Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Backglass]

Basically Christianity makes me a better person. I have realized mistakes I have made and character flaws and worked on them.

YOU make yourself a better person. Religion didn't do it for you, although I agree it may be a catalyst for those think they cant seem to do it themselves.

If it turns out to be a hoax then it is a great set of rule to live your life by to have a more gratifying existence.

What is more gratifying. Living your life in reality now? Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

[Jolly Roger]

Basically Christianity makes me a better person. I have realized mistakes I have made and character flaws and worked on them.

YOU make yourself a better person. Religion didn't do it for you, although I agree it may be a catalyst for those think they cant seem to do it themselves.

If it turns out to be a hoax then it is a great set of rule to live your life by to have a more gratifying existence.

What is more gratifying. Living your life in reality now? Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

You forgot the third option:

1) Living your life in reality now;
2) Finding out at death that you wasted your life worshipping fantasies;
3) Finding out at death that your religious adherence during your short life on earth is rewarded with eternal bliss while those who refused to worship [Insert name of deity here] are condemned to an eternity engulfed in flames.

[raith]

Perhaps it was the fact that their writings downplayed the need for a centralized Church that caused the most distrust amongst the people collating the Bible.

Or perhaps it was the fact that they felt that Jesus had to be incorporeal in order to be sinless, and could not possibly have died if He was incorporeal. That would essentially remove the guts of the gospel (Jesus was fully God, fully human, and died to pay the penalty for sin). Or perhaps it was the lack of coherence in the writings, or the contradictions throughout them.

What in the current gospels makes you think that Christianity is supposed to be centralized?

I dont think that whether there is something in the gospels that says christianity is supposed to be centralized or not is the point. the majority of people that dont hold to the christian (or any other faith) doctrine dont or have not really read the written works that are supposed to be the guide books of each religion (neither do most of the people who do hold their respective doctrines to be truth). I think that the point is that those with a vested interest (clergy, priests, mullahs, buddist monks, and the rest) in a religion naturally set up the institutions of that religion in a generally centralized way and have throughout history. The centralized power of a religion is not a constant as can be seen by the fact that there is no religion that has ever been able to remain unchanged and un segmented. So I believe the point people are trying to make when the cite the gospels that were not included in the bible is that there is a possibility that those who determined th inclusion or exclusion followed the usual pattern of trying to consoldate power. If a particular writing says that there is no need for an actual religious institution (a pope, church, priests and so on) then those who have a vested interest in maintaining those institutions (pope, priests, church, and so on) are most likely going to lean towards saying that that particular writing is not the word of god. I know nothing about gnostic gospel or the complilation of the bible but me knowing nothing about it does not invalidate the example as a general example of an attempt by the extablishment trying to hold onto or increase power. It could be applied to any number of social institutions- religion, government, terrorist groups, the boy scouts, gangs... all institutions follow the same pattern. This pattern or tendency is not intrisically a bad thing. It is what has allowed humanity to develope culture and civilization. That being said (I think that you can see where I stand on the christianity debate though my opinions extend to many areas other that religion), I do have question for the believers in the crowd.

If God is all powerful and perfect and man is fallible and not perfect. (this is a general description of most major religions and sects at least of the judeo-christian mold) How do you reconcile the fact that the word of God is always filtered through man (use of man is meant as a generalization and does not exclude women) yet is taken at face value? If man is corruptable and god does not interfere with free will whats to say that the message from god is not distorted? (this includes personal messages because I think we can all agree that the the human mind has an amazing ability to self delude). Maybe God said that we should give all of our worldly possesions to the poor but the guy who got the message changed it to give all our worldly possessions to him instead or more likely the case he changed it to - give to this organization (coincedentally managed by him) who would then distribute in a equitable manner (minus operating costs).

Any opinions? I dont mean in anyway to belittle anybody's faith. I believe strongly that there is something greater than what I see or experience, but the question and nature of that something is not going to be dictated to me by some guy just because he says he has the a personal line to the almighty. There is nothing wrong with having FAITH but why does it have to be in a particular church, shaman, monk, stone monument, pope, holy relic, or any other such tangible thing?

Please excuse any typos, misspellings or poor grammar.

