You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

LOL, no offense, but I meant that your paragraph was contradictory. It will be too much now to re-hash it, but I will attempt to answer your post. I don't understand applying 'selection' to relgion. Many opposing religions have been 'selected'. I would like to explore this, but perhaps in another time and place.The truth is, that many of these seeemingly contradictory statements are the only things that don't contradict the Bible, and this will obviously make some people 'select' that belief. What appears contradictory is actually the only thing non-contradictory. For, you witness the Jehova's Witnesses...ha ha...they don't believe in the Trinity, and have to change the Bible to meet thier needs.The whole thing you wrote about the Trinity would be fine and nice if it were not for the Bible. The Bible almost certainly shows a Trinity. Since most people can see that the Bible itself is contradictory, the only non-contradiction is the Trinity. It is not a membership ploy, but pretty much what evolution is. Most people can see that it happened, and that brings in more members than any gray area theory. No, no! Read again; How many such people do you think exist? Not many, IMO. Certainly not Gandhi or Anne Frank. They knew about Jesus, but did not know Jesus. There is a difference. They just can't be said to have knowingly and deliberately rejected truth. They followed it as far as they could.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

So, according to this doctrine (please correct me if I misunderstood), only someone who studied the words of Jesus, understood them and then rejected them would go to hell? Someone who knew them to be "true" at one point "knowingly and deliberately rejected" them?Someone like Gandhi (presumably...I do not know how much he knew of or understood the Gospels) knew that there was a Jesus that Christians worshipped. He probably even knew that many Christians believed that belief in Jesus was required to get to heaven. However, he would go to heaven by his good works alone.Would he not be guilty for not investigating this "truth" even though he knew about it?What about someone like me who has read and understood the Gospels (on an intelectual level, at least) but has never felt any of it to be true. Can I "knowingly and deliberately" reject something I never accepted in the first place.I know how most of the fundamentalists would answer ("you are rejecting God by hardening your heart against Him" or some such), but how does the doctrine of ignorance address this?

I think you are asking some really great questions, and IMHO the answer will be "When someone rejects reality." Only in one particular case. If you die, and if after you die you come face to face with Jesus, and after actually experiencing meeting and communion with Jesus, you should willfully reject him and what he offers, then by default you will be accepting whatever the alternative might be.Even then though I cannot imagine GOD expecting you to make anything other than an informed choice and I believe that all of the alternatives would be fully explained before you were even asked to make such a decision.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You will find many passages which seem like ciphers and sound exclusive. Primarily they deal with those who DO believe in the church and through their own fault do not seek full union with it. There are theological or philosophical guesses as to things which are better not classified, but to be summed up in; only God truly knows the heart of a man. But, I do believe that the church fathers were right in studying these ideas so as to preach against carelessness.Example; Is Baptism by water necessary? If so WHEN does it become necessary? At what stage in the conversion process? There are many answers, but they deal ONLY with those who want to be baptized...for them, wanting baptism and being too lazy to obtain it, is sinful.But to answer your question more directly, I have pasted part of John Paul's encyclical 'Lumen Gentium' or Light of Nations. I have bolded the important part. Oddly enough, they say that to me too. ABE; The main idea is that 'willful and deliberate rejection of God' does not pertain to any books, or doctrines, or Jesus, etc. It is a purposeful desire to do 'evil' however you define it, and the rejection of God is the ignoring of the conscience which He gave you.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Just a note on Gandhi. He did investigate and concluded that "if it were not for Christians, I would be one." He believed in living by the Sermon on the Mount and thought it was very similar to his beloved Bhagavad Gita (sorry If I botched the spelling). I don't meant to answer for anastasia or the RCC, but on the Bible side, this is addressed directly by Paul in Rom 2. People have a law in their hearts that their conscience testifies, too, and their own conscience will either excuse or condemn them (vv. 14-16).

Truthlover wrote (about there being competition between Christianities in the 2nd cent.)

quote:

---

This didn't happen in the 2nd century, at least not on the topics you chose.

---

I think they did, based on surviving documents. I mentioned Christology, for which we have documents accurately dated to the first and second centuries with different Christianities debating Christology (some examples are Paul’s letters, and the gospel of truth, etc. many are available here Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers). My reading of the evidence we have shows that there were many Christianities from as far back as we have any writings, and that there were always many until they were outlawed and eradicated in the 5th century.

quote:

---

If you want to make the various gnostics into "a dozen forms of Christianity" with "different everything," then you can, but it's not really a good characterization of what was going on the 2nd century.

