hurting Cerek's feelings...

Originally posted by Melusine: [QB]Even though I'm getting very tired of the typical Dramnek mode of answering your posts, Cerek , I do see his point that it's unfair the only standard by which God judges whether you go to Heaven or Hell is whether you accept Christ as your saviour and ask sincerely for forgiveness. (though I must admit it's hard to read through all the prejudiced acidity in those posts of his... [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Whenever and wherever people have attempted to criticise Christianity they have always had to endure the attack that what they are criticizing is a caricature and that their view was malevolently distorted, one-sided and prejudiced.
If you wish to remove this piece of apologetics of its legitimacy you must follow the theologians who quite simply say, “We are the ones who say what Christianity is”,
Of course Christians cannot agree on what Christian is.
This does not of course mean that you must prove each Christian wrong, there is a certain unity in the faith, but it is not in content of Christian ideas of statements but it does exist in their structure, the same basic structure of statements.
Every theological affirmation is irrational in some way and always breaks off reflection at a certain point.
And Every Christian appeals to authority and “Faith”
From the POV of the critic, Christian ideology is simply an accumulation of empty formulae, which can be filled with whatever contents you wish.
I am not simply speaking “prejudiced acidity”, but if people find those ideas hard to deal with, they will of course attempt to rationalise it as such.

“The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the highest being for men, thus with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relationships in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned and despised being”
-Karl Marx

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Hey Caleb. "What happened to my Post" is that I hit the wrong key and accidentally Posted my Response before I even got started on it. I've fixed it now.

Melusine - Your objection is a very valid one. It isn't fair (by human standards at least) for "good" people to go to Hell. But they have the same opportunity as the "bad" person to receive absolution of their sins.

There are actually TWO ways to get into Heaven. The most common is to recognize your sins and accept the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ as an atonement for those sins.

The other is simply by the Grace of God. The thief on the cross entered into Heaven - not through repentence - but through God's Holy Grace.

The views I express are my interpretation only, and I freely admit that I don't have all the answers concerning God's nature.

The Bible clearly states that good works alone are not sufficient to get into Heaven. Neither is just leading a "good life". However, God judges our hearts - not our actions - and He is the Final Arbitrator on who does or does not get into Heaven.

If a person has a genuinely good heart and follows God's laws and values, it is not my place to say that they won't go to Heaven. The final decision rests with God alone. I admit that my understanding is limited and could be only partially correct.

Still, I have heard stories of people who lost a favorite uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc. In their view,this person was without flaw. They were kind and generous and treated everyone they met with love and compassion. Yet, when they died, their final words indicated they were going to Hell. Is that fair? Not by our standards, but it's also not our decision.

It's kinda like IronWorks. A lot of people get upset when Moderators warn them for their behavior. They say they have a right to do or say what they want. That's when they're reminded that this is Ziroc's house, and HE has the final say as to what is or is not acceptable.

The same principle applies to God and Heaven (only on a much more cosmic scale). God alone decides who has met the criteria to enter Heaven. He has told us the criteria and given us a living example to follow, so we do know how we should conduct ourselves (just like each member has to read the TOS before registering here). The rules are there for us to follow, but we have to choose to follow them or we suffer the consequences.

K. T. What a sweet dear you are. I assure you that any questions you have will NOT hurt my feelings. Don't ever be worried that I will take offense at something you say or ask. I accept the fact that others don't agree with my belief and I'm perfectly willing to try to answer any questions you have.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Certainly "one could say that". It is an incorrect assumption based on a lack of personal knowledge, but you're welcome to say it. I know from personal experience that God is a kind and loving Creator. I have felt His touch personally and know His true nature. AFA as God setting standards that "we obviously aren't capable of reaching", that's also a completely erroneous statement. Obviously we ARE capable of reaching them, otherwise there would be NO Christians at all (since we could never reach that status).

That's all rather a deontological thing to say, can you prove it?

