Is Ghandi in Hell?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You address some important issues that deserve a careful and thoughtful response. Allow me to touch on two:

Well, thank you for addressing it.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Firstly, would I continue to espouse the Christian faith if the Bible were proven to be false? Absolutely not! If the Bible were proven to be a fraud, then the Jesus of the Bible would also be fraudulent. I see no reason to live my life according to the presumed teachings of a fairytale.

But why ? So many devout Christians say that.

How do you know Jesus actually claimed he was the son of God ? How do you know that isn't just a corrupted version of his original teachings, brought on by propagandists in Rome ?

Aren't his teachings so great, that they are valid regardless of who taught them ?

"Love thy neighbor"...are you saying that this concept can only be valid if a deity spoke them ? How rediculous.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Secondly, what is Christianity truly about? Before I respond, let me point out: Your insistence that the Bible is fiction, is at best subjective. In fact, like all conservative evangelical Christians, I believe the Bible teaches historically accurate truth. Consequently, I also believe what the Bible has to say about those who are true disciples of Christ, and those who are merely nominal Christians [Matthew 13:36-43]. For example, the Bible says:

I didn't say the Bible is complete fiction. It's obviously also a record of people's lives. However, stories about Adam and Eve remind me of Pandora's Box. Stories of giants and angels, remind me of Greek gods and goddesses. The Great Flood reminds me of Posiedon's wrath on Atlantis.

Let myth be myth.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
"That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord!', and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." [Romans 10:9/NIV]

Myth.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Elsewhere the Bible affirms that only those who believe in the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ will be forgiven for their sins [1 Corinthians 15:12-58].

Myth.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You see, the Bible teaches that Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live. Every person is born with sin [Psalm 51:5] and every sin will be punished with death [Romans 6:23]. The Bible equates a sinful spirit with a dead spirit [John 3:3]. True, biblical Christianity isn't about social reform. It's about spiritual rebirth. Those who call themselves Christians but deny the essential truths of the Bible, will find themselves both surprised and disappointed come judgment day; for only these essential truths -- the biblical gospel -- can lead a person into a saving relationship with the Son of God. Even those who seem uncharacteristically religious will find themselves condemned if they have not obeyed God by receiving eternal life from His Son. Here's how Jesus put it:

You see, that is my problem exactly, and you just confirmed it.

The Bible and Christianity is not about being a better person, or treating others with love and respect. It's about this idea of salvation for one's soul. It's not there to promote peace upon others, it's there to keep me in fear of a fictional realm. It allows for war. It allows us to sin, and then forget that we sinned, because good ol Jesus will just forgive it.

That's why I prefer Buddhism. Buddhism gives a specific practice on how to behave, on how to treat others. Buddhism says I am capable of this, while Christianity says I can't do anything without Jesus or God.

Christianity says I am this unworthy being who naturally deserves to suffer, because Adam and Even ate some fruit eons ago. Buddhism says, that I have the ability to free myself from evil, on my own, without the approval of some fictional being or congregation of clergy.

Buddhism says that I am responsible for my life, thoughts, and actions, while
Christianity says I'm this helpless incapable being, who needs a dead man to think for me.

Sorry. Christianity doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" [Matthew 7:22-23/NIV]

Myth.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Those who claim to be Christians, yet disregard essential Christian doctrines, must be immediately and clearly rebuked. Otherwise, those who look on (like yourself) could easily form the mistaken belief that Christianity is merely about treating your neighbor with respect, when it is actually about so much more.

It's actually about less.

It's simply about adhering to a fictional diety out of fear of going to Hell. So you must be good, so you don't suffer for eternity. That's not altruism. That's not genuine love for another. That's fear for one's own eternity.

Nothing more.

I refuse to live by fear.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny

(Tim quotes Bible)
Myth.

(Tim quotes Bible)
Myth.

(Tim quotes Bible)
Myth.

I refuse to live by fear.

Forgive me for narrowing down your previous statements. I do hope you can trust me not to misquote you, since I take the context of your offering quite seriously; but for the purposes of this response, it was important to focus attention on a particular pattern in your argument.