---

I’m not sure we disagree here. I’m saying that there was significant disagreement among different Christianities in the 2nd century. Epiphanius describes literally dozens of other Christianities, (he’s writing in the 4th century), but others, such as Paul, Ignatius, Polycarp, Iraneaus, and Tertullian describe many of them in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries as well. Many of these Christianities were indeed kinds of Gnostics, though many weren’t. And of course, each of the 80 "heresies" that Epiphanius describes is not a completely separate Christianity, but I only mentioned there being “a dozen forms”, (probably an underestimate), not the full 80 that Epiphanius describes. It’s also true that because Epiphanius is known to exaggerate or otherwise be unreliable, that claiming a full 80 may be too much.The evidence we have, both in writings and in archeological evidence suggests that non-orthodox Christianities were very common from the start, and that the orthodox probably only became a majority as late as the late 3rd or 4th century. For instance, we have about as much early archeological evidence for the Gospel of Peter (which has a Separationist Christology) as we do of the Gospel of Mark. In fact, I’m not sure a strong case can be made for the idea that the orthodox Christianity which won in the end was the first Christianity, or that it had a majority before the mid-second century.

quote:

---

The gnostic faiths really would have no reason to debate the Jesus is God vs. Jesus is man issues that came up in the 4th century. It was inapplicable to their theology.

---

Sure they would. They say that Jesus is God, not man. One of them talking with say, an Ebionite, who sees Jesus as man, not God, would disagree with him, and the two would then argue. Just as today we often can see a Catholic arguing with a Baptist, over much smaller points than Christology. With all these groups clearly present early on, I’m not sure why you don’t think the issue came up until the 4th century. I agree that the issue persisted to the 4th century, and could be thought of as “coming up again”, due to a vocal proponent of the idea (Arius), but it wasn’t a new idea that Arius came up with on his own.

quote:

---

The "orthodox" 2nd century church really had no "denominations" in the 2nd century that would have issues over this.

---

Well, no, but that’s like saying that the Missouri synod of the Lutheran church doesn’t have denominations within it in 2007. Sure it doesn’t, but there are plenty of other denominations around in 2007, just as there were plenty of denominations at all times in the 350 years before the 5th century.

quote:

---

Yes, there was the Ebionites that would be closer than the gnostics,

---

Ah, are we talking about the same groups? The Ebionites were practically the opposite of many of the Gnostic groups, with the RCC having features of both. Saying that the Ebionites were like the Gnostics seems just incorrect, other than the fact that they were both Christian.

quote:

---

There was no "debate" between 2nd century Christians and the gnostics. They were completely split by the 2nd century, with the gnostics representing a completely different religion with, as you say, different gods.

---

They were pretty different by the 2nd century, but you can certainly have debate between religions (see my mention of Catholic vs. Baptist above). Plus, Gnostics weren’t only separate from the RCC. Some scholars have suggested that many 2nd century Gnostics stayed within RCC congregations, and simply interpreted the services and liturgies figuratively, like some Christians do today, except even more in that direction.

quote:

---

Your description of the evolution of some of those doctrines is really pretty insightful,

---

Thank you. It’s not my original idea though. It comes up often in scholarly work on early Christianity.

quote:

---

Prior to the 4th century, the emphasis was on not changing anything but holding to "apostolic tradition,"

---

It's how you look at it. Each Christian thinks that changing it to his way is really just "going back to apostolic tradition". Marcion, when cutting out parts of Luke, thought he was returning it to its original, uncorrupted form.Since most of these different Christianities claimed to be apostolic (who wouldn’t?), “following apostolic tradition” included saying that your Christianity was right and the others were wrong, whether you were Gnostic, Sabellian, Montanist, or whatever. For starters in learning about early Christianity, the course from the teaching company here From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity is a good place to start, and can be listened to during your daily commute. Of course, as with all sources, go back to the data, compare, think, etc.Overall, it sounds like we have different ideas of the Christian world from 40 to 400 CE. We can discuss it more, as time permits. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that many Christianties sprang up early on, that the current orthodox Christianity was a minority, and only partially formed then, and that over the centuries that form won out, and gradually became the form we recognize today in the process of that competition. My view is based on the writings we have, on what scholars say, and on logic. If that is your base as well, we can have a good discussion. I’d guess that you’ve already read quite a bit on all this, but if you are interested in some various views, several good scholarly authors are listed at Historical Jesus Theories. Yes, they disagree, so critical comparison is needed.

quote:

---

attributing this to Paul. He did indeed say that we are justified by faith apart from works, but he also said no immoral, unclean, or greedy person will have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, and then he said to let no one deceive you about this (Eph 5:3-8).

