Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

There mere notoin that there has to be a specific amount of goodness one has to achieve in order to get to heaven isn't what I believe. God decides whether or not you've done enough good, there isn't a set number.

I never meant that God only LOVES people who do good, I meant that I believe God only brings people who do good to heaven. I certainly agree with you that God loves everyone.

Isn't that not allowed? Anyways, my friend was baptized both Baptist and Catholic. She doesn't want to be religious, but when her parents split up her dad started making her go to church and ccd and have a confirmation.

Oh... and
TOTPD!!!!

_________________

In theory, one is not supposed to be baptized multiple times. However, some protestant churches (Baptists in particular) tend not to accept the baptism of other churches and require them to be rebaptized. As a Lutheran, I believe that any baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is valid. It's other people who get wrapped up in arguments.

Here's something I find interesting. I was baptized as a Baptist, and was accepted by the Lutheran church. However, some of my Baptist friends tell me that their church would not accept a Lutheran as properly baptized. Isn't that a kick in the teeth?

_________________

It's an authority thing. If you believe that baptism must be performed by someone who's been authorized by God to do it, then you won't accept anything else. Example...

Acts 19:

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.


So these guys acted in the name of Jesus, but didn't get the same results. Why? I'd submit it's because they weren't given the authority to act in the name of Christ.

Why take it as a personal affront if the religion you convert to requires you to be baptized again? They're not slamming you as a person.

Something to think about.

_________________

Maybe they wouldn't if I was converting back to Baptist, but they are as long as I remain Lutheran. In essence, they are claiming that we Lutherans are not authorized to act in God's name, and that I find offensive.

But part of that I attribute to the fact that Baptists don't really have a good theology of Baptism (isn't that ironic?). They have it as a PRACTICE, but they do not fully understand it as a Sacrament of God's grace.

But I will offer this: Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--not in the name of this church or that. Christians who truly followed Christ would not discount another Christian's baptism just because it was done in a different church.

_________________

So you can make this statement about Baptists and it's okay, but if they claim your baptism was invalid.... you get all huffy and say they're offensive?



And in a lot of churches baptism is done in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm LDS, and that's how we baptize. There's no mention of the church's name during the ceremony. I'd also submit that during Christ's time there was only one church, with one set of teachings. Today's world is very different.

Also, do you believe that God is constant? Because to me, if He is, it's impossible for every Christian denomination to be correct. There's too much diversity.

_________________

I wasn't getting "huffy" as you claim. I was stating facts and pointing out that I find this particular fact offensive. And it is true that Baptists don't have a good theology of the Sacraments. Just ask one sometime what he thinks baptism is. Even one of their own scholars, a fellow by the name of George R. Beasley-Murray, even wrote a book on the subject, pointing out that Baptists don't have a good theology of the Sacrament.

Actually, your argument about God being constant is fallacious. If you follow it to its conclusion, then we should all be practicing Judaism. But here's the problem: the Bible makes very clear that we are saved by the cross of Jesus Christ, his blood shed on Calvary, not by membership in a particular church. If it did, then I'd place my bet on Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the only church tradition that can fully trace its roots back to the early church in Jerusalem.

_________________

Wouldn't that be ideal? Lack of variety means lack of arguements

In all seriousness though, if his arguement is fallacious, then you're saying that God isn't constant? That he's just manifested differently throughout different religions/denominations/schisms/sects? That's what I believe anyways. But if you do beleive that God is constant, his arguement is perfectly valid.

_________________

Not necessarily. God, in his essense, is constant. His nature does not change. But part of his nature is to show mercy. In fact, it is Christ (who is both God and Man) who is the channel through which that mercy flows. Therefore, anyone who comes to him is indeed shown mercy.

Here's an analogy: three men are walking in a desert. They find a small river. One man takes a cup and dips it in the river and drinks from it. The second cups his hands together and scoops up water to drink. The third man simply buries his face in the water and drinks directly. Which man has his thirst quenched and which doesn't? The river did not change; it was only that each man quenched his thirst in his own unique way. The same it is with all who come to the Living Water of Christ. They will not go away thirsty, but Christ ministers to them according to their own needs.