[magneticgoop]

yes people do routinely change the message they get but that is the purpose of doctrine and a function of the church. doctrine was made about the time the gnostic gospels were thrown out to combat heresy. the church is also supposed to correct heretical beliefs. occasionally there is a belief that seems right but does not match up with what we already know about God from experience and the bible. there are many cults that claim to be christian but go against key doctrine and were thus removed from Christianity. basically that is the importance of the church because hopefully these teachings would be shown to everyone who is in it and it is collectively decided whether it is of God or not based on prayer and the bible.

[raith]

yes people do routinely change the message they get but that is the purpose of doctrine and a function of the church. doctrine was made about the time the gnostic gospels were thrown out to combat heresy. the church is also supposed to correct heretical beliefs. occasionally there is a belief that seems right but does not match up with what we already know about God from experience and the bible. there are many cults that claim to be christian but go against key doctrine and were thus removed from Christianity. basically that is the importance of the church because hopefully these teachings would be shown to everyone who is in it and it is collectively decided whether it is of God or not based on prayer and the bible.

I think you may have missed the point of my question. I know that the church claims the mantle of interperter and guardian of Gods word. My question was how do you reconcile the fact that the church is made up of fallible corruptible man who could corrupt the message of God to their own interests yet people are supposed to follow the dictates of these people on faith. Again Faith in God (or some other belief) is fine and understandable... Faith in man telling you what God wants... that seems a bit naive and not very prudent. Telling me that the purpose of the church (made up of man) is the safe guard against corruption of Gods word as an explaination of why people should listen to the church is not a good explaination.

[The1exile]

My question was how do you reconcile the fact that the church is made up of fallible corruptible man who could corrupt the message of God to their own interests yet people are supposed to follow the dictates of these people on faith.

The Pope is infallible and as an extension so is the college of cardinals.

[raith]

My question was how do you reconcile the fact that the church is made up of fallible corruptible man who could corrupt the message of God to their own interests yet people are supposed to follow the dictates of these people on faith.

The Pope is infallible and as an extension so is the college of cardinals.

Who says the Pope (a man) is infallible? The Bible? (written or complied and clearly filtered through men). Canon Law (again written by man) The Pope (that wouldnt be suspect at all). Maybe I should rephrase my question using a hyopothetical situation.

Long long ago there was a man of great wisdom, compassion, and humility. Some say he was the embodment of the Great Perfect Creator. (and for the sake of argument let say that in reality he was) He came with a message of great hope and wonderment. He died. Sadly he did not write anything down and left no concrete, stone, steel, or other permanent structure emblazend with his message for all to see throughout time. After he died many of those who had heard his message decided to spread his message which they did to the best of their abilities. After awhile, they decided to organize (thats what humans do- organize). The wanted to elighten those unfortunates who had not heard the message first hand and so they compiled a great book to serve as a guide. Somewhere along the way, some started devoting their lives to spreading the message (therby becoming dependent on those believers who still worked normal jobs for basic living needs), and in order to spread the message more effectively they organized even more and eventually became part of mainstream civilization in some places even to the point of actually ruling over many believers and non-believers alike. Now the Man was long dead as were those who had known him personally but each successive group of continued to grow and they continued to change the groups laws and rules and the great Book was changed also. But they claimed that the word of the Great Perfect Creator and His Son continued to speak directly to them so it was OK. Fast forward many many years. The Group is still around but no longer looks anything like it did at the beginning but they still claim to be the mouth piece of the Great Perfect One. They have many many years of tradition and history behind them. Do you just take them at their word that they have not corrupted the Message even though in their own records and traditions there are conflicting versions of the message? Even though there are many other groups that broke from the original group who claim their message is the one true message. There are even some groups who claim that their are lots of possible messages that could be true. Why would anyone trust any of these MEN's claim to be the mouth piece of the The Great Perfect Creator? The fact that the original message was True and the original messenger was Perfect does not make those that follow Perfect or their version of the True message true just because they say it is. And just because these same MEN say that they are in direct communication with the Great Perfect Creator dont make it so.
So again, How does a believer reconcile the fallability of man with the fact that man is supposed to be the Messenger of infallable God? I really would like a good answer to this seemingly basic question. An answer that states basically "because the church says so" is not a well thought out answer because it doesn address the central point.

