A request for help from the Board

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm at work Meade, wasting taxpayers dollars,.

Sleep well mate.

No kiss? And this part isn't the wasting of the taxpayers dollars

[Gob]

I charge extra for kisses...

[Rick]

It is your conceit Keld, as you choose to believe you know what the rules are..

Semantics Gob, you are just conceited in your disbelief.

I don't apologize choosing to "make my calling and election sure".

Nor do you...

[Gob]

Nope I don't, but my "calling and election" is one of open minded doubt, yours is (I assume) one of certainty.

Mine is of knowing I do not know, yours is of beleiveing you do know no evidence...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have to say Gob that for someone who claims to know he does not know, you sure have a lot of knowing that other beliefs are wrong. If you don't know, how do you know that there is no evidence to ground KF's belief that he knows something? (I bet it turns out that you do know some things - c'mon, 'fess up!)

If a person's entire output of relevant statements consisted of such as: god is stupid; god is a waste of time; Jesus was just a man; god can't do anything right; god is a cruel bastard and so on.... if that were so, would you diagnose that person as an exemplar of "open minded doubt"?

I doubt it
Meade

[Sue U]

Thank you for your responses, MGM, I will need some time to think about them as I'm sure I have a lot more questions, but things are a bit busy around here lately (lots of bad guys need a good suing). One thing that puzzles me though right off the bat is that if we have free will to choose to believe, and those who do are saved and those who don't do not merit salvation, what is the purpose of the Second Coming (or do I have that all wrong)? Also, I'm not really clear on whether those who believe are actually saved or not; I seem to recall you saying that faith is no guarantee. And what of those who lead lives of good and purpose but who simply don't or can't believe, or whose beliefs are not Christian, or whose Christian beliefs differ? Was your UCC church, for example, preaching something other than Christianity? Did its members not believe, or is there something wrong or deficient with their belief?

Again, my questions stem from my ignorance of Christianity and its sects, not from any wish to challenge or debate your religion; please don't take offense if my questions seem rude, it is solely my lack of sophistication.

[Gob]

I have to say Gob that for someone who claims to know he does not know, you sure have a lot of knowing that other beliefs are wrong. If you don't know, how do you know that there is no evidence to ground KF's belief that he knows something? (I bet it turns out that you do know some things - c'mon, 'fess up!)

If a person's entire output of relevant statements consisted of such as: god is stupid; god is a waste of time; Jesus was just a man; god can't do anything right; god is a cruel bastard and so on.... if that were so, would you diagnose that person as an exemplar of "open minded doubt"?

I doubt it
Meade

That, I'm afraid is a lot old bullshit.

I don't claim others religions are wrong, I claim they make claims based on no evidence.

I do claim some of the acts of the religious are wrong (buggering choirboys/castigating homosexuals/staring wars etc).

I claim that their legitimising their actions and beliefs on the grounds of some received morality in their belief in the big sky fairy is wrong.

I will point out the laughable hypocrisy of believing a god exists who is capable of the petty "all so human actions" of god, and the huge irony of churches collapsing on believers etc.

I will point out that god is willing for the innocent to suffer in extremis.

I will point out that for an infallible god he seems completely incapable of getting a simple message across.

[Rick]

I don't claim others religions are wrong, I claim they make claims based on no evidence.

Denying evidence exists does not mean evidence does not exist.

You are free to accept it or deny it (free will despite what some may insist).

Yer not the 1st to say those that believe are idiots, and won't be the last...

[Gob]

I don't think them idiots, I just question their beliefs in the face of no evidence. (Most of the religious who post here are of the highest caliber or poster.)

Anyone who has evidence of god's existence, and of the requirements of human beings in order for them not to suffer damnantion/no afterlife/being ignored/ etc, please bring it forward.

But saying; "I believe these parts of the bible (but not those parts of the bible) to be the truth, and this is what we should believe and do", does not constuitute evidence.

[Crackpot]

you're confusing evidence with proof Gob.

[Gob]

Fair comment C-P, I await evidence then.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you for your responses, MGM, I will need some time to think about them as I'm sure I have a lot more questions, but things are a bit busy around here lately (lots of bad guys need a good suing). One thing that puzzles me though right off the bat is that if we have free will to choose to believe, and those who do are saved and those who don't do not merit salvation, what is the purpose of the Second Coming (or do I have that all wrong)? Also, I'm not really clear on whether those who believe are actually saved or not; I seem to recall you saying that faith is no guarantee. And what of those who lead lives of good and purpose but who simply don't or can't believe, or whose beliefs are not Christian, or whose Christian beliefs differ? Was your UCC church, for example, preaching something other than Christianity? Did its members not believe, or is there something wrong or deficient with their belief?