---

OK, your quote above is a concern to me. It is controversial to assert that Paul wrote Ephesians. As you probably know, it’s a Deutero-pauline, and my weighing of the evidence suggests that Paul didn’t write it. If you feel that the Bible is inerrant, please let me know so as to save us both a lot of time.

quote:

---

Your quote says simply that you must be in the RCC to be saved, but that doesn't mean all in the RCC are saved. The RCC teaches its members that they must do good works to go to heaven

---

The difference is what is a “necessary” and what is a “sufficient” condition for salvation. The RCC says that you must be in the RCC (other than the ignorance loophole), and further that even if you are in, you must do some works. I’m not sure we disagree here.Anastasia, I’ll respond to your post next week, I’m out of time until then. Have a fun weekend everyone--Equinox

Thank you, Jar.If I do happen to come face to face with Jesus I will, after asking him some really pointed questions, surely go willingly with him.Until then, however, I will embrace reality as I see it

Thank you for your answers, ana.Now the only problem I see here deals with something I asked several posts back (or maybe it was in the "morality and society" thread..I don't remember) and what you just stated. How do you define "evil?" Does one reject God by sinning (many or most Christians define evil through sin)? Or is it purely by going against what your God-given conscience tells you is wrong or "evil?"

Thanks for that, truthlover. I suspected Gandhi had studied Christianity, but not having read as extensively about him as I should, I could not be sure. This is essentially what ana said.My conscience, however, tells me that there is no God and that I am not doing evil by being a homosexual (among other things).Many Christians would tell me that my conscience is wrong, but if we are saved by following our conscience (i.e. doing what we feel is right), then if we have the "wrong" conscience what is one to do?

I don't know what my conscience says about god, or if it has any say in the matter...but I do think of it as a living thing, in the sense that it grows like a muscle and shrinks when not used. As I said above, I think a conscience can grow and change. A conscience can not be 'wrong' IMO. How could Paul say a conscience can accuse you, if the conscience doesn't even know what it is talking about? I have had many homosexual friends over the years in which I could not find a trace of duplicity or ill-intent...but suffice it to say, for me to wantonly engage in anything which does not feel natural to me, just for 'kicks' maybe, would at this point in my life be wrong.So, just because a person does not 'feel' like what they are doing is wrong, does not mean it couldn't be at least 'wrong' according to society...and if it hurts people there must exist laws to prevent someone from doing it. When someone enters a plea of not guilty because of insanity, this means that they had no control over their actions, or no knowledge of commiting fault. Yet, in cases where the person is dangerous, the law must confine them in some way. Everything else is pretty personal. Consider that I feel that I must attend church each week. You can not call me immoral, but if I miss church I very well could be according to my conscience. Conversely, I can not call you immoral for missing church, being homosexual, or anything else, no matter how much I would like for everyone to follow my code, or how much I 'believe' life should be that way. When a non-christian gets on me, calling me immoral because I smoke or drink, or even when a christian does it, I feel probably prickly like you do. I feel like it is none of their business, and they can't judge me based on what they think a christian should do.I do think there are or can be ideals for human actions, but I was taught very young that you can not 'condemn' others. We often played games, telling my mother that the 'evil' neighbor was going to hell, etc, which was probably sad but we always got in trouble for judging. Every time it was; you don't know that, only God knows. At the same time, we certainly had to answer for our own actions!The point is, whether or not something is good or bad, or whether someone thinks it is, or wants to talk you out of it, has no bearing on your salvation. Conversely, quantifying, making excuses, taking the lazy way out and trying to rationalize you decision, can weaken your moral 'immune system' as it were. I miss church frequently, because of kids, husband, or timing, but the more I do, the easier it is to make excuses the next time. Very often, people feel that they have not been going for so long that it no longer matters, and their conscience doesn't even blink an eye. I have sisters like this, and I have only escaped because I have spent more time studying my faith, and I actually enjoy church.I don't want to be too long, but I thought about something. Let's say my sisters no longer 'feel' bad about missing church? Does that mean they are 'safe'? I am not sure, not at all. I think the 'sin' comes in when they first neglected, made excuses, and denied what they felt to be right. That is what is meant be 'abandoning or rejecting truth' and I don't think the end justifies the means. Still, I can not condemn them, because their husbands may not be acquiescent, or possibly, they never DID believe.Too long, same story; men can and should caution, only God can judge.