[The1exile]

raith, far be it from me to poke holes in your excellent arguments - i simply felt that that was a pillar of at least catholic faith, that doubtless one of the others more faithful to their deity people would say in counter to your shorter comment sooner or later.

[MR. Nate]

If God is all powerful and perfect and man is fallible and not perfect. (this is a general description of most major religions and sects at least of the judeo-christian mold) How do you reconcile the fact that the word of God is always filtered through man (use of man is meant as a generalization and does not exclude women) yet is taken at face value? If man is corruptable and god does not interfere with free will whats to say that the message from god is not distorted? (this includes personal messages because I think we can all agree that the the human mind has an amazing ability to self delude). Maybe God said that we should give all of our worldly possesions to the poor but the guy who got the message changed it to give all our worldly possessions to him instead or more likely the case he changed it to - give to this organization (coincedentally managed by him) who would then distribute in a equitable manner (minus operating costs).

The epistles note that Scripture, despite it's human authorship, is God breathed. Orthodoxy usually has God inspiring an individual, and the individual taking it down, or speaking it, in their own words. So the original copies of the books were written with God speaking through an individual who was faithfully communicating through their own voice. Generally, correctly understanding the Bible, requires 1) cross-referencing, 2) understanding of the culture it was written in and 3)understanding the part of literature.
Cross Reference. If God truly does not contradict himself, we can use His word to interpret itself. What is mentioned in once place can be expanded upon in another. Different passages can be used to understand one another.
CultureThere are some places where the culture reference becomes especially important. Without a basic understanding of 1st century Jewish culture, the parable of the good Samaritan becomes meaningless.
Part of Literature Histories are not equal with direct commandants, Proverbs are not eternal promises. Understanding the basic literary type you are reading provides a framework from which to interpret.

So that's how you discern the written Word in the Bible. Once you do your homework in that regard, you can generally understand what God was saying in the time and place that the particular passage was written. That allows you to understand the principle, which is then applied to your life.
The responsibility for discerning the Word lies with the individual. If you are a believer, God has given you the Holy Spirit to help, and it is often good to study in community, because different people have different insights. But when it comes down to it, God spoke through the Scriptures, and it's irresponsible to let someone else tell you what He said: They might make a mistake.
If you haven't guessed, I'm not Catholic, so I'd reject infallibility of anyone currently alive out of hand.

[magneticgoop]

basically the only defense against raith's situation is the masses. surely a large group of people would note these changes. also the pope just like any man is not infallible

[CrazyAnglican]

Living your life in reality now? Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

There are, of course, people who have wasted their lives in a lot of ways. Mother Theresa and Mahatma Gandhi both did a lot to peacefully bring about change in their times and in the lives of others. If you think they wasted their lives merely because they believed in some form of God that's your choice. My choice is to respect and try to immulate lives well lived. A religious life is not, by definition, wasted anymore than an atheist life is.

There are plenty of atheists, who also live(d) well. Billy Joel seems to be doing okay. I'm quite keen on the works of Gene Roddenberry and Douglas Adams too.

[Anarchy Ninja]

I've said being denied eternal bliss simply because you did not believe in that particular religion doesn't sound much like a supreme benevolent being to me, more like an egotistical(sp) and jealous(sp) child.

So God is supposed to reward you for disobeying Him? If He lays down specific rules about coming to Him, and you ignore them, how is it egotistical or jealous to say that your disobedience has consequences?

So lets say you had a step child and they were well behaved bright all good things, however they dont believe you to be their father would you kick them out simply for that? No you wouldn't unless you were egotististical or jealous. Is it really so unreasonable to expect logic from a supreme being? If I was in such an exalted postion I would not prevent people from reaching enlightenment simply because they didn't believe in me or believed in something else.

[Neutrino]

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better, ultimatly, if the population remained ignorant of the existance of Christianity? More souls in total would go to heaven since no-one would know of the existance of Christianity and therefore could not be caught up in that tricky little rule.

What of the American Indians? Those met by Conquistadors would have been aware of the existance of Christianity but certainly would not have converted to it because the people who were bringing it to them were also bringing fire and death and such.

