What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?

I would tend to say that it is in the heart and the hands. jar used to always preach that it isn't what you believe so much as it is what you do. And this makes sense...but lest I stray from my original point... I'll grant you that. Not at all. You choose hell by default when you deny that Jesus exists. Of course, we can argue until the (Sacred) Cows come home that humans define morality rather than God...and neither side could prove their case. Let the record state that ringo dismisses CS Lewis as "egregiously stupid. In addition, my critics will argue that not only is Jesus a myth but that hell is a myth. Moving on... Let the record show that ringo also dismisses the author of the Gospel of John. Of course what should we expect?I'll tell you what I think:The facts show that our earth is a dust speck 93 million miles from the nearest star, 7 light years away from the next nearest one, of which there are an estimated one hundred billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion other galaxies!! And yet...our esteemed secular humanist logicians state that they understand quite a bit of this observable known universe and that through the magic of math (which they believe to be eternal) the dimensions of the known universe can be measured. The reality, according to them, can be mapped and quantified.Fair enough?And yet this same bunch preaches that there is no God in this vast universe. God need not exist for all intents and purposes. And that people who believe in God believe in myths.Math is said to be eternal.And yet God likely does not exist.See what the tree of knowledge did to us??

Ah... yes, I see the problem now.It is difficult for a non-believer like me to anticipate all the subtleties that a believer's mind can interpret.
I tried my best, and slightly missed the mark.I agree that your "through belief in God" correction should be clearer for anyone coming from a "God created everything" background to get the idea I'm looking to discuss here. This thread wasn't intended to imply that most Christians think they are superior to others.
It also wasn't meant to imply that anyone "should be" after benefits when looking for a particular world-view.This thread's intention is simply to touch on the subject of the claim some propose that God provides something for believers that others simply cannot ever hope to obtain without God.I've never been able to identify such a thing. I think that's healthy. I certainly agree.
Just as there are some (like me) who get a particular peace specifically away from the Christian belief, one that cannot be obtained (for me) within a Christian framework. I am forced to agree again.
Of course, the reverse is equally valid:That if God does not exist, then the peace Christians feel "through God" is actually a manifestation of their own mind simply convincing themselves with a comforting idea. Like a security blanket or Dumbo's "magic feather." Regardless if they recognize it or not. I just don't see how that phrase accurately represents what anyone thinks along the ideas of natural creation and eventual evolution without God.I don't think anyone thinks people came about from "a chance collection" of anything.
Evolution includes the filter of natural selection. Natural selection removes "chance" and replaces it with "this must work - or it dies" as well as "if this is significantly better, it will kill of the weaker and leave only the improved."
Therefore, I do not find your description accurate to the reality we understand.On top of that, I don't personally see a problem with "mindless particles" coming together to form an actual mind.
Just as I don't see a problem with "CPU-less circuits" coming together to form an actual CPU of a computer.But such a discussion is getting away from "benefits only available through belief in God" and is better in another forum.
So I will "agree to disagree" here.

Tell us who the author of the gospel of John is. Who is this person we should believe blindly? Who is this person whose gospel contradicts other gospels?

Sure. Religion is not a science. No one has absolute knowledge. Within the Christian faith there are beliefs that vary from Faith who believes in an inerrant Bible to form her beliefs to jar who as near as I can tell believes in nothing more than the social message of Christianity and sees the resurrection as nothing more than a metaphor.My understanding is based on the belief that God is, loving merciful and good, that He resurrected Jesus and that He speaks to us through the scriptures. (I do not hold to scripture inerrancy.) Not doing a great job of it are we. Having a God that can create the world we live in is omnipotent enough for me. Polkinghorne's point is that God is all knowing but that the future is not there to be known. Our ultimate paradise is the renewal or the re-creation of all things. The Bible talks about God's heaven and Earth becoming one. No one knows what that will be like except that suffering isn't part of it. Loving sacrificially goes beyond being nice. In some ways though you are correct. However I do believe in an afterlife and that in ways that I leave up to God, our lives here impact our next life both collectively and as individuals.