Again, my questions stem from my ignorance of Christianity and its sects, not from any wish to challenge or debate your religion; please don't take offense if my questions seem rude, it is solely my lack of sophistication.

Sue I never take offense at rational questions. Sometimes direct insults (and definitely irrationality) upset me about but I have to just calm down, eh?

The second coming is really that day when the lambs are sorted out from the goats. Door A for some; Door B for others. I don't think we can be certain (or perhaps even very close at the totality of the truth) as what is behind those two doors. We simply know that A is very very good and B is very very bad. Much as folks joke, going through Door B is going to be the ultimate worse thing that they could face.

Oh I never! Did I? Faith absolutely is a guarantee. Once saved always saved. I probably said something about a person may say they have faith but in fact they do not and it's obvious by what they do/say that they are not regenerate. If I claim saving faith but declare that God doesn't exist - problem of some kind.

Here's my answer to a similar question in this Apologetics course:

3.2 What happens to all those who do not hear the Gospel?
A response to this question from a non-believer is “We cannot be sure but how does that relate to what happens to a person who has heard the Gospel and does not believe it, such as yourself?” However, for both believers and non-believers “We don’t know for sure” is a good opener, establishing common ground. In Romans 1:18-21 Paul declares that God’s existence and majesty is displayed for everyone to see in His creation. No one has any excuse for not recognizing it and giving God their reverence and worship. However, Paul goes on to note that some gentiles do God’s will and obey His law even though it has never been read to them. Their own consciences divine right from wrong and God’s law is written on their hearts, even if they cannot know or display it, and Jesus Christ will judge every man’s secret heart (Rom. 2:14-19).

This judgement will reward those who in their hearts know Jesus and do his work on earth and he will punish those who heard the gospel but did not follow his commands (Matt. 25:31-40). It is easy to imagine that Jews hearing Jesus say (Jn. 10:16) that he had sheep (gentiles) that did not belong to “this fold” (Judaism) were as uncomfortable as believers might be today to contemplate that his sheep may also include some who are not (apparently) in the Christian fold. The important issue is not how the economy of God works for those who never had a chance to hear about Jesus. The important issue is how those who do hear the gospel should react to it and that believers should be concerned to ensure that all do hear.

I think the argument may be applicable to some who seek God in other ways - perhaps even in no ways - but there is only one way to heaven, via Jesus Christ because every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord - somewhere. Then we get the sheep and goats. Although I allow for this possibility, I don't see how it can be true that people who do not repent of their sin and believe in the God who is can be saved from their denial. Again, the main point is that those who hear the truth of Jesus Christ and reject it are definitely Door B choosers. A person should worry about their own belief and destiny before worrying about hypothetical status of others.

The UCC - I still know so many people there in Twinsburg who attend that church and I am unable to judge the status of their belief. I assume they believe in God because they roll up each Sunday and try hard to do and to be good. Truth to tell I don't remember a thing that was taught there. The minister (way back) was fond of telling stories about his vacations - I recall one in which he was angered by queues at the airport in Moscow (USSR) and said that he wished he had a gun to shoot people. That's how angry he was. Maybe he made some kind of point but I don't think so. Anyway, if one attended a college which taught that in history Julius Caesar did not exist; in maths that calculus was totally in error and of no use; that in English it was perfectly acceptable to say "You and me should go there"; that in geography Bloemfontein was the capital of South Africa..... in that case, no matter what else it taught that might be correct, would that be an acceptable institution for accreditation as a center of learning? So with the UCC which says very eloquently "The UCC has roots in the "covenantal" tradition—meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church. We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith. The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith". It's that "balance" thing that appears problematic - unpacked, it says that there is an apostolic faith (one handed down by Christ to the apostles, which includes the truth of scriptures) but hey, each individual conscience could go 90% that and 10% something not-that (counter-that?) or perhaps 50/50 or 20/80. It's all the same honest search for God. Thus my final split with UCC was when I realised that they would not validate my conviction that the abortion I promoted was actually a wrong thing. "Well it is for you perhaps". I was not a Christian at all - just going through the motions and being as "good" as my conscience decided. But I knew enough philosophy to reject relativism when I heard it. Others will have diffferent views and opinions on all this. I believe the UCC teaches that which is incorrect as well as much that is correct. It doesn't mean people who go there are not saved. Sorry for the length of that

Cheers
Meade

[loCAtek]

That, I'm afraid is a lot old bullshit.

