Optimism Vs. Christianity

[Sluggo 0]

You are a liar. You are insulting people in this thread. You are refusing to answer my questions. Please go away.

[Mattnxtc 0]

You are a liar. You are insulting people in this thread. You are refusing to answer my questions. Please go away.

How have i refused? You ask stupid questions and im not gonna answer something nice and basic like why you have to believe in Jesus...the fact that you have to actually ask those is pretty hilarious..so when u actually have somethin of worth please feel free to post then

[Loismustdie 0]

2) I have read the Bible. I understand what it says. However, the Bible doesn't have a bibliography. I am unfamiliar with many of its sources. I don't know what's fact and what's story. In fact, there are many Christian sects that disagree on the entry requirements. What evidence do you have to show the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus (and only if you believe in Jesus) you will go to heaven? Please provide evidence.

The only evidence I can give you is biblical- if that won't be enough than we can't even get started. I don't quite get where you are going with this yet but I will be the monkey to your organ grinder for awhile. So, do me a favore and get specific and let's dance.

[Sluggo 0]

Well, most Protestants believe that the requirement for entry into heaven is belief in Jesus. Arminian Protestants believe that choosing to believe in Jesus will grant entry. Calvinist Protestants believe that "the saved" are already chosen by God. Correct?On the other hand, Catholics think that those who are baptized or sinless go straight to heaven (or sinners who get a plenary indulgence).I want to know how it's possible to be 100% sure of the Protestant version.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Well, most Protestants believe that the requirement for entry into heaven is belief in Jesus. Arminian Protestants believe that choosing to believe in Jesus will grant entry. Calvinist Protestants believe that "the saved" are already chosen by God. Correct?On the other hand, Catholics think that those who are baptized or sinless go straight to heaven (or sinners who get a plenary indulgence).I want to know how it's possible to be 100% sure of the Protestant version.

ur in way over ur head on this one sluggo. the simple answer is that both the Protestants and Calvinists are talking about the same group.A calvinist does believe that there is a group predestined to be saved. So what? A protestant believes that you can be saved by believing. So what we have is the same group being saved just lookin at it from a different direction. So no it is not different. Also to be saved is or nearly identical for both groupsAlso ur thing on the catholics must not be correct in wikipedia or wherever u got it. A sinless person does not need Jesus to enter heaven for he has not sinned. But unfortunately there has only been one person in the entire history of the world that was sinless and well he died for our sins. Catholics get thier beliefs from some books that have always been questioned in terms of whether they are valid or not.All that said they all believe in the same things. Salvation comes by believing in Jesus. The only way to heaven is to believe in Jesus. On the key points they do not disagree. On some of the less important stuff there is some degree of discussion based on the very limited amount of material we have but they for the most part are all considered christians b/c their core beliefs are the same. Before asking about what their core beliefs are I want you to do research on it.You will have groups emerge like the CoC or Mormons who may claim to be christian yet are questionable. You can do your own research on these too

[Sluggo 0]

ur in way over ur head on this one sluggo. the simple answer is that both the Protestants and Calvinists are talking about the same group.A calvinist does believe that there is a group predestined to be saved. So what? A protestant believes that you can be saved by believing. So what we have is the same group being saved just lookin at it from a different direction. So no it is not different. Also to be saved is or nearly identical for both groupsAlso ur thing on the catholics must not be correct in wikipedia or wherever u got it. A sinless person does not need Jesus to enter heaven for he has not sinned. But unfortunately there has only been one person in the entire history of the world that was sinless and well he died for our sins. Catholics get thier beliefs from some books that have always been questioned in terms of whether they are valid or not.All that said they all believe in the same things. Salvation comes by believing in Jesus. The only way to heaven is to believe in Jesus. On the key points they do not disagree. On some of the less important stuff there is some degree of discussion based on the very limited amount of material we have but they for the most part are all considered christians b/c their core beliefs are the same. Before asking about what their core beliefs are I want you to do research on it.You will have groups emerge like the CoC or Mormons who may claim to be christian yet are questionable. You can do your own research on these too

You are a liar, plain and simple.1) Yes, many Protestants are Calvinists. Protestants generally believe the same thing (accept Jesus) whether they are Arminian and believe you can choose or Calvinist and believe God already knows what you will choose. Where did I say otherwise?2) Yes, according to Catholicism, a sinless person does not need Jesus. Where did I say otherwise?3) I disagree that Jesus was the only sinless person. What do you think happens in miscarriages? The baby goes to hell?