Actually, I'd be interested to know why lahimatoa even felt it necessary to raise this particular question.

_________________

I too was raised Jewish, but my belief is that even if there was a entity so omnipotent such as God, it would be beyond human comprehension and definition. It's for that reason I don't pray to or worship a particular deity. It honestly wouldn't matter to me whether or not any religion was correct or not. However, I find religions very interesting and I enjoy studying them.

Okay, I think my use of the word "constant" was a bad idea, because you're right, if things never changed, we'd all still practice the law of Moses. I'm more trying to communicate the idea that there is one God with a doctrine He wants us to follow.

As far as the "Therefore, anyone who comes to him is indeed shown mercy." idea goes... I've had that discussion more times than you know. Yes, He does show mercy to all who seek Him. And, once you find Him, you ask him what He wants you to do, He will. That's all I have to say about that.

And Mikes!, God is our father. He loves us and wants us to return to live with Him again. He knows you better than you know yourself and can be known in a personal sense.

_________________

That's a very good analogy, except you've lost my point. I meant that all reglions and sects of relgions are essentially the same, they just express their love for God in different ways. Polytheistic gods could just be different manifestetions of our one God (or our one God could be the culmintation of all of the polytheistic gods.) To me, believe that Jesus was our savior doesn't matter in the long run because we're essentially praying to the same God(s) in different ways. In order to put this into perspective in your story, in order for thirst to be quenched, you don't really need to drink from the river of Christ. There are other rivers and oases. You could drink from one of those and be quenched as much. Or you can dig a well and find an underground river where the water would be even cooler. Or you could bring a water bottle with you! There are so many ways to believe in God that just one can't be correct: they all have to be. (But then again, there is no "correctness" in theology. There is only faith. I only mean that different faiths essentailly lead to the same fundamental faith. If that makes any sense...)

_________________

That's a very tempting idea. However, God made it very clear from the beginning, "You shall worship no other gods." If all the other "gods" are simply manifestations of him, then there would have been no need for this command. So, no, I do not believe that all religions are basically the same.

And Jesus himself made this clear to his disciples the night before his death, as well, when he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes unto God except by me."

To continue my analogy, all other gods are at best mirages in the desert; they deceive us and lead us away from the true God. There is only one true river of living water. If any man be thirsty, he must come to this river, or die of dehydration.

_________________

That is a valid point. I actually don't have a response to this other than, how do you know that God directly wrote the commandments?

Are you saying that Jesus believed that no one who didn't believe in him being the savior could go to heaven? Do YOU believe that?

_________________

I do believe that, unequivocally, and without argument. I know this is offensive to many, but it's true.

_________________

Offensive isn't the right word. I'd use egotistical. If you truly believe that only people who believe what you believe are going to heaven, then you're also intolerant. If someone is a devout Muslim, and doesn't actively disregard Christ being the savior, is he going to hell? That's one of the problems with religion. "If you don't believe what I believe, you're going to hell!!!11!!" That's a pointless arguement because if the other person doesn't believe what you believe, they won't be afraid of your hell! Why would they?

_________________

Apparently he did believe that. John 3:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 4:12. I know this is a tough thing for outsiders to understand, but if we Christians are true to the teachings of our God, we can only mourn those who do not know Christ.

As for the commandment, Jesus himself seemed to believe it was from God, and despite all the modern scholarship on the topic, I still see no reason to think otherwise.

Our proclamation of Christ is not intended to be a "We're right and you're wrong" sort of self-righteousness. When we proclaim Christ alone, we are simply being true to the way in which God has revealed himself to us. God has told us, "There is no other way." This being the case, we can only mourn for those who do not believe. To us it is of immense sadness that God has done so much for us, even dying for us, and yet people still turn their backs on him and break his heart.