In a sense, yes. Lets not debate the validity of the Bible for a moment. Lets just examine what the Bible says on it. Christians are not called to be only hearers of the Word, but doers most importantly. I think what Ana was saying is that any one that hears the Word of Truth and rejects while knowing full well that it is the truth and opts to reject it, is no doubt sinning.That's not to say that only backslidden Christians are in danger. The Word makes it quite clear that most of us are not going to be judged for the things we don't know-- rather we all will be judged for the things we do know. David in one of his Psalms (can't remember which, otherwise I'd source it) directly implies that to sin means that we have knowledge that we are doing something wrong. This seems to make sense because if a severely retarded person accidentally kills an infant by smothering him/her, did he sin because he killed the child? Though it is horrific, he did not have any malevolence in his heart. Would God judge him for that? Probably not. Almost certainly not. Sin is when we know damn well what we are doing is wrong but we do it anyway. And you don't need to be a believer to know when you are doing something wrong. You can be a straight-laced atheist and still know when you are sinning, if you'll extend the word "sin" to mean knowingly and willfully doing something wrong. Yes, he knew the gospels. In fact, I think it was TL that quoted him saying that he had no problem with the message of Jesus, but that it was His followers that turned him off to Christianity. He was also the man who said (you may have seen the bumper sticker) "An eye for an eye makes us all blind." He was right. No one is absolved because of their good works. Imagine a man who did many good works, like fed the poor, took care of the sick, visited those in prison, but also hacked his family to pieces. Is the court going to say, "Well, but he did do all those nice things for the community, so.... let's let him go." No, because those good works bear no reflection on his sin/crime. You don't necessarily have to believe in the Gospel to know what is right and wrong. Again, you aren't going to be judged for things you don't know. You will judged for what you do know. I believe some people do harden their hearts to it. Think of a neo-Nazi who meets a really cool person of another race. He may feel this twinge that perhaps his philosophies are skewed. He then has this inner struggle within him between what he wants to believe is true and what is true. In this case, the man probably derives some sort of purpose to his life by hating others. At the same time, his purposes are ultimately unfulfilling for him. Its a matter of time before he realizes the folly of his ways. Some people never let that go and others do. Its the same with God in my opinion. The neo-nazi feels justified in hating the people of other races because some of them act the way he dislikes. And it gives him a sense of justification. But when he meets people of other races that react to him with kindness, he's completely confounded. He doesn't know what to do because this war within him is raging. Its the same with God. A lot of people have resolved to despise God because of bad things that happen in the world, or because some Christians have been less than Christian with him/her. They feel justified in saying, "Serve a God like that! Ha!" And they feed off that emotion. But when they meet someone who embodies the nature of Christ, they are confounded. When they see the good in life, they are confounded. And there is a war inside of them.I won't pretend to know your thoughts, but I can say for my own life, this is what I've discovered not only about myself in relation to the world and God, but also in the lives of others who had to make that conscious decision to meet God in the middle. Hope my two cents helps. I also hope this is what Ana was trying to portray and that I didn't misinterpret her words.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Lordy, the last post was so long I over-looked this one.There is no seperation needed. 'Sin' is going against your conscience, which is the 'knowedge of good and evil' that is God-given (I am talking religiously, not factually, but I think you know that). Going aginst your conscience is 'evil' and sinful, because it is believed that your conscience is your only tool that helps you to discover God's plan for your life.Where I think some issues come up, is when religions tell people what is 'sin' and they try to oblige even against their conscience. I was always taught; do not do anything that someone tells you to do if it doesn't sound right. Going back to the dry bones of the slavery analogy, even when society told people slavery was good, some consciences could not accept it. For them, it was not right...and that turned out to be a good thing. But this is why I say that while society determines its own morality, that does not mean there is anything 'moral' about it.Some religions have taken it upon themselves to provide bare minimums in morality, and call the opposite 'sins'. They have presumed that most people's consciences will agree, much as the state presumes that most citizens will recognize the validity of its laws. They work on the basis that, even if you don't understand the law completely, following it has been proven to be 'good'. They do require a blind faith, but only for the blind. Many times those who can see, will know that a law is good. Even if you don't, you will be judged by the law, because it WAS good. Sometimes, tho, laws are not good, and we DO NOT have to follow laws which we feel are un-just, but it is important to do this in an orderly fashion...campaigns, etc. Jesus did not follow laws, Luther did not follow laws, Galileo dod not follow laws, but it takes a long time before a good idea is recognized, and is never a sure thing.

Works for me, but even if not, you are not obliged to agree! I disagree with this...only because you said 'noone'. It is not the works which save, but the motive, but in the RCC, doing good according to your conscience (motive) is a source of actual grace, and can save.

quote:

---

No one is absolved because of their good works. Imagine a man who did many good works, like fed the poor, took care of the sick, visited those in prison, but also hacked his family to pieces.

---

The point I was making was that doing a million "attaboys" isn't going to detract from that one "Aw shit," if you'll pardon the expression.... and the expletive. But I think I know what you're saying. I believe it was Peter who came up to Jesus exclaiming (paraphrasing) "These people are driving out demons, but they don't do it in your name." And Jesus responded (paraphrasing again) "Don't stop people from doing good just because it wasn't in my name. Everyone that does good does this unto Me because I am love." And you know Peter, it probably took him a few years to understand what Jesus meant by it.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Yes, I understand. My idea was not to mislead people who don't have that one atrocious incident to their record. Doing good works still has merit, and at the very least, it requires some sort of faith in and following of conscience.Seems the discussion has come full circle, from doing evil in the name of God, to doing good without it.