I don't think that Jenos said it was based on works. God is not limited to working through humanity. Abraham left his home and family based entirely on God speaking to him. He had no written Bible, no one that we know of who told him the truth, but He was justified by believing God. Same with Malchizadek. Prior to the year 1, and in places far from Isreal, people came to heaven the same way that Christians today do: Accepting the wrong they do as an offense to God, throwing themselves on His mercy, and believing that He will (or has, depending on you time) provide a substitute.

But how would the American Indians and such know to do that? They would have been thousands of kilometres and thousands of years away from the creation of Christianity, so there was no way they could have known about it.
They would have worshiped their own gods, ignorant of Christianity and therefore doomed to spend eternity in hell, until the Spanish came sailing over the horizon, gave them all various horrible diseases and they all died.

[Neutrino]

like mr. nate said God can speak to a person without humans for all we know he did tell 1 or more aztecs and they didn't share or they were killed or whatever.

Well why didn't they share or why were they killed? Over in Israel, god was practically doing his 'chosen people's' laundry, ("Ahh, God, we're in a bit of a pickle down here. A couple of other peoples are trying to wipe us out. It would be really great if you could find it in your almighty heart to place a divine Tactical Nuclear Missile here, here and here.") yet he couldn't be bothered to save the people he sent to spread the 'good word' in the Americas?

anyone who died before christ that was a jew went to a holding place called Sheol (aka paradise, bosom of abraham). after christ died he we4nt to hell for 3 days and after that went to Sheol (i cant remember exactly when) and told everyone there who he was and his message, those who believed went to heaven.

Well those people certainly got it easy then. Everyone else has to commit good deeds and be Christian for all (or at least the end part ) of their lives, while these people didn't have to commit any good deeds at all and only had to be Christian for about 30 seconds.

This 'God' fellow seems to have a lot of double standards

[Jenos Ridan]

after the fall of the roman empire, two key sects of christianity warred over who was right, (much like the present day middle east after the fall of the ottoman empire) one was the gnostics (you know, all those books that have been deemed false just because some random member of the clergy) didn't like what they said. the other sect, was the winning one (not sure of the name)
you have heard the saying: "History is written by the victors"
That is the basis of my argument.

I wouldn't say "warred" but the gnostic heresy has strong oriental and/or platonic influences. The physical flesh is evil, and salvation is through special "knowledge" (gnosis). It was rejected as a part of Christianity because, among other things, it rejected that Christ could have existed physically or died & still been sinless.

QFT

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better, ultimatly, if the population remained ignorant of the existance of Christianity? More souls in total would go to heaven since no-one would know of the existance of Christianity and therefore could not be caught up in that tricky little rule.

What of the American Indians? Those met by Conquistadors would have been aware of the existance of Christianity but certainly would not have converted to it because the people who were bringing it to them were also bringing fire and death and such.

I don't think that Jenos said it was based on works. God is not limited to working through humanity. Abraham left his home and family based entirely on God speaking to him. He had no written Bible, no one that we know of who told him the truth, but He was justified by believing God. Same with Malchizadek. Prior to the year 1, and in places far from Isreal, people came to heaven the same way that Christians today do: Accepting the wrong they do as an offense to God, throwing themselves on His mercy, and believing that He will (or has, depending on you time) provide a substitute.

I didn't say 'good or bad works', just that it was up to God. Neutrino seems to enjoy making long leaps, doesn't he? Mr. Nate, good job.

I've said being denied eternal bliss simply because you did not believe in that particular religion doesn't sound much like a supreme benevolent being to me, more like an egotistical(sp) and jealous(sp) child.

So God is supposed to reward you for disobeying Him? If He lays down specific rules about coming to Him, and you ignore them, how is it egotistical or jealous to say that your disobedience has consequences?

Hell, when I look on the issue, represents the ultimate expression of defiance by man. "Yeah God, I'm sure heaven is nice and all, but I'm too busy living any damned way I F****ing please, so there!"-Has got to be the message we send when we choose the Broad Path as opposed to the Narrow Path. It's a choice, if God never intended us to have Freedom of Will He would take all to Heaven whether they wanted to be their or not.