[Mattnxtc 0]

You are a liar, plain and simple.1) Yes, many Protestants are Calvinists. Protestants generally believe the same thing (accept Jesus) whether they are Arminian and believe you can choose or Calvinist and believe God already knows what you will choose. Where did I say otherwise?2) Yes, according to Catholicism, a sinless person does not need Jesus. Where did I say otherwise?3) I disagree that Jesus was the only sinless person. What do you think happens in miscarriages? The baby goes to hell?

um wtf? U asked questions and i answered them with detailed explanations. I am sorry you are so defensive but what i said is correct. I merely extended on the thing u had question marks on...you do know what a question mark stands for right? You can disagree all you want doesnt mean ur right. Your question on the miscarriage is a deeper question then u realize and there are some varying degrees of thought on to what the reality of the situation is. The leading theory is that these children and handicapped people though not sinless will not be held accountable for thier actions since they cannot comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Whether it be at a certain age or maturity level they get time to understand the situation. This is biblical and u can do a search of the forum to find the existing discussion of it..But yes Jesus is the only Sinless Person to ever existyour problem seems to be that u found canned answers and so no discussion can actually happen b/c you dont have any substance beyond ur canned answers

[Sluggo 0]

1) What about a human life killed by the morning after pill the morning after it was conceived? How can a single cell sin in less than a day??2) What evidence do you have to support your belief that only people who believe in Jesus go to heaven?

[Loismustdie 0]

um wtf? U asked questions and i answered them with detailed explanations. I am sorry you are so defensive but what i said is correct. I merely extended on the thing u had question marks on...you do know what a question mark stands for right? You can disagree all you want doesnt mean ur right. Your question on the miscarriage is a deeper question then u realize and there are some varying degrees of thought on to what the reality of the situation is. The leading theory is that these children and handicapped people though not sinless will not be held accountable for thier actions since they cannot comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Whether it be at a certain age or maturity level they get time to understand the situation. This is biblical and u can do a search of the forum to find the existing discussion of it..But yes Jesus is the only Sinless Person to ever existyour problem seems to be that u found canned answers and so no discussion can actually happen b/c you dont have any substance beyond ur canned answers

Matt is doing fine- no need to interject anything, but I will say this. There are no examples in the bible of children being baptized, or being referred to as anything but children. Chuildren are sinless- it is impossible to commit sin/wrong if you have no idea that what you are doing is a sin or wrong. When this realization occurs is an individual thing. Some it could happen early, some later. I think the age I was when I realized that the things I was doing was definitely sin and that God was not happy with me, I was like 17. Sin is nothing more than the willfull disobeying of gods will. Kids don't do that- they just live, with no real recognizance of ramification, like kids should live.

[Sluggo 0]

As a former kid, I resent your potrayal. Kids may act more irrationally, but they recognize ramifacations, cause and effect.LMD, I agree that baptism is a stupid ritual that was made up.

[FOOSE1 0]

I envy your ability to be so adamant that you know all the answers because of what a book from 2,000 years ago tells you.

I never said I knew all the answers.But, I do believe 100% . . . it's called Faith.

[zzz 0]

I never said I knew all the answers.But, I do believe 100% . . . it's called Faith.

I believe 100% too... I believe we are all Gods and we control our own destinies here and after death. Im an optimist.

um wtf? U asked questions and i answered them with detailed explanations. I am sorry you are so defensive but what i said is correct. I merely extended on the thing u had question marks on...you do know what a question mark stands for right? You can disagree all you want doesnt mean ur right. Your question on the miscarriage is a deeper question then u realize and there are some varying degrees of thought on to what the reality of the situation is. The leading theory is that these children and handicapped people though not sinless will not be held accountable for thier actions since they cannot comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Whether it be at a certain age or maturity level they get time to understand the situation. This is biblical and u can do a search of the forum to find the existing discussion of it..But yes Jesus is the only Sinless Person to ever existyour problem seems to be that u found canned answers and so no discussion can actually happen b/c you dont have any substance beyond ur canned answers

That is not true. Jesus was not sinless. There is at least documented situation where he got angry. Anger is a "sin".

