[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Yes, you can engage in debates with people citing various scriptural references, but how can you ever resolve this without at some point coming to the conclusion that the other person is wrong? And how do you justify the view that some interpretations which you consider invalid would lead to--in your interpretation--that person not "properly accepting Christ" and therefore be subject to the negative consequences thereof?

. . .

Do you honestly believe that because their beliefs do not align with your own scholarship that they will not pass or will they?

. . .

I'm asking you to consider what happens when two reasonable people who have done their own scholarship come to different conclusions, how do those people reconcile the fact that these differences exist and what are the consequences? Is it possible for both to be right?

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway. (Proverbs 24:12) This is another reason why I'm conviced in the Gospel, because that sounds like a fair deal to me.

One can only imagine where God will draw the line. I try not to think like that, and I think people who do are setting themselves up to be judged. (Romans 2:1) Some people can go to church, give charity, and still not have a kind heart or pure motives. While non-church-goers, or even non-Christians, can be going about life with a heart that pleases God somehow. Who knows? Nobody. Only God. (Matthew 7:21)

My goal is to interpret and debate scripture and history so that misconceptions don't cloud the judgment of those trying to truly understand the situation. I guess I go wrong in assuming everyone gives a sh*t.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Southtown

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... ... God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway....One can only imagine where God will draw the line. I try not to think like that, and I think people who do are setting themselves up to be judged.

Well, amen to that! Why do you suppose that those that scream the loudest seem to be the most judgemental? Have you tried to decypher their motives and justifications for what they do?

Originally Posted by Southtown

My goal is to interpret and debate scripture and history so that misconceptions don't cloud the judgment of those trying to truly understand the situation. I guess I go wrong in assuming everyone gives a sh*t.

I think I go a bit farther than you in thinking that the vast majority of people--whatevery their religious beliefs--don't want to think about this stuff: not that they don't give a ****, but that they just don't have the time or energy or desire to analyze the foundations of their religious beliefs. For most, religion is something they *don't* have to think about that gives their life direction and purpose and helps answer the unanswerable. Unfortunately I'm not sure these people get as much out of their religious beliefs as you do.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Southtown]

I'm glad we can agree. You're alright.

The same could be said for science. One doesn't need an understanding of general relativity to use the navigation system in their suv's. And, they shouldn't be expected to really. If they use it with a sincere heart *snicker* the Lord will guide them.

In my view, it's the commandment of God NOT to treat each other like subordinates. Kind of ironic that that would also be the biggest problem of those claiming to be inline with His will...

[geokker]

In my view, it's the commandment of God NOT to treat each other like subordinates.

This is the core problem. If a religion is gospel, by the very definition, it cannot be independently interpreted, and when it is - conflict.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by geokker

This is the core problem. If a religion is gospel, by the very definition, it cannot be independently interpreted, and when it is - conflict.

All interpretation is subjective, even though the subject matter may not be. People are imperfect. All we can do is attempt to assist people in accurate discernment (assuming they're looking for truth and not excuses for a precognitive perception.)

And conflict will only be a problem when we determine that some people aren't worth their salt if they have a different interpretation. If God is all-knowing, He can judge us by our sincerity of intention rather than the rightness of our actions. Doing wrong should not be punishable unless it is intentional.

I'm the same way with my kids (2 & 4). When they do something wrong, I try to explain it in little people words real nice and positive-like. After repeating myself for a while, though, when I'm sure they know better, I start taking their toys away and sending them to their rooms and stuff. It's not ignorance that's malicious, it's defiance.

In the adult world, though, defiance has a place. Anytime unfairness or injustice is dealt to anybody by someone else, one would be considered heroic to fight its source and right the situation. If the government is oppressive, or whatever, one would be justified in rebelling. But if the authority is fair and just, then rebellion would be stupid.

If there is a God, He has given us incredibly well-adapted and self sustaining physiology, He has given us an entire planet filled with more types of life and elements than we can count, and He's given us the whole cosmos as a sheer beauty to behold and contemplate. This would qualify as kind and gentle in my opinion. (Not to mention the free salvation part...)

In sumnation, defiant rebellion is only reasonable against injustice or oppression or any of the other threats to world peace and human unity. And intentional defiance against a just God would be stupid.

[dduckwessel]

2) Northern Ireland, 30 Years War, War of the Roses, India and Pakistan, Crusades, Israel and Arabia... Roman Catholic male children routinely being sodomized by consecrated priests. Problems? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods rain nothing but blessings upon their pious bloodthirsty adherents. Test of faith!

'Religion' and the Bible 'are not' the same things!

Religion including Christianity is 'human' interpretation of the Bible.

The Bible can interpret itself but that is not what Christianity and other Bible-based groups are presently teaching.

The wars and problems you mention above are 'religious' conflicts. But it's not only Roman Catholic Priests (and sometimes nuns) who are sexually molesting children, there have been incidences within 'sports' groups too.

Where individuals hold 'power' and so 'authority' over others, you have the potential for this to happen, religious group or not.

[geokker]

If I fervently believe in my personal interpretation of God - a giant gay traffic warden - and my neighbour has interpreted the bible as having described him as a small, anatomically fantastical fashion dolly, we're in for some friction when I ask for a loan of his hedge trimmer at the weekend. My point is that if life and death laws are laid down to be interpreted subjectively, distorted with retelling and time, date with diminished relevance, people will disagree with violence. This is further compounded with different faith systems.

"My God will kick the ass off your God!"

[Southtown]

Who's the better person: a murder who is deeply sorry and regrets his actions everyday, or a non-murder who just goes through life wanting to snuff everone who pisses him off?

[Southtown]

What I'm saying is, no religion is not subjective, nor morality. You're right goekker. But, before a person can even begin to come to the correct interpretation, they have to first give a sh*t. And giving a sh*t implies sincerity. That's probably why God is more concerned with sincerity, because regardless of the state of one's moral or religious ineptitude, He can work with someone who gives a sh*t.

(That one's for u Al.)

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Buffy

To some, it's the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...
Cheers,
Buffy

"Passion Play slander"??????? How can telling the story which is written in the Gospels be considered slanderous? Jews admit that Jesus lived, you even say as much. They also will admit to putting Him to death for blasphemy or "rabble rousing" I think is how you put it. As long as the play shows Jews killing Jesus for those things, where's the slander?

Hitler may have been in a Catholic church as a child, but he was no Christian...in fact his followers were "encouraged" to be anti-religious. It would be better to point to the Crusades and some of the wrongs those men did...but then again, it has already been pointed out that man is imperfect, sinful - can't blame that on Jesus.

Salute
Skippy