I don't claim others religions are wrong, I claim they make claims based on no evidence.

I do claim some of the acts of the religious are wrong (buggering choirboys/castigating homosexuals/staring wars etc).

I claim that their legitimising their actions and beliefs on the grounds of some received morality in their belief in the big sky fairy is wrong.

I will point out the laughable hypocrisy of believing a god exists who is capable of the petty "all so human actions" of god, and the huge irony of churches collapsing on believers etc.

I will point out that god is willing for the innocent to suffer in extremis.

I will point out that for an infallible god he seems completely incapable of getting a simple message across.

In other words, you're judgmental and no matter how many times those myths are debunked, you will cling onto your bigotry.

Seems to me if you truly believed in atheism, you'd be trying to educate and enlighten the masses with scientific education, rather than mocking and criticizing religion, which just draws attention to it and alienates folks from your cause. Otherwise, you just sound 'very angry at God for not existing' (another C.S. Lewis quote)

Lewis: I was at that time living like many atheists; in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent?

Lewis: I was suddenly compelled to read the Hippolytus of Euripides.

"Oh God, bring me to the sea's end
To the Hesperides, sisters of evening,
Who sing alone in their islands
Where the golden apples grow,
And the Lord of Oceans guards the way
From all who would sail
Into their night-blue harbors —
Let me escape to the rim of the world
Where the tremendous firmament meets
The earth, and Atlas holds the universe
In his palms.
For there, in the palace of Zeus,
Wells of ambrosia pour through the chambers,
While the sacred earth lavishes life
And Time adds his years
Only to heaven's happiness"

... I was off once more into the land of longing, my heart at once broken and exalted as it had never been since the old days. I was overwhelmed. I called it Joy.

Peter Kreeft: When Lewis talks about joy, he talks about something that he labels the central theme of his whole life. But what he means by joy is not the satisfaction of a desire, but a desire that is more desirable than any satisfaction.

Lewis: There was no doubt Joy was a desire. But a desire is turned not to itself, but to an object. I had been wrong in supposing that I desired for Joy itself. All value lay in that of which Joy was the desiring. The naked other. Unknown, undefined, desired. I did not yet ask "Who is desired?"

C.S. Lewis: A Leap in the Dark

[Sean]

I do claim some of the acts of the religious are wrong (buggering choirboys/castigating homosexuals/staring wars etc).

I claim that their legitimising their actions and beliefs on the grounds of some received morality in their belief in the big sky fairy is wrong.

And those are myths are they Lo?

I think you're on very shaky ground when you start to accuse others of being judgmental and bigoted...

[loCAtek]

Sean, why do you always chirp in for Gob while he goes AWOL?

[loCAtek]

If that's what Gob wants to say, why doesn't he say it? I'm so scary, 'eh?

[The Hen]

Lo, Gob doesn't read you. You can wittier away all you like, but he still won't read you.

He has provided nothing to anyone to respond to you on his behalf.

Learn to live with it, eh?

[loCAtek]

You're right, it's not about he or you, stop flattering yourself that it is. Can we get back to the topic, now?

[Sean]

Happy to oblige...

I do claim some of the acts of the religious are wrong (buggering choirboys/castigating homosexuals/staring wars etc).

I claim that their legitimising their actions and beliefs on the grounds of some received morality in their belief in the big sky fairy is wrong.

And those are myths are they Lo?

I think you're on very shaky ground when you start to accuse others of being judgmental and bigoted...

[MajGenl.Meade]

[quote="Gob']
That, I'm afraid is a lot old bullshit.
I don't claim others religions are wrong, I claim they make claims based on no evidence.
I do claim some of the acts of the religious are wrong (buggering choirboys/castigating homosexuals/staring wars etc).
I claim that their legitimising their actions and beliefs on the grounds of some received morality in their belief in the big sky fairy is wrong.
I will point out the laughable hypocrisy of believing a god exists who is capable of the petty "all so human actions" of god, and the huge irony of churches collapsing on believers etc.
I will point out that god is willing for the innocent to suffer in extremis.
I will point out that for an infallible god he seems completely incapable of getting a simple message across.[/quote]

ROTFL! But seriously.... I'd love to see your response to the question asked (if possible please) rather than the side-step evasion (beautifully done as it was)

If a person's entire output of relevant statements consisted of such as: god is stupid; god is a waste of time; Jesus was just a man; god can't do anything right; god is a cruel bastard and so on.... if that were so, would you diagnose that person as an exemplar of "open minded doubt"?

After all man, you've claimed to know that you don't know and also that you are a practitioner of open-minded doubt.

Love and no kisses
Meade