I'm noticing that Neutrino and AnarchyNinja both seem to expouse views which seem to value submission on part of the individual 'for the Greater Good'. This seems to be repeated here, "God should violate His Own set condition of Free Will to save all."

[Neutrino]

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better, ultimatly, if the population remained ignorant of the existance of Christianity? More souls in total would go to heaven since no-one would know of the existance of Christianity and therefore could not be caught up in that tricky little rule.

What of the American Indians? Those met by Conquistadors would have been aware of the existance of Christianity but certainly would not have converted to it because the people who were bringing it to them were also bringing fire and death and such.

I don't think that Jenos said it was based on works. God is not limited to working through humanity. Abraham left his home and family based entirely on God speaking to him. He had no written Bible, no one that we know of who told him the truth, but He was justified by believing God. Same with Malchizadek. Prior to the year 1, and in places far from Isreal, people came to heaven the same way that Christians today do: Accepting the wrong they do as an offense to God, throwing themselves on His mercy, and believing that He will (or has, depending on you time) provide a substitute.

I didn't say 'good or bad works', just that it was up to God. Neutrino seems to enjoy making long leaps, doesn't he? Mr. Nate, good job.

Well what other selection criteria is he going to use? How pissed off he is feeling that day? An obscure mathimatical formula? Pure randomness? Total distance walked by the person in question? Average number of pies consumed per day? Total number of flies swatted?

There is nearly an infinite number of possibilities, but good or bad works is clearly the most fair (he uses it for everyone else, why not those who died before 1?)

I'm noticing that Neutrino and AnarchyNinja both seem to expouse views which seem to value submission on part of the individual 'for the Greater Good'. This seems to be repeated here, "God should violate His Own set condition of Free Will to save all."

Please tell me if I have got this straight:

God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.

Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

[Skittles!]

Wait.. Nate, do you believe that Humans go straight to heaven after they die?

As of this line

people came to heaven the same way that Christians today do

Just wondering.

[flashleg8]

Please tell me if I have got this straight:

God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.

Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

Well said!

[Skittles!]

Series of questions I have for you Christians, that may or may not test your faith, and one of them I've already asked before, and only CA has answered, and that was via PM.

1. Why do you believe it's a 'gift' that God has given us, and not a bribe? Sure, in the Bible, it may say that it's a gift, but the Bible has been translated time and time again that it may not be correct. What if it was a bribe? It'll just be like "Hey, follow me, and I'll give you eternal life". Why would God give us a 'gift' anyway?

2. You have a family, and you have God. What would you choose? A family you love, would protect no matter what, and you know they exist. Then you have God, who says, via the Bible, that if you follow him, you will live for eternity in Heaven with Him, with no pain, with streets made of gold, and the like. If you choose God, then don't you think that's greedy and selfish, even if the Bible says it's bad to be greedy and selfish and you should be humble. Greedy and selfish to choose eternal life, which may not even exist, over a family that you love and nurture for your whole mortal life.

3. (I've previously asked Caleb this, but I want other views by other Christians). Why did only 3 men go to Heaven? Moses, Ezelkiel (SP), and Abraham (if I remember correctly). All from the Old Testament, all under Yahweh.
Let's see why those three would of been the only ones to go to Heaven.
Moses - He freed the Israelites from the Egyptians, and led the to the land of Milk and Honey. (Which, even after freeing them, they didn't even get to ) He imposed the will of Yahweh to kill livestock, people, and to plague Egypt. Why, when it was just to save the Israelites? Sure, they were the followers of Yahweh, but they also pillaged, killed and drove other cultures into the ground, just so Yahweh was the only 'god'.
Abraham - He was the forefather of the line of which Jesus was born. He almost killed his Son in the name of Yahweh, and it was all to test his faith in the god. He did everything his god told him to.
Ezelkiel (SP) - He didn't send rain to some country or other, because they worshipped different gods other than Yahweh. Why would that get him into Heaven? It's inhumane, and not even logical that someone can command the weather like that.
Why would these three get into Heaven whilst the diciples of Jesus of Nazareth didn't get into Heaven? They started the New Testament, they started many Churches of Christianity. And why wasn't Paul? He even went to Rome to preach Christianity. Why wasn't anyone from the New Testament allowed into Heaven, when God was meant to be loving and different from the way He was before when he was called Yahweh.