[DerekTah 0]

I believe 100% too... I believe we are all Gods and we control our own destinies here and after death. Im an optimist.That is not true. Jesus was not sinless. There is at least documented situation where he got angry. Anger is a "sin".

Anger in and of itself is not "sin", maybe in your personal opinion its sin, but as far as the Bible is concerned there is no passage where it says "you shall not be angry".

[checkymcfold 0]

Matt is doing fine- no need to interject anything, but I will say this. There are no examples in the bible of children being baptized, or being referred to as anything but children. Chuildren are sinless- it is impossible to commit sin/wrong if you have no idea that what you are doing is a sin or wrong. When this realization occurs is an individual thing. Some it could happen early, some later. I think the age I was when I realized that the things I was doing was definitely sin and that God was not happy with me, I was like 17. Sin is nothing more than the willfull disobeying of gods will. Kids don't do that- they just live, with no real recognizance of ramification, like kids should live.

lois, this is an interesting point, and one i quite like myself, but one that seems to fly in the face of the christian understanding of original sin.isn't the idea of original sin that we are all born into sin by our very nature as non-divine beings? someone like kierkegaard would have a lot to say about this (lots of books, in fact ) and most definitely argue that the idea of original sin is absolutely foundational to a christian understanding of both ethics and one's existential relation to god. the point, for kierkegaard at least, is that the notion of original sin is the only one that could possibly get at the absolute inferiority that one must acknowledge during each and every interaction with god. i suppose that one could say that sin just means non-divinity, but it would seem to me that sin, original and otherwise, would encompass much more for most christians. can you tell me what you think sin is in more specific terms?and zzz, i think you have an odd definition of optimism. i think that a more functional criticism of an afterlife along the lines of optimism vs pessimism might be something like the nietzschean formulation, which goes along the lines of "if one believes in a perfect afterlife, it causes him/her to detatch all things of THIS world and THIS life from any true sense of value and worth. if we're always waiting for the better things to come, we can't possibly do true good during the time that we have on this earth." and hence, for nietzsche at least, christianity is pessimistic not in that its afterlife is delineated in some thorough manner, but rather in that it exists at all and has some value placed upon it that is greater than the earth in which we live currently. to be honest, i find the nietzschean understanding of christianity a bit hyperbolic, but i think the thrust of his criticism has its heart in the right place: he wants us to live our lives here to the best of our ability and fully utilize our capabilities for good (a good we, and not a god, define) in this world so long as we're here. whatever happens after that happens, but it's dangerous to wait for whatever comes after death while we're still living before it.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I can always count on sluggo to make a stupid post Baptism should have more meaning then what we give it. Baptism is merely a symbolic way of showing the washing away of sin that comes with beleiving in Jesus. That is why most churchs prefer to do it when the person is older and has truly accepted Christ. Sure some do it when their children and the meaning is still the same just not always done on a believerplenty of christians will die unbaptized and that will be alright..It will not change their heartsAs for the children yes there are no direct passages that say babies go to heaven but we do have several passages that allude to the fact that there is a plan for themAs for my evidence that only believers in Jesus go to heaven...i give u the entire NT...good luck and please try to actually make a decent post and not a stupid one

[checkymcfold 0]

I can always count on sluggo to make a stupid post Baptism should have more meaning then what we give it. Baptism is merely a symbolic way of showing the washing away of sin that comes with beleiving in Jesus. That is why most churchs prefer to do it when the person is older and has truly accepted Christ. Sure some do it when their children and the meaning is still the same just not always done on a believerplenty of christians will die unbaptized and that will be alright..It will not change their heartsAs for the children yes there are no direct passages that say babies go to heaven but we do have several passages that allude to the fact that there is a plan for themAs for my evidence that only believers in Jesus go to heaven...i give u the entire NT...good luck and please try to actually make a decent post and not a stupid one

i know you're not talking to me, but doesn't it quite go against your beliefs to be so confrontational? didn't christ, after all, turn the other cheek when confronted by his enemies?i'm neither christian nor sanctimonious, but i do hate it when people are assholes, no matter their motivation. religion is already a touchy subject from both "sides" (if they even exist)--there's no need to call people stupid when talking about it.