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: What's wrong with it being a self-fulfilling prophecy? If it works, it works. Just like with the plastic cup, God's true nature is easy to discover if you test it. You may base all of your serious knowledge on scientific techniques, but I don't. AFA double standards go, different subjects require different critiria. Art and music are not "judged" by the same method as math or science. The latter do have specific criteria that all answers MUST conform too, but the former are judged subjectively. There is no specific and unbendable criteria by which art and music are judged as good or bad.

Because they (self-fulfilling phrophicies) are an enemy of rational thought, and it is this, which we base our modern culture on, indeed Faith itself is the enemy of rational thought, since it demands that we cast aside our objections and instead blindly follow.

Also if you “accept god’s existence” first, anything that happens to you can be used as “proof” of his existence via post Hoc reasoning, while filtering out failures.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: It is odd, yes, that God "allows Satan to do whatever he likes" and that He doesn't strike him down, even though He could. Why does He do that? I honostly don't know. God does have a plan for us and Satan plays a part in that plan. God will vanquish Satan once and for all, but He will do it on His timetable, not ours. Also, God does give us free will. You could accept God if you wanted to, but you choose not to. That is your choice, not His. We are all sinful by nature, but sin does not keep us from Heaven. There is only ONE person in the entire history of Mankind that did not sin, and that was Jesus Christ. Every single Christian that has lived, from the original Apostles down to the Pope (and every single pastor, preacher, deacon, and Bible-thumper in between) sin against God every single day in one form or another. Does this keep them out of Heaven? NO. They acknowledge their sins and sincerely repent. God then forgives them of these sins and they start with a clean slate. Heaven is just as full of sinners as Hell is, the only difference is that some acknowledged their sins while others denied them. I also can't completely agree that the "vast majority" of people will go to Hell. Many new people come to Christ every day. I wouldn't presume to know "which side is actually winning."[/QB]

Today there are more Muslims and peoples of others faiths than there are Christians, therefore it seems that at the moment the majority of people will go to hell.

[Melusine]

Cerek, could you perhaps elaborate a little on what you consider sin? We talked about sincere repentance of sins, but what do we consider a sin? Obviously (obvious to me at least), we cannot take the Bible (or the O.T.) as a literary and conclusive list as to what sin is, and obviously there are widely divergent opinions on sin among the different branches of the Christian Church. I realise that because of the latter fact, I've just opened a big can of worms But let's say therefore that I'm just asking your personal definition of the nature of sin. [img]smile.gif[/img]
The reason why I ask this is because even though I'm not Christian, I think I more or less share the views on morality and consider many things that the Christians call 'sins' wrong myself. So if I commit something a Christian calls a sin, I often am repentant about my action. However, I know that there are are also many things considered sin for which I refuse to feel guilty, and which I refuse to see as a bad thing.

[ 05-18-2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Cerek,

I have read through your response and am going through it all trying to understand your point of view. These are some of the thoughts that I have about what you have had to say.