It'll be nice if you answer them, and if it stregthens your faith, then I'll respect you even more.

[MR. Nate]

If I was in such an exalted postion I would not prevent people from reaching enlightenment simply because they didn't believe in me or believed in something else.

That's very generous of you I'm sure, but not very just. God is Just, remember? If he sets forth rules on how to live, and they are so simple that a 4 year old child can do it then it's not really His fault if people refuse, is it? And because he is just, the people that obey him, and do what he asks are rewarded, and those who thumb their nose at his very fundamental request he is obliged to punish. To NOT punish those who ignored him would be merciful, but infinityly unjust to those who had obeyed.

But how would the American Indians and such know to do that? They would have been thousands of kilometres and thousands of years away from the creation of Christianity, so there was no way they could have known about it.

Perhaps not specifically, but Paul mentions that nature stands as a witness to God. By way of anecdote. There was a little girl in India, almost 200 years ago, who at a very young age rejected Hinduism. She said to herself that if God is God, then He wouldn't be like Siva, or Brahaman, or any other of these gods, And he would have to be the creator. So she started praying to her unknown creator to show himself to her. Several weeks later, a woman named Amy Charmichal showed up in her village and shared the gospel. The little Girl came to Christ. Jeremiah says "If you seek me, you will find me, IF you seek for me with all your heart" I think that promise is true for all people in all times. God will answer (sometimes supernaturally) those that seek after him.

Over in Israel, god was practically doing his 'chosen people's' laundry, ("Ahh, God, we're in a bit of a pickle down here. A couple of other peoples are trying to wipe us out. It would be really great if you could find it in your almighty heart to place a divine Tactical Nuclear Missile here, here and here.") yet he couldn't be bothered to save the people he sent to spread the 'good word' in the Americas?

It seems clear from studying the OT, and Jesus response to common attitudes in the gospels that the Israelites screwed up in almost every way. They were supposed to be a blessing to the rest of the world, an example of loving fellowship with the one true God, but their constant sin forced God to punish them, through invading armies. When they repented, He would demonstrate His faithfulness by driving out the enemies. Israels lack of faithfulness, however, would not have precluded God from reaching other people groups across the globe. He could have very easily provided those areas with opportunities to believe, we simply don't know.

anyone who died before christ that was a jew went to a holding place called Sheol (aka paradise, bosom of abraham). after christ died he we4nt to hell for 3 days and after that went to Sheol (i cant remember exactly when) and told everyone there who he was and his message, those who believed went to heaven.

Well those people certainly got it easy then. Everyone else has to commit good deeds and be Christian for all (or at least the end part ) of their lives, while these people didn't have to commit any good deeds at all and only had to be Christian for about 30 seconds.
This 'God' fellow seems to have a lot of double standards

I think magneticgoop is mistaken on this point. Jews were not granted automatic entrance into heaven. They had to have faith in God (demonstrated through the sacrificial system) and especially that at some time in the future, that Messiah would come and provide atonement. As for pre-crucifixion believers going to Sheol, there's scant evidence for that belief, and I don't buy the hell thing at all. And answer your 1st question, Skittles, I think that for believers, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Heaven, in the way it is traditionally thought of, with streets of gold, has not been created yet (Rev 21)

Please tell me if I have got this straight:
God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.
Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

You don't. God gave us free will, and asked that we believe in His existence and in His love for us, and respond accordingly. If we refuse to acknowledge the things he has done for us, than his infinite justice forces Him to punish us, because we rejected the substitute for said punishment.

1. Why do you believe it's a 'gift' that God has given us, and not a bribe? Sure, in the Bible, it may say that it's a gift, but the Bible has been translated time and time again that it may not be correct. What if it was a bribe? It'll just be like "Hey, follow me, and I'll give you eternal life". Why would God give us a 'gift' anyway?

Because He loves us. It's not a bribe, because there's nothing we can do in response of equal value. Because hec created us, there is nothing we can do that even approaches repayment.

