Running "ask a zealot" thread

[ArnoldBabar]

Tyler Durden wants to fight Gandhi.

 

[Alma]

From a Christian perspective, he wouldn't get into heaven.

Sucks for him, then.

By no means is this limited to Christianity and by no means is this limited to modern times, but I am sad that we live in a world where so many people hold a belief system (no matter which one) where their view of the afterlife is so exclusionary.

Makes it so much easier to be exclusionary in this life, too, in my opinion.

Nah, you're missing the point. It's not up to me. Good thing, too, for my standards are for ****.

As for exclusionary...Christians are called to be just the opposite. This calling is all over the Bible.

 

[Alma]

I believe there are many people in other religions, including atheists/agnostics, who worship the true God. Religion is a social construct. Hell, language is a social construct. But, in my view, God isn't. So the notion that someone can only worship that God by using certain words and acting out certain rituals (i.e. praying the "sinner's prayer") doesn't make sense.

Oh, come on now. How can an athiest, who is claims there is no proof for a god, actually worship the Christian God? I mean, it's their position, their choice. But, in Christianity, there's no backdoor for Really Nice People who never found evidence of a higher power. There just isn't and there is really no use wishing it so.

 

[buckweaver]

From a Christian perspective, he wouldn't get into heaven.

Sucks for him, then.

By no means is this limited to Christianity and by no means is this limited to modern times, but I am sad that we live in a world where so many people hold a belief system (no matter which one) where their view of the afterlife is so exclusionary.

Makes it so much easier to be exclusionary in this life, too, in my opinion.

Nah, you're missing the point. It's not up to me. Good thing, too, for my standards are for ****.

As for exclusionary...Christians are called to be just the opposite. This calling is all over the Bible.

No, I'm not missing the point: Most Christian belief systems say Gandhi can't go to heaven. Doesn't matter who makes the actual decision, the judgment's already been made by anyone who follows that belief system. That IS an exclusionary belief system, whether the Bible calls Christians to be or not. No one has to feel guilty about it, but there is nothing inclusive about that.

 

[joe]

Tom Waits said it best:

Well you say that it's gospel
But I know that it's only church

 

[Alma]

Are we all truly equal in the eyes of God, or were women designed as second-class citizens?

We are all equal. And Eve is no more complicit for the fall of man than Adam is.

Adam is complicit, and Eve is not.

As for women in the Bible, they are surely no second class citizens; using 21st Century measures of status (women in "leadership" positions) is hardly the measure God uses.

That said, the Bible explains differences in the ways in which men and women are exalted. Lots of people take issue with these different areas of focused praise, which is certainly their right.

 

[Alma]

From a Christian perspective, he wouldn't get into heaven.

Sucks for him, then.

By no means is this limited to Christianity and by no means is this limited to modern times, but I am sad that we live in a world where so many people hold a belief system (no matter which one) where their view of the afterlife is so exclusionary.

Makes it so much easier to be exclusionary in this life, too, in my opinion.

Nah, you're missing the point. It's not up to me. Good thing, too, for my standards are for ****.

As for exclusionary...Christians are called to be just the opposite. This calling is all over the Bible.

No, I'm not missing the point: Most Christian belief systems say Gandhi can't go to heaven. Doesn't matter who makes the actual decision, the judgment's already been made by anyone who follows that belief system. That IS an exclusionary belief system, whether the Bible calls Christians to be or not. No one has to feel guilty about it, but there is nothing inclusive about that.

I understand what you're saying. You're right: From a Christian perspective, if you don't believe in Christ as everyone's savior, you will not be allowed into heaven.

 

[DemoChristian]

Interesting thread. Lots of great points all around.

Just one minor nit though ... God isn't a He.

God is a She.

Carry on.

First, I love that Death is posting on this thread. There's something fitting about that.
Secondly, I don't believe God has a sex, per se, but Jesus referred to Him as "Father" and the Bible calls Him "He" throughout, so I'll go with that until I have good reason to do otherwise.

 

[DemoChristian]

Sucks for him, then.

By no means is this limited to Christianity and by no means is this limited to modern times, but I am sad that we live in a world where so many people hold a belief system (no matter which one) where their view of the afterlife is so exclusionary.

Makes it so much easier to be exclusionary in this life, too, in my opinion.

Jesus said to love everyone, specifically including whoever you consider your enemy (Gandhi is not my enemy, but the point stands -- love EVERYONE).
It is not up to us Christians to determine who is going to Heaven and then take care of those people and shun the others. We are supposed to simply show the love of Christ to the world.
The Bible says people should know we are Christians by our love. That doesn't happen nearly enough, but it's a good goal.
I'm not sure what you want from Christians, Buck. Should we stop believing because some people choose not to accept the way, the truth and the life?

 

[Alma]

Three questions:

1. If God wanted Christ to save the entire world be converting them to Christianity, why didn't he tell the entire world? Why a small group of nobodys living in a desert when there were more advanced cultures in the world? Is God playing favourites?

2. If Christ died on the cross to redeem us all, then we are redeemed. The sacrifice didn't come with strings attached. Isn't that what the Bible says?

3. Are you at all bothered that the Bible has not come to us unadulterated? We have no original text and ample proof of mistranslations, wilfull additions and copying errors? Which of the multitude of versions out there would you deem to be correct?

The answers from a Christian perspective:

1. He did. From Romans 20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

2. This statement is illogical. A non-believer has no need to concern themselves with whom Christ did or didn't redeem. A non-believer rejects Christ as the redeemer.

3. Not at all bothered. The Holy Spirit is the original text. Any Christian has it and can call upon it when he or she desires to.