Problems With Christianity

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, you are really calling forth challenges to Christian-traditions, in and of every sect. As well as to Judaism's rabbinic tradition that base them all.

Yes really I am challenging this idea and my own long held belief in it.

Well done... Have you read my response--Feb 14, 8:06 PM, several above--to your original "serious question"???
Roger
*

Yes and thank you for that response. If I read you correctly you say there is not a God that requires blood or some arbitrary punishment for sin that is committed by the flawed creatures this God created. You believe the idea of God being a God the demands Justice is a man made thing.

Is that a fair summary?

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason, you are really calling forth challenges to Christian-traditions, in and of every sect. As well as to Judaism's rabbinic tradition that base them all.

Yes really I am challenging this idea and my own long held belief in it.

Well done... Have you read my response--Feb 14, 8:06 PM, several above--to your original "serious question"???
Roger
*

Yes and thank you for that response. If I read you correctly you say there is not a God that requires blood or some arbitrary punishment for sin that is committed by the flawed creatures this God created. You believe the idea of God being a God the demands Justice is a man made thing.

Is that a fair summary?

Yes it is. Generally I am suggesting the traditional mystical "omni" "God" of the Old Testament & the New Testament does not exist. However, I believe there is/are Power(s) that can, and sometimes do, immpress people in good/helpful ways that ARE difficult to understand &/or believe. We are at the beginning of learning about other universal powers--electromagnatism, etc... (I'll leave the un-good alone at this time:-)

"...Flawed creatures this God created." Is another myth of Genesis having to do with the "Fall". Ancients with their limited understanding imagined answers to their questions as children do to theirs. Purely a natural process leading to better answers IF/WHEN authoritarianism will allow the process to continue.

In the Natural Sciences there have been few restriction to "questing." Theologians, OTOH have not been as liberal. Psychologists can probably suggest some reasons for that. Economists can probably suggest some purpopes???

The reason there IS so much confusion in our ecclesiastical world has to do with the fact that NO ONE knows, as they do in science. Here we are left to our own resources that evolve as we individually knock, ask, seek and find--to our indivudual satisfaction, and fullness-of-joy. THAT can only be found in mortality and experienced in a BROADLY defined "Charitable" environment; as Jesus the philosopher suggested in his "thesis". In my seriously considered opinion (IMSCO:-)

Warm regards,
Roger
*
*

Could be what justifies, to some their belief in the traditional "God"???

[_Brackite]

Hello KimberlyAnn and all Here,

I now lean towards Christian Universalism in my beliefs. Christian Universalism does Not believe in a literal eternal hell. I Consider Myself a Christian still, However I don't really believe in a literal eternal hell. I do lean towards Christian Universalism in my beliefs.

Me too. :)

Hello Seven,

This is Great to hear. Here is a Scriptural Passage, From Within The New Testament, That seems to strongly support the Doctrine of Christian Universalism:

Colossians 1:19-20: (New International Version):

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

And The Near-Death Experiences Seem to strongly support the Doctrine of Universal Salvation. Here is Part of an Article, From one of the Near-Death Experiences Web Site Pages:

NDEs and Universal Salvation
Dr. Ken Vincent's NDE research

Ken Vincent, Ed.D., is retired from teaching Psychology, including the Psychology of Religious Experience at Houston Community College. He is a member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, International Association of Near-Death Studies, and the Foundation for Contemporary Theology.

...

Of all the theological explanations for the near-death experience (NDE), the Doctrine of Universal Salvation, also known as Universalism, is the most compatible with contemporary NDE accounts. Universalism embraces the idea that God is too good to condemn humankind to Eternal Hell and that, sooner or later, all humanity will be saved.

Here is the Link:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen021.html

[_Seven]

delete

[_Seven]

"Jason Bourne"

we may but does God? Did you not argue in another post that we should have charity and not demand punishment? Could not an omnipotent God forgive without punishment?

I don't think you are seeing the full picture here of why I posted about the required principle of charity to enter God's presence.
The consequences attached to broken laws just exist, the way that right and wrong exists. Do you believe these moral laws are eternal?
Do you believe that there should be consequences for crimes or sins and why? How would we learn and progress without fixed consequences for our sins? How do you teach your own children right and wrong? Are there consequences???

We want things to be fair but then when it is put back on us, we realize that we are all in the same boat here. We are seriously screwed if there wasn't a Savior to redeem us from the consequences of sin. How would it ever be fair and meet those demands?

We all have different lives and experiences here. That is why when we throw it on to God being the judge of those people, we use it as a way to get out of complete forgiveness. But there is a way that makes it fair for all. That is the conditions of the atonement. We all sin. People who commit some of the most horrific sins on this earth will have the heaviest challenges in forgiving those that led them to hate. Each of us probably has people in our life who we need to forgive and stop using as a reason to be depressed, or bitter, or angry.


That's why I asked what you believe the correct punishment would be for a person who murders your family. What would be fair? The conditions of the sacrifice were that if God took the punishment for us, we are commanded to repent and forgive since we are all sinners.
It's because you needed a Savior yourself that you are able to see that you are no better than this fallen man. If you have charity, you want and hope for this person to repent and be saved in God's kingdom. Would you find this pure love for your fellowman had Christ not bled and atoned for your sins? Would you be able to forgive yourself had Christ not required those conditions for your salvation?



Just a sidenote...(nothing to do with Jason's question)
In my opinion, traditional Christians have an easier time truly believing in the atonement, and accepting Christ's gift by forgiving others and themselves. Mormons teach it and preach that the atonement and repentance is possible for all, but it's much harder for them to apply it in their lives because of the teachings on fixed placement in Kingdoms & loss of exaltation for certain sins. They equate being a "good Mormon" to being a "good person."