2. You have a family, and you have God. What would you choose? A family you love, would protect no matter what, and you know they exist. Then you have God, who says, via the Bible, that if you follow him, you will live for eternity in Heaven with Him, with no pain, with streets made of gold, and the like. If you choose God, then don't you think that's greedy and selfish, even if the Bible says it's bad to be greedy and selfish and you should be humble. Greedy and selfish to choose eternal life, which may not even exist, over a family that you love and nurture for your whole mortal life.

Why is it an either or? I have my Faith and it's an important part of family life. To answer the greedy / selfish part, John Piper wrote a book, maybe 30 years ago called "Christian Hedonism" where he argues that God wants us to be happy, but true happiness only comes when we abandon what we want to follow Him. You can't say "I'm doing this because I want to be happy" you have to say "God, I sacrifice my desires to you, do what you you want with me" and he will provide you Happiness, if not in this life, then in the next. And God won't require you to abandon your family. Part of being a follower of Christ is acting in love, ESPECIALLY in family relationships. So if there is a broken relationship, it should not be the fault of the believer.

3. (I've previously asked Caleb this, but I want other views by other Christians). Why did only 3 men go to Heaven? Moses, Ezelkiel (SP), and Abraham (if I remember correctly). All from the Old Testament, all under Yahweh.
Let's see why those three would of been the only ones to go to Heaven.
Moses - He freed the Israelites from the Egyptians, and led the to the land of Milk and Honey. (Which, even after freeing them, they didn't even get to ) He imposed the will of Yahweh to kill livestock, people, and to plague Egypt. Why, when it was just to save the Israelites? Sure, they were the followers of Yahweh, but they also pillaged, killed and drove other cultures into the ground, just so Yahweh was the only 'god'.
Abraham - He was the forefather of the line of which Jesus was born. He almost killed his Son in the name of Yahweh, and it was all to test his faith in the god. He did everything his god told him to.
Ezelkiel (SP) - He didn't send rain to some country or other, because they worshiped different gods other than Yahweh. Why would that get him into Heaven? It's inhumane, and not even logical that someone can command the weather like that.
Why would these three get into Heaven whilst the diciples of Jesus of Nazareth didn't get into Heaven? They started the New Testament, they started many Churches of Christianity. And why wasn't Paul? He even went to Rome to preach Christianity. Why wasn't anyone from the New Testament allowed into Heaven, when God was meant to be loving and different from the way He was before when he was called Yahweh.

Why would the disciples not get into heaven? I have no doubt that that the 12 (minus Judas, plus Paul & Mattius) will be in heaven, nor do I doubt that everyone from the NT that obeyed God will be in heaven. I fail to understand why this is even a question.

[Backglass]

You forgot the third option:

1) Living your life in reality now;
2) Finding out at death that you wasted your life worshipping fantasies;
3) Finding out at death that your religious adherence during your short life on earth is rewarded with eternal bliss while those who refused to worship [Insert name of deity here] are condemned to an eternity engulfed in flames.

Well, don't forget Ra the sun god. He will be very angry when you die that you didn't make any human sacrifices. But we ALL know THAT god doesn't exist and is just silly superstition, invented by an ancient primitive people. Completely different from the religions of today.

There are, of course, people who have wasted their lives in a lot of ways. Mother Theresa and Mahatma Gandhi both did a lot to peacefully bring about change in their times and in the lives of others. If you think they wasted their lives merely because they believed in some form of God that's your choice. My choice is to respect and try to immulate lives well lived. A religious life is not, by definition, wasted anymore than an atheist life is.

I would never claim that Mother Theresa wasted her life simply because she is religious, BUT how much more could she have done with the time spent wasted on religious rituals in between? I could throw out names of non-religious people who had wonderful, world changing lives, but all it would prove is what I have been saying all along. Good people make change, regardless of religion (or lack thereof).

[Jehan]

Series of questions I have for you Christians, that may or may not test your faith, and one of them I've already asked before, and only CA has answered, and that was via PM.

1. Why do you believe it's a 'gift' that God has given us, and not a bribe? Sure, in the Bible, it may say that it's a gift, but the Bible has been translated time and time again that it may not be correct. What if it was a bribe? It'll just be like "Hey, follow me, and I'll give you eternal life". Why would God give us a 'gift' anyway?