You indicated that the Bible is not entirely fictional. Unfortunately, there is no objective way for a person to make such an assessment. After all, each book of the Bible is a cohesive piece of literature. Despite the tiresome efforts of the so called "Jesus Seminars", there is no logical way to segregate those verses one dislikes, from those one considers valid. Thus I would argue that, logically, you must either take the Bible as it is, or reject it altogether. You labeled each of my citations "myth", yet would seem to enthusiastically affirm verses like "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18]. Whatever your criteria for making this distinction, it is ultimately subjective.

I suppose you said it best in your closing statement. "I refuse to live by fear." The key words contained therein being, "I refuse". It is, of course, your right to refuse God, His Son, His Bible, and anything else you so desire. But no amount of subjective renunciations on your part will save you from the consequences of your choice. Only Jesus can do that.

In closing, here's another "myth" for you to ponder.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."[Proverbs 1:7a/NASB]

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Forgive me for narrowing down your previous statements. I do hope you can trust me not to misquote you, since I take the context of your offering quite seriously; but for the purposes of this response, it was important to focus attention on a particular pattern in your argument.

You indicated that the Bible is not entirely fictional. Unfortunately, there is no objective way for a person to make such an assessment. After all, each book of the Bible is a cohesive piece of literature. Despite the tiresome efforts of the so called "Jesus Seminars", there is no logical way to segregate those verses one dislikes, from those one considers valid. Thus I would argue that, logically, you must either take the Bible as it is, or reject it altogether. You labeled each of my citations "myth", yet would seem to enthusiastically affirm verses like "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18]. Whatever your criteria for making this distinction, it is ultimately subjective.

I suppose you said it best in your closing statement. "I refuse to live by fear." The key words contained therein being, "I refuse". It is, of course, your right to refuse God, His Son, His Bible, and anything else you so desire. But no amount of subjective renunciations on your part will save you from the consequences of your choice. Only Jesus can do that.

In closing, here's another "myth" for you to ponder.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."[Proverbs 1:7a/NASB]

Well, first off, why did you ignore my other points ?

Secondly, as of now we are just arguing belief vs belief, instead of why we beleive what we beleive. I don't need you to explain your beliefs to me. I already know what they are, I was Christian for 18 years, so you don't need to preach to me.

"Love thy neighbor" ...if this is universal truth, it is validated because a diety said so ? What if Jesus never said this ? Would you ignore it ?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Forgive me for narrowing down your previous statements. I do hope you can trust me not to misquote you, since I take the context of your offering quite seriously; but for the purposes of this response, it was important to focus attention on a particular pattern in your argument.

You indicated that the Bible is not entirely fictional. Unfortunately, there is no objective way for a person to make such an assessment. After all, each book of the Bible is a cohesive piece of literature. Despite the tiresome efforts of the so called "Jesus Seminars", there is no logical way to segregate those verses one dislikes, from those one considers valid. Thus I would argue that, logically, you must either take the Bible as it is, or reject it altogether. You labeled each of my citations "myth", yet would seem to enthusiastically affirm verses like "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18]. Whatever your criteria for making this distinction, it is ultimately subjective.

I suppose you said it best in your closing statement. "I refuse to live by fear." The key words contained therein being, "I refuse". It is, of course, your right to refuse God, His Son, His Bible, and anything else you so desire. But no amount of subjective renunciations on your part will save you from the consequences of your choice. Only Jesus can do that.

In closing, here's another "myth" for you to ponder.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."[Proverbs 1:7a/NASB]

That was a cheep shot, and you should be given a warning for changing someones quote to reflect your own ideas.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Well, first off, why did you ignore my other points ?

Secondly, as of now we are just arguing belief vs belief, instead of why we beleive what we beleive. I don't need you to explain your beliefs to me. I already know what they are, I was Christian for 18 years, so you don't need to preach to me.

"Love thy neighbor" ...if this is universal truth, it is validated because a diety said so ? What if Jesus never said this ? Would you ignore it ?

I ignored your other points because, as the respondent, I reserve the right to touch on issues I consider to be of particular relevance. Your admiration of Buddhism, for example, is entirely your right; but it is not related to my thesis.

Namely: Your acceptance of moral principles and rejection of supernatural occurences in the Bible, neither proves nor negates the accuracy, authenticity, or historicity of the Bible.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I ignored your other points because, as the respondent, I reserve the right to touch on issues I consider to be of particular relevance. Your admiration of Buddhism, for example, is entirely your right; but it is not