[Loismustdie 0]

lois, this is an interesting point, and one i quite like myself, but one that seems to fly in the face of the christian understanding of original sin.isn't the idea of original sin that we are all born into sin by our very nature as non-divine beings? someone like kierkegaard would have a lot to say about this (lots of books, in fact ) and most definitely argue that the idea of original sin is absolutely foundational to a christian understanding of both ethics and one's existential relation to god. the point, for kierkegaard at least, is that the notion of original sin is the only one that could possibly get at the absolute inferiority that one must acknowledge during each and every interaction with god. i suppose that one could say that sin just means non-divinity, but it would seem to me that sin, original and otherwise, would encompass much more for most christians. can you tell me what you think sin is in more specific terms?and zzz, i think you have an odd definition of optimism. i think that a more functional criticism of an afterlife along the lines of optimism vs pessimism might be something like the nietzschean formulation, which goes along the lines of "if one believes in a perfect afterlife, it causes him/her to detatch all things of THIS world and THIS life from any true sense of value and worth. if we're always waiting for the better things to come, we can't possibly do true good during the time that we have on this earth." and hence, for nietzsche at least, christianity is pessimistic not in that its afterlife is delineated in some thorough manner, but rather in that it exists at all and has some value placed upon it that is greater than the earth in which we live currently. to be honest, i find the nietzschean understanding of christianity a bit hyperbolic, but i think the thrust of his criticism has its heart in the right place: he wants us to live our lives here to the best of our ability and fully utilize our capabilities for good (a good we, and not a god, define) in this world so long as we're here. whatever happens after that happens, but it's dangerous to wait for whatever comes after death while we're still living before it.

The mainstream christian understanding of original sin is scriptually wrong. To answer the question you just have to establish what sin is- sin is the willfull disobedience of God. As a matter of fact, let's say my child were to fire a gun and kill a friend. Mind you, my daughter is 5. Who would be prosecuted? Me. Deservedly so. Generally, the "sins" of my daugher are a result of my neglect, which makes it who's sin? Mine. And it does fly in the face of mainstream but I most definitely do not endorse mainstream- so, thank you for the compliment.

i know you're not talking to me, but doesn't it quite go against your beliefs to be so confrontational? didn't christ, after all, turn the other cheek when confronted by his enemies?i'm neither christian nor sanctimonious, but i do hate it when people are assholes, no matter their motivation. religion is already a touchy subject from both "sides" (if they even exist)--there's no need to call people stupid when talking about it.

I like Sluggo, but get the distinct feeling that he is an organ grinder and I am a monkey at times- I can understand Matt's frustration.

[Mattnxtc 0]

i know you're not talking to me, but doesn't it quite go against your beliefs to be so confrontational? didn't christ, after all, turn the other cheek when confronted by his enemies?i'm neither christian nor sanctimonious, but i do hate it when people are assholes, no matter their motivation. religion is already a touchy subject from both "sides" (if they even exist)--there's no need to call people stupid when talking about it.

I grant that you havent read the NT so I will clear some of this up. There is plenty of evidence for being confrontational with somebody like sluggo who isnt out to even debate. He is just getting canned answers and trying to cause problems. There are are a bunch of other posters on here who i definately disagree with but that when we talk there is an actual debate going on. Sluggo isnt here for that and I will call him out on that evreytime. He is lookin to cause fights not debate and so i will continually call him out on that. If he was really here to learn and understand that would be one thing...but hes not

[zzz 0]

Anger in and of itself is not "sin", maybe in your personal opinion its sin, but as far as the Bible is concerned there is no passage where it says "you shall not be angry".

For Christians, anger is one of the seven deadly sins. Since Jesus got angry, he was not perfect.

[Mattnxtc 0]

For Christians, anger is one of the seven deadly sins. Since Jesus got angry, he was not perfect.

wrong

[Sluggo 0]

I believe anger is only a sin if it's unjustified.

[speedz99 145]

Mattnxtc,1) Why are you insulting other people?2) What evidence do you have to support your belief that only people who believe in Jesus go to heaven?

2) The Bible. His proof is The Bible. He believes that the ultimate truth about our world can be found in that book...and thinks that the majority of people on earth that disagree with him are wrong (and amusingly enough, ignorant).