Now here's a question for you: is there a need in you to convince us we are wrong? You might want to explore that.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think I've ever used the word "hell" on any of these threads, except to quote or respond to someone else who used the word.

_________________

I wasn't talking about you, Didymus. It was more of a generalized statement. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You could be completely correct. I'm just saying that a God who dismisses all who don't believe in him, in my opinion, shouldn't exist. God should bring to heaven those who do good for others and therefore do good for God, not only those who are Chrisian.

_________________

I would be inclined to agree with you in that regard, except that God time and time again stresses the importance of wanting people to have an intimate relationship with him, and not merely to rely on doing good works.

There is a story in the Bible about two sisters named Mary and Martha. One day Jesus stopped by their house for a visit. Martha spent all her time in the kitchen trying to put together a 7 course meal. But Mary sat in the living room with Jesus and had a conversation with him. Martha, getting all stressed out about her sister spending time with Jesus and not helping her in the kitchen, goes to Jesus and complains. "My good-for-nothing sister is supposed to be helping me in the kitchen." Jesus responds, "Martha, Martha. Don't get so stressed out. Mary's in here spending time with me, and that's what's really important to me." (I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that is the gist of the conversation). Jesus did not tell Martha that she was wrong, only that a 7-course meal was not what he wanted. He preferred their company to their work.

But here's a problem, too. Considering that God is the creator, do we really have the right to tell him how he should run his operation? As one of my professors once put it (imagine a 90-year old Austrailian man with a thick accent saying this), "Who are we to tell the Lord God how to do his Lord-Godding?" God has revealed to us Christians that he wants us to recognize our need for his mercy, no matter how good we think we are, or for that matter, how bad we think we are. He also wants us to rely on that mercy and accept his free gift of eternal life without putting our own conditions on it. And, yes, he also wants us to share that mercy with others.

That is part of the reason I do not use "hell" as a threat against people. I prefer to point to God's mercy. However, as Lewis pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to emphasize the diagnosis before people can accept the cure. I offer what I believe to be a cure. Unfortunately, the diagnosis is still there, and that is that we still live in a world separated and alienated from God, where the vast majority of people still rebel against him, even when they put on various masks of piety. They chase shadows and mirages, thinking them to be real, when in reality, they lead to death. In other words, God still holds his unconditional love out there for anyone and everyone, but people can't see it and therefore do not take it. God has already bridged the gap between himself and us through the sacrifice of his own son, but people still refuse to see the bridge, they also refuse to see the wide gulf in front of them. Me? I point to the bridge and hope at least some move in that general direction.

I can appreciate your concerns, though. I've wrestled with God about this very issue numerous times in my life. I, too, would prefer that God operated the way you described. But I'm not convinced that would solve all the problems of the issue. I keep coming back to this part where God desires not just good works from us, but true intimacy. He doesn't want us to be his buddy; he wants us to be as intimate with him--more intimate, in fact--than a wife with her husband. This, I think, is why this whole thing is so scary. Perhaps people fear that kind of intimacy with God. But, alas, it is not God who rejects people, but people who reject God. In the end, God, broken-hearted at their rejection, simply lets them go.

_________________

Oh I totally agree with you on most of your points. If God wants us to have Him be an important part of our lives we should. I'm just saying that being close to God doesn't necessarily mean being affiliated with Christianity. I think that no matter what way people choose to accept God into their lives, as long as they do in some way, they'll recieve a lot of mercy. By no means am I saying that agnostics or atheists don't have the mercy of God, but I think it would be easier for God to forgive the sins of people who atleast acknowledge Him other than deny Him. By the way, it'd be better of to stick a "maybe" somewhere in each and every of those sentences there