First of all, I would like to discuss the event that you mentioned in the first part of your response, Adam and Eve. In your opinion, did this event ever actually occur, or is it simply a parable about man’s fall from grace? It seems that when talking to Christians, 20% say they think it’s a parable, 30% say that it definitely happened that way, as the bible says so, while the remainder say it simply doesn’t matter either way . Well, in my opinion, it matters a lot! We are not talking about whether Shakespeare did actually write the plays that we attribute to him, we’re talking about the creation of the existence of man. This goes for many other sections of the bible! Did Noah ever create an Ark and fill it with two animals from every single species that exists in the world before the flood (which is a simply ridiculous idea in my opinion) and did Jonah actually spend days inside a whale, before coming out unscathed (I don’t need to tell you what I think of that)?
OK, so if these were considered to be simply stories that portray man and God’s will, I would treat them as such, trying to interpret there actual meaning. But why would God give us his word and instructions in this form? To test out who is worthy of his kingdom? To make it more interesting for us to read? I believe that if there was a God, and he delivered a book to us, that he would place the facts above and beyond fantasy storytelling to deliver his message.
But if these stories are actually based on historical events, then I for one, find them entirely beyond all realistic belief. As for people being 100s of years old, well..I will leave that alone, as I sure you know what I’m getting at. As previously discussed, Christianity is based initially on Faith, but surely you need to have some part of it based directly on knowledge. If you don’t believe that one part of the Bible is actually based on truth, then you may as well throw it in the bin and forget about it.
Moving on, you say that infants and children are not held accountable for their sinful nature because they can’t comprehend all the implications of that concept. As far as I can see, if Christianity is correct, then life is really just a big test. A very small period of time, where we either accept God and then move on to the real deal, eternity in heaven…or don’t accept God, and move on to Hell for eternal damnation. This being the case, shouldn’t everyone be subjected to the same test? It seems a little unfair that a child who dies at the age of 3, gets a free ticket into Eternity with God in Heaven, whereas I, just because I lived to a particular age of reason, are subjected to the test! Further to this, Christians will suggest to me that if a 3 year old dies, that it was in fact God’s will. This makes the whole suggestion even more unreasonable, as God has hand-picked that child for his Kingdom. I for one would feel ripped off if this was the case, and since God does not favour any individual above another, it's simply not in the script. Perhaps I should hope that my child dies before they come of age! That way I can assure their passage into heaven! I’m sure you realise that I would not actually think that way, but the point still stands.

You said in your post "Christianity DOES require faith and God DOES give us evidence of His existence. But faith has to be in place first before you will attribute the evidence to God. Otherwise, you will ascribe it to natural, scientific processes."

What you have stated above is exactly why I struggle to believe. Christianity requires faith! You say that God gives us evidence, but unless we have faith, we will attribute it to more logical conclusions. Christians say all the time! “Look around you at all of nature. Do you really think that it could all come about without the help of a creator.” Quite frankly, YES! Just because we struggle to comprehend how amazing nature is, does not mean we just attribute it to some sort of higher being’s creation. The evidence of God’s existence is only considered evidence, once you already have faith. Well how can you have real faith, without any evidence whatsoever. I know that I simply cannot do that. It’s one thing to say I want to believe in God now because I want to be saved, but it’s another thing completely to actually BELIEVE! You cannot make yourself have any belief otherwise you are just deluding yourself.

You also said "Also, once you accept Jesus Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Bible becomes MUCH easier to understand. Until then, I agree that it is VERY difficult to decipher."

Well that’s really helpful isn’t it. Just say I’m going to read the bible so I can learn about God’s word, and then maybe I will ask for forgiveness if it makes sense to me. But then you say that the bible only really makes sense, once you have already asked for forgiveness.

You also said "He loves us enough to risk losing those who choose not to accept Him. The loss saddens Him deeply, but He loves us too much to force blind obediance."

I’m sorry Cerek, but this one doesn’t make any sense to me at all. God loves us SOOO much, that he doesn’t force us to go to heaven to enjoy eternity of pleasure, he gives us an excellent opportunity to go to Hell. I really find it hard to see how that proves his love for us.

Finally, you said "I have ALWAYS considered myself to be Christian. I was raised in a Christian home and I've gone to church since I was a child"

I could have guessed that you were raised in a Christian home. Please don’t take offense to this Cerek, but it seems that 90% of the Christians I have met in my life, have at least one parent that can be considered a Christian. Being brought up in a Christian family seems to make it very hard for an individual to consider that their parents could be wrong. I know I am making a pretty large generalisation, but from my experience, this seems to be true. I feel that having something drummed into you during the early fragile years of life can have an enormous effect on the views of an individual.

Anyway, I’m becoming more and more cynical as this post goes on, so I’m going to stop for now. I don’t wish to put anybody down in any way, but I just don’t understand. Obviously I am trying, but there are simply to many holes and unanswered questions for me to even consider becoming a Christian at this time.

Aviendha.

I'm sorry if I seem aggressive and rude! I'm not trying to be!