[zzz 0]

lois, this is an interesting point, and one i quite like myself, but one that seems to fly in the face of the christian understanding of original sin.isn't the idea of original sin that we are all born into sin by our very nature as non-divine beings? someone like kierkegaard would have a lot to say about this (lots of books, in fact ) and most definitely argue that the idea of original sin is absolutely foundational to a christian understanding of both ethics and one's existential relation to god. the point, for kierkegaard at least, is that the notion of original sin is the only one that could possibly get at the absolute inferiority that one must acknowledge during each and every interaction with god. i suppose that one could say that sin just means non-divinity, but it would seem to me that sin, original and otherwise, would encompass much more for most christians. can you tell me what you think sin is in more specific terms?and zzz, i think you have an odd definition of optimism. i think that a more functional criticism of an afterlife along the lines of optimism vs pessimism might be something like the nietzschean formulation, which goes along the lines of "if one believes in a perfect afterlife, it causes him/her to detatch all things of THIS world and THIS life from any true sense of value and worth. if we're always waiting for the better things to come, we can't possibly do true good during the time that we have on this earth." and hence, for nietzsche at least, christianity is pessimistic not in that its afterlife is delineated in some thorough manner, but rather in that it exists at all and has some value placed upon it that is greater than the earth in which we live currently. to be honest, i find the nietzschean understanding of christianity a bit hyperbolic, but i think the thrust of his criticism has its heart in the right place: he wants us to live our lives here to the best of our ability and fully utilize our capabilities for good (a good we, and not a god, define) in this world so long as we're here. whatever happens after that happens, but it's dangerous to wait for whatever comes after death while we're still living before it.

I think optimists love living here because they see the good in every situation. Optimists believe that believing in a judgemental God is a good thing, but believing in a more loving non-judgemental God is a better thing.

wrong

Care to elaborate?

[checkymcfold 0]

I grant that you havent read the NT so I will clear some of this up. There is plenty of evidence for being confrontational with somebody like sluggo who isnt out to even debate. He is just getting canned answers and trying to cause problems. There are are a bunch of other posters on here who i definately disagree with but that when we talk there is an actual debate going on. Sluggo isnt here for that and I will call him out on that evreytime. He is lookin to cause fights not debate and so i will continually call him out on that. If he was really here to learn and understand that would be one thing...but hes not

first, i have. i studied religious studies extensively, including in grad school which i'm finishing up now. i know plenty about the bible.second, i'm not quite sure what this "evidence" is. there are numerous biblical stories in which characters do act confrontationally, but often the conclusion of the story seems to imply that such confrontation was not the proper course of action. the theme of forgiveness is significantly more prevalent throughout the new testament, though i'll give you that that's less the case in the hebrew bible/OT, which is often more opaque and difficult to glean distinct lessons from if one should wish to do so.regardless, it would seem that "fighting back" or whatever is entirely counterproductive and lowers the level of debate. it ain't all your fault, though--i don't mean to imply that.

I think optimists love living here because they see the good in every situation. Optimists believe that believing in a judgemental God is a good thing, but believing in a more loving non-judgemental God is a better thing.

being judgmental is not always a bad thing. you would be a bad parent, for instance, if you let your kids do whatever they wanted to all the time. oftentimes christians will liken the relationship between god and humankind to that of a parent and a child, and it seems to me that such comparisons are helpful and can show how a christian or jewish god's anger might benefit humanity in the long run.

[zzz 0]

first, i have. i studied religious studies extensively, including in grad school which i'm finishing up now. i know plenty about the bible.second, i'm not quite sure what this "evidence" is. there are numerous biblical stories in which characters do act confrontationally, but often the conclusion of the story seems to imply that such confrontation was not the proper course of action. the theme of forgiveness is significantly more prevalent throughout the new testament, though i'll give you that that's less the case in the hebrew bible/OT, which is often more opaque and difficult to glean distinct lessons from if one should wish to do so.regardless, it would seem that "fighting back" or whatever is entirely counterproductive and lowers the level of debate. it ain't all your fault, though--i don't mean to imply that.being judgmental is not always a bad thing. you would be a bad parent, for instance, if you let your kids do whatever they wanted to all the time. oftentimes christians will liken the relationship between god and humankind to that of a parent and a child, and it seems to me that such comparisons are helpful and can show how a christian or jewish god's anger might benefit humanity in the long run.

"Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools.” - Albert Einstein