_________________

Maybe I could use a "maybe," but from my perspective, I'm not sure why I should. I mean, after all, if I say I am convinced of something, then why should I imply I'm not completely so? To me, the word "maybe" has a tinge of uncertainty in it, and, at least in my mind, I do not see any uncertainty in this. I've already struggled through much in my relatively short life, and through it all, God has shown his presence in exactly the ways I've described, that is, as a God who suffered with me, who knows my pain more intimately than I know it myself sometimes. I have seen the God who weeps in the garden, facing his own fear and doubt. I have seen the God who hung on a tree, seemingly abandoned by his father to die. When I engage in intellectual debate (as I feel I have done on this and other threads), I can see the uncertainty in the arguments posted. But when I see the humility and suffering of my God, there is not much room for uncertainty. I could go into more detail, but there are few on this thread who I think would truly understand (Seethroo, Buz, and StrongCanada are the only ones with whom I've shared this story).

Well, I know that very little of this will make much logical sense, but as in all relationships, there comes a point when logic is secondary to the cries of the heart. I mean, whoever fell in love with someone based on logical analysis? But there it is. It is why I feel certain of my faith, not of myself in believing it, but of my God as its subject. This is something that goed beyond mere theology.

To sum it up, not too long ago, I was visiting one of my residents, an 80 year old black woman from Mississippi who loves to sing. I went to see her recently, and she got very quiet. She said to me, "I'ma tell you something you ain't gonna believe. I done heard the Lord in my trouble." But she's wrong about this: I do believe her. I believe her because I feel the same way.

_________________

Sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant me. I meant to say "it'd be better of me to stick a maybe..." I didn't mean you, because you clearly believe strongly, and I respect that. Having this much conviction though can help and hurt you. That's why I like to use maybes. Because I'll never be dissapointed. I like the topic of religion because I can form my own ideas going either way. I can make respectable arguements for theism and for atheism. The only problem is, what the heck do I believe? My belief system is constantly changing. One month, I'm saying "there has to be a God!" The next, I'm saying "there can't be a God!" and the next I'm saying "holy crap! Is there a God or isn't there!" It confuses the heck out of me. Right now I'm theist, but who knows. Tomorrow I might decide that I don't want to be. To some people that might seem radiculous. I get "you have to have a firm belief in religion," but for me it just works. I don't really know how.

_________________

Don't worry about it Evin. You are on a journey, just like the rest of us. And it is my hope that the Lord will guide you on the right path. And I'm not saying that as some sort of sneaky way of saying "down MY path," because even if you did end up believing as I do, your path would still be different. And I really do appreciate your input on these threads.

_________________

But what if I don't end up going on the path that the Bible says I should go on? What if God leads me down another path?

_________________

I doubt that he would. But even so, you never know where a road might lead until you get to the end.

_________________

That logic is often called Pascal's Wager, and I think that it illustrates what is, in my opinion, one of the fundamental problems of Christianity. According to Christianity, as Didymus said:


That's why I follow Judaism. According to Judaism, everyone can have a share in the afterlife regardless of their faith, as long as they follow the Seven Noahide Laws, of universal morality. This is the exact opposite of Christianity, which states that only those who belief in Jesus can be saved and denied eternal damnation. To me, there is something wrong in a religion when it keeps its follows by threatening them with an eternal hell if they are inquisitive or choose to follow a different path. Not that Judaism approves of apostasy- however, it does not seek to actively convert members of other faiths in order to "save" them.

That is a good point, but you failed to mention that that is the fundamental problem with most religions. It isn't specifically bound to Christianity, nor is Judaism completely void of it. You know, that whole "first commandment" thing .

A religion can't really work if you say "we think our ideas are right, but we're not really all that sure..." Judaism, like Christianity, promises 100% certainty, although neither can actually promise anything. If you ask an observant Jew or an observant Christian if they think that there's any incorrect information being given to them at synagogue or church, they'll tell you "no." In order to have faith in your own religion, you can't really doubt it. That's the problem I have with religion. Although, you're point is certainly valid. No one from my temple that I know forcibly try to convert people to Judaism, nor have any Jews in history. Unlike Christianity *cough* the Crusades *cough*

_________________

Actually, Everybody, I've never heard of these so-called Noahide Laws of Universal Morality, and I'm fairly well versed in my study of the Tanak. However, you might want to refresh your memory on the Mosaic Covenant, specifically, "Anoki Adonai Eloheyika asher hozetika meerets Mizraim mibeth abodim: Lo yihyeh-lka elohim acherim al panaya." You also might want to consider, "Shamai Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai ehad."