2. You have a family, and you have God. What would you choose? A family you love, would protect no matter what, and you know they exist. Then you have God, who says, via the Bible, that if you follow him, you will live for eternity in Heaven with Him, with no pain, with streets made of gold, and the like. If you choose God, then don't you think that's greedy and selfish, even if the Bible says it's bad to be greedy and selfish and you should be humble. Greedy and selfish to choose eternal life, which may not even exist, over a family that you love and nurture for your whole mortal life.

3. (I've previously asked Caleb this, but I want other views by other Christians). Why did only 3 men go to Heaven? Moses, Ezelkiel (SP), and Abraham (if I remember correctly). All from the Old Testament, all under Yahweh.
Let's see why those three would of been the only ones to go to Heaven.
Moses - He freed the Israelites from the Egyptians, and led the to the land of Milk and Honey. (Which, even after freeing them, they didn't even get to ) He imposed the will of Yahweh to kill livestock, people, and to plague Egypt. Why, when it was just to save the Israelites? Sure, they were the followers of Yahweh, but they also pillaged, killed and drove other cultures into the ground, just so Yahweh was the only 'god'.
Abraham - He was the forefather of the line of which Jesus was born. He almost killed his Son in the name of Yahweh, and it was all to test his faith in the god. He did everything his god told him to.
Ezelkiel (SP) - He didn't send rain to some country or other, because they worshipped different gods other than Yahweh. Why would that get him into Heaven? It's inhumane, and not even logical that someone can command the weather like that.
Why would these three get into Heaven whilst the diciples of Jesus of Nazareth didn't get into Heaven? They started the New Testament, they started many Churches of Christianity. And why wasn't Paul? He even went to Rome to preach Christianity. Why wasn't anyone from the New Testament allowed into Heaven, when God was meant to be loving and different from the way He was before when he was called Yahweh.

It'll be nice if you answer them, and if it stregthens your faith, then I'll respect you even more.

those questions seem to suggest you know very little about the bible which you are questioning, there's nothing wrong with that, only to say that if you wish to ask faith challenging questions your going to have to do a bit of study. Many people in the Old Testiment will be in heaven, so i'm very confused about the third question, like so many people that i can name that its ridiculous, um for number two, the NT is full of stuff about loving everyone even your enemies, and about serving others, one of the ten things God decided was most important for living a blessed life was to honour ones parents, so once again the question is confusing me, and for number one, if heaven is a "bribe" then its a pretty dang good one, but i think i am once again confused, bribe suggests its a gift intended to entice us to do something which it is not out duty to do, so against what, would we be getting bribed to subvert?

[CrazyAnglican]

I would never claim that Mother Theresa wasted her life simply because she is religious, BUT how much more could she have done with the time spent wasted on religious rituals in between?

But how could these rituals and the Gospel message itself be a waste of time, if Mother Theresa was sustained and supported by her belief in them? It's, of course, possible that they did nothing to help her, but that doesn't seem to be the case given her choice to devote her life as a nun. If she was sustained in her work, by her faith, then it was integral and necessary. It's equally possible that without that faith she would have done less. Just because someone else is sustained by something else doesn’t nullify the benefits of a religious life.

I could throw out names of non-religious people who had wonderful, world changing lives, but all it would prove is what I have been saying all along. Good people make change, regardless of religion (or lack thereof).

To which I would agree completely. I didn't say anything about a religious life being superior. I said a religious life was not, by definition, a life wasted. In response to your quote, below, which I think is entirely wrong. There are probably many atheists who help many people. I don’t deny that. The question was whether a religious life was by definition a wasted one.

Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

By the way how do you think I’ll find this out? If there is no after life then I just cease to exist. No regrets.

[The1exile]

Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

By the way how do you think I’ll find this out? If there is no after life then I just cease to exist. No regrets.

Well, you might find out you worshipped the wrong fantasy, I guess.

[MR. Nate]

If Hinduism or Buddhism are true, you'll get another shot. The only think we've REALLY got to worry about is if Islam is true, but it's so fractured, that only a tiny percentage could have it right anyway.