[_huckelberry]

Roger points out a significant part of this atonement question. Ignorance. I think it is clear that some cost is involved in the process of forgiveness. Whether blood makes any actual payment or if it is required is a more difficult question which is tangled in some ambiguities.

I think we all learn about the cost of forgiveness by learning how to do foregiveness ourselves.Because people have not learned all there is to know about that process we can expect changes in the theories of the atoment. After all there have been changes in the thories over the past two thousand years. The Anselm payment theory, satisfy absolute justice became popular in the more receint centuries. Prior to that a trick cheating the devil of the soles he had in possession due to sin was a more common picture.

I am inclined to wonder if the payment is to curb the demands for revenge from all the wronged human parties whose injuries create desire for revenge or punishment. But that is not likely the whole picture.

[Anonymous]

I am inclined to wonder if the payment is to curb the demands for revenge from all the wronged human parties whose injuries create desire for revenge or punishment. But that is not likely the whole picture.

I agree and was trying to explain that is the part of the demands of justice that "we require."
But like you said, it is not the whole picture. The only way we heal from the injuries is because of the conditions of the atonement.

Jason,
When I was a TBM, I used to wonder if another reason Christ's blood was shed was to complete His final step toward Godhood. That He would finally be fulfilled. Jesus loved the Father and his brothers and sisters with such a perfect love, that he gave his life for us and had completed it.
Like the scripture says ""Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." I believed that this would be required of anyone who is to become a God and was a way for Christ to forgive us completely and love us completely. This belief had problems even within Mormon doctrine though, because Christ was supposed to already be a God as the creator of this earth. But it was something I thought about. I no longer view the atonement that way but just thought I'd throw it out there since you remain a believer.

It's my belief that God created us to be in a fallen world needing an atoning sacrifice so that He could demonstrate & teach us the most charitable and perfect act of His love. When we meet the requirements of the atonement, we become like Him and progress.
And I do not believe one has to subscribe to a religion or belief in Jesus to learn and possess charity.....but I do believe at some point in the afterlife when the veil is lifted, we will have to believe in and meet the conditions of Christ's atoning sacrifice to be forgiven of our sins.
That is what I believe it means to accept Christ or be in hell. It's not declaring you are a believer in Christ that saves us. It's believing that He paid your debts and now you must return this gift to another by forgiving and loving them like Jesus did for you that makes us a believer in Christ.

[_antishock8]

Well, I just thank Heavens that Frodo was able to throw The Ring into the fires of Mordor. Who knows what terrible condition Man might have found himself in lest those hobbits were unsuccessful.

[_huckelberry]

Seven, I understand you to be pointing to the understanding that the atonement is the necessary material that humans need to transition from a immature state vulnerable to sin to a mature condition growing beyond that fragility. There may be payment as a certain dimension of that larger process but it makes more sense in context of the whole project.

I read both Jesus and Paul pointing in that same direction, so naturally see that as central in a way that the question of an absolute justice demand is not.

There has been some suggestion that LDS and traditional Christian would be stuck with differnt understanding of law. I think there would be a critical area of overlap. Once God decides to create the form of the creation and its relationship to Gods eternal nature would take on the same as aspect as eternal law even if its existence has a start with the start of creation. What we are as individuals is not an individual possession or accomplishment. It is something which exists only in relationship with other human beings. Same is true as our relationship to God. It forms a crutial dimension of what we are ourselves. When God mends a situation of distrust resentment and hostility between God and man there is reestablished a shared project of growth for us.

[_Jason Bourne]

Seven

I am not sure why you keep giving me the gospel line. This is really not a discussion for gospel answers. As noted I know all this. As well as you. Maybe better. I have given many discourses on the atonement, grace, mercy, forgiveness, charity, etc.

I don't think you are seeing the full picture here of why I posted about the required principle of charity to enter God's presence.

Yes I do.

The consequences attached to broken laws just exist, the way that right and wrong exists. Do you believe these moral laws are eternal?
Do you believe that there should be consequences for crimes or sins and why?

Yes I do believe in consequences, I do not know if these moral laws are eternal for certain.

How would we learn and progress without fixed consequences for our sins? How do you teach your own children right and wrong? Are there consequences???

Yes I believe in consequences and I have used what I believe were appropriate punishment for my children when they needed it. I was also quick to forgive.

But this is apples to oranges. God condemns us to Hell in Christianity for one sin, big or small. You do just ONE you are guilty of all and are going to Hell unless you repent and accept the apparent required blood sacrifice. Thus the absurd results that the repentant muderer can go to heaven but the righteous Gandhi cannot because he did not accept Jesus blood. He is going to Hell.

We want things to be fair but then when it is put back on us, we realize that we are all in the same boat here. We are seriously screwed if there wasn't a Savior to redeem us from the consequences of sin. How would it ever be fair and meet those demands?

Why can't God forgive without a savior? He can in Islamic tradition.

That's why I asked what you believe the correct punishment would be for a person who murders your family. What would be fair?

Life in prison, no parole.

The conditions of the sacrifice were that if God took the punishment for us, we are commanded to repent and forgive since we are all sinners.

But if you steal one candy bar and do not accept Jesus blood you are toast. The faithful Muslim who maybe made a few mistakes but does not accept Jesus is going to Hell-forever.

Just a sidenote...(nothing to do with Jason's question)
In my opinion, traditional Christians have an easier time truly believing in the atonement, and accepting Christ's gift by forgiving others and themselves. Mormons teach it and preach that the atonement and repentance is possible for all, but it's much harder for them to apply it in their lives because of the teachings on fixed placement in Kingdoms & loss of exaltation for certain sins. They equate being a "good Mormon" to being a "good person."

I think the Mormons have it far better than traditional Christianity on this. But they do need to do better in believing Christ when he says I will save you.