Also, who ever said that the church threatens people with hell? The followers of Christ know that they don't need another path, and also know that hell has no power over them. What's more, hell is not a threat; if it is real (and we believe it is), then speaking of it is no more a threat than if I told you, "Don't drive on that road, the bridge is out."

Evin is right on this point. In order for a religion to function at all, those who profess it must believe it. Even if your claim is, "All religions are equally true," then you can only say that in the form of a creed or statement of faith.

P.S., I hate to bring up history again, but two things:

1. Had the Turks not invaded Jerusalem, there never would have been any such thing as Crusades (not that this justifies all the Crusades; I am only pointing out that they started out with the Western church defending Eastern Christians from Turkish invaders).

2. Not all Christians agree with the Crusades. I am Lutheran, which means that much of what the Roman Catholic Church did in the Medieval period I do not agree with.

As for whether there were Jewish people who tried to win converts by inappropriate means, I could always mention those who crucified Jesus, stoned St. Stephen, and attempted to kill St. Paul on numerous occasions, but I'd really rather not turn this into a "whose religion is more violent" thread.

_________________

I know that a small crowd of Jews killed Jesus, but the Jewish religion at the time didn't approve of their behavior. The Roman Catholic Church completely allowed the Crusades to take place.

[sarcasm]Yeah?!?! Well! My religion is the violentest!!!!111!!1![/sarcasm]

_________________

Actually, the first commandment and the Shema only apply to Jews. The Jews are supposed to be the chosen people, and only they have to follow the Jewish God. For other religions, the only commandments are the seven Noahide laws. In fact, in the messianic era, there is no belief that everyone will be Jewish- everyone will be monotheistic, but presumably Christians and Muslims will still exist.

These are the seven Noahide Laws:

1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not worship false gods.
4. Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, sodomy, male homosexual sex acts and adultery)
5. Do not eat anything of the body of an unslaughtered animal (This is a humanitarian command; in many regions the practice was to cut meat from animals still alive, despite the suffering caused. See Kosher).
6. Do not blaspheme.
7. Set up righteous and honest courts and apply fair justice in judging offenders.

For a full entry on the laws and their history, see Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws

Also, the Jews did not kill Jesus- today, it is widely accepted that the Romans did, and the Jews were only a sort of scapegoat. I've been told that at the time, it wasn't a good idea to blame the Romans, them being the rules of Palestine and all. That's also the opinion of the Church as of now.

Actually, I tend to favor what the sacred texts themselves say. According to the Bible, it was the High Priest Caiaphas who ordered Jesus' execution. Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the proceedings. Although it was actually the Roman soldiers who committed the execution, it was because the Jewish mobs were rioting and demanding Jesus' crucifixion. What's more, throughout the historical records of that time, there was excessive anamosity toward the Christians from various synagogues throughout the ancient world. So, while it may not be the popular opinion of today, the sacred texts themselves do implicate the Jewish leaders.

But I will say this: blaming modern Jews for Jesus' crucifixion is basically the same as blaming modern Germans for the holocaust, or blaming us modern Christians for the Crusades. And what's more, it was by God's design anyway. Jesus said time and time again that it was NECESSARY for him to die at the hands of temple authorities. He planned it that way. Why? Because only then would his life be an acceptible sacrifice. Only then could he truly be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And what's more, he forgave the very people who were killing him. And if God can forgive for this personal assault, then who am I to hold history against them?

I did happen to notice that one Noahide Law, #4: do not worship false gods. Here's the question again, if there is only One creator of heaven and earth, then aren't all other gods false?

_________________