Read the parable through. The sheep performed loving acts for their neighbours, but if you notice they had no idea that they were doing it for Jesus. The point is they did it because they had hearts that loved others even at their own convenience and expense. They had no idea of any reward in this life or the next. The point then that this is the world that they have chosen to inhabit.The goats on the other hand couldn't be bothered and weren't going to be inconvenienced. They have hearts that are concerned with looking after the self and not being concerned with others. This is the world that they have chosen to inhabit. I would suggest that an eternal world where it's inhabitants have all chosen lives of selfish love would ultimately be a life of torment. I disagree. What we do with our hands in helping others is a function of our motivation or our hearts. Here's where I have a problem with your interpretation. Jesus also said to whom much is given much is expected. I grew up in a home where was accepted, loved and valued. So many grow up in homes where they are abused, neglected and never really accepted. If it is just about the good things that we do that makes us a sheep then that is hardly justice. However, if it is about the heart then the person who has grown up in a home where he/she was abused might be virtually incapable of living the life of a sheep but deep down they have a heart that wants things to be that way in their lives and in their world. I believe that God is a god of perfect justice and that there is equality in that model of justice.Paul says this in Romans 2.

quote:

---

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

---

I absolutely agree with that I guess I wasn't clear in what I wrote. Sorry. The point is that the commandment to love is not the same as any of the 10 commandments. Yes, Jesus does say that we are to love even those we regard as enemies. Being told that I am not to kill my enemy is straightforward and so I refrain from shooting him. However, just because I didn't kill him does not mean that I love him. If however I can find it in my heart to genuinely want the best for him then I have loved him but it isn't just something that I can make a decision and do. It requires an actual change of heart which isn't at all easy. Jesus' command to love our enemies is far harder than any other command in the Bible. Again I disagree, I can make a decision that I am going to be a sheep and invite an enemy into my home because that will get me in good with Jesus. However it is something all together different to invite an enemy into my home because I genuinely care about him.

You could have fooled me. Every preacher I ever heard talks utter bollocks with absolute certainty.But it's tough arguing with you, you don't just shift the goal posts, the goal posts only exist when and where you want them to be. And you play by rules that you only disclose after the game.You're inventing a whole new religion loosely based on the Christian myth but totally dependent on your own personal interpretation and values. It's a weird thing to watch.I am grateful though that it is at least liberal, non-exclusive and basically nice. Apart from your missionary activities your beliefs seem harmless and may even help some people.

I was thinking further about this. Last Sunday I was sitting in church behind a Nigerian family that immigrated here a month ago. They had two beautiful little children ages 6 months and 2. In the row in front of them was a single mom with her two mix-raced kids. The youngest one, who I think is 5, is severely autistic, but a really loving and lovable little guy. In sitting behind them I just felt that this is exactly where I wanted to be and felt a real sense of the presence and peace of God.I would agree that a non-Christian could find that same sense of love and peace and feel the same emotions, but what they would miss out on would be the sense that God is in this world, and cares about this world and its creatures. It was like having a glimpse into and an experience of the world to come in the renewal of all things, where the lamb will lie down with the wolf.I am not saying that this is proof of God or of anything else, but my faith I think brought me a peace and hope for mankind that wouldn't be completely available to a non-believer, whether or not I am correct in my beliefs or not.Also, one other benefit to me specifically, was that I found life went a lot more smoothly for me when I became a Christian. I found that working at following God in my life was much easier than try to be the person that would be approved of by others in my life. God seemed a lot easier to please. I found that by living that way, my relationships with others went more smoothly and in general life just became more pleasant. That is just my experience and wouldn't necessarily hold true for others, and in fact could be very much the opposite for them. I accept that, but can you be more specific or give an example? I agree, but I don't think I see myself as feeling any more secure than I did when I was agnostic. I like everyone else believe, that what I believe, basically represents reality, so for me it is about a search for truth, knowing that it still represents belief not knowledge. I know I've drawn this thread off topic more than once, but I would just ask you to think about this. Look at the universe within the first seconds after the BB and think about the likelihood of conscience life as we know it forming from what existed then, without any intelligent input. I don't require an answer.

Actually my beliefs are pretty much mainstream, and even middle of the road Anglicanism. The Christian scholar that has most influenced me is N T Wright I am also influenced as already mentioned by John Polinghorne for the way he integrates his scientific knowledge with his theology. Also from a philosophical satnd point I have very much gained form the Christian perspectives of CS Lewis. All of these scholars were/are CofE.My beliefs are nothing out of the norm. I gave a talk, (I'm very much a lay person),at a men's breakfast a week ago, and it so happened that both my rector and my Bishop were there. What I said largely reflected the views I express here and they both agreed that we were all on the same page regarding our Christian beliefs. I think that is the way most people present their beliefs regardless of the subject. Interestingly enough, N T (Tom) Wright often says that about a third of what he says is wrong, but the problem being that he doesn't know which third it is. Actually I don't. The problem is that you set up a straw man that you argue against and then complain when my beliefs don't align with the straw man you are attacking. Thanks I think? I'm wondering which missionary activities you are referring to. IMHO I should be doing a lot more.

I think missionaries have been and continue to be the some of the most destructive people in the history of mankind.

That isn't a "choice" any more than falling into a trap is a choice. The one who set the trap is entirely to blame. Yes, indeed. Let the record so state in bold upper-case letters as if Faith wrote it. Maybe I'll put it in my signature. Instead of just mocking what I say, why don't you make an argument? For us.It made us more like God - but you and Faith think that's a bad thing.

That doesn't change the fact that Jesus commanded people to love their neighbors. Who said anything about "justice"? Who even cares about justice? The important thing is helping each other. The motivation is irrelevant. On the contrary, there's no difference at all. The visitor eats the same food and sleeps in the same bed, regardless of your motivation.

Yes, but as I keep pointing out to you, commanding someone to love is very different than commanding someone not to kill. The killing is a physical action where as commanding someone to love is to command an emotional reaction. I explained all that in the post you are responding to. Sure, that is true for whoever is getting the food and the bed, but it is you that brought up Matthew 25. The point that you were making was about the sheep and the goats. A big part of what made the sheep sheep was that they were doing it without thought of reward.

Middle of the road Anglicanism is exactly what I mean by playing the game to your own rules. Anglicanism is as near to agnosticism as makes no difference. It's the ultimate pick and mix belief system loosely based around a Christian myth. You are able to fluff every traditional Christian position, from heaven to hell, from omnipotence to original sin.Add a sprinkling of pseudo science and you can fudge every issue.Look, I like Anglicans, they're basically harmless; they're not generally condemning anybody and their actual beliefs are liberal enough to live alongside other's beliefs and unbeliefs. I see Anglicanism as the pathway the sane Christians are taking towards secularism and humanism so I'm all for it. But it's still total bollox and a distraction from doing more useful stuff with your time. All of them. You're interfering with another culture's belief system. Stop it, it's patronising, evil and wrong - even if it's well meant.

But it isn't. If you obey the command to love, you don't have to be commanded not to kill. No. The command to love is a command to do loving actions. It isn't about rewards. The point of Matthew 25 is that God's will is about what you do, not about what you profess. It doesn't matter what your motivation or your attitude is; what matters is your physical actions.

You posted this in your previous post.

quote:

---

You're inventing a whole new religion loosely based on the Christian myth but totally dependent on your own personal interpretation and values.

---

I answered by saying this.

quote:

---

Actually my beliefs are pretty much mainstream, and even middle of the road Anglicanism. The Christian scholar that has most influenced me is N T Wright I am also influenced as already mentioned by John Polinghorne for the way he integrates his scientific knowledge with his theology. Also from a philosophical satnd point I have very much gained form the Christian perspectives of CS Lewis. All of these scholars were/are CofE.

---

My point was that my beliefs are hardly unique. Having lost that point you then move on to being critical of the Anglican church in general. If you actually read through the articles of faith of the Anglican church you can see that Anglicans do actually have a relatively cohesive theology. In every service either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles creed is read out loud by the congregation. Let's look at that idea.
The main mission I support is a home for young women in Kampala whose families have either been unable to support them or who have abandoned them. It provides a safe home, food, love and an education for these women. One recently graduated as a dental surgeon from a local university. Other eventually find work as hair dressers or teachers stc. If my wife and I stopped supporting this small mission of about 23 young women they would be unable to pay their rent, and it would fail. They would be out on the streets of Kampala. Do you really think I should give that up.
AbE - Incidentally, this mission is completely run by indigenous Ugandans although there is oversight by the local Anglican diocese.We also support to a much smaller extent a mission that had set up a large farming co-operative in the South Sudan but unfortunately had to ,at least temporarily move into northern Uganda due to the war. Now what they are doing is a project called urban farming where they go around showing people how to set up stacks of burlap, soill and rocks, resulting in getting approximately 9 square yards of planting area for 1 square yard of surface area. I guess you think that would be another mission I should give up.Our small church has been heavily involved is sponsoring Syrian refugee families for immigration to our community. We have been involved with both time and finances in supporting that. This afternoon my wife is going over with a simple gift of flowers and chocolates to help them celebrate the end of Ramadan. We'ed better give that up as well. I am not concerned about their belief system. The hope is that by what we are doing there will be some who instead of being destitute with virtually no hope, will be able to provide for themselves by being given an opportunity to do so. Also the hope is that by showing them love they will pass on that love to others and that our world becomes just a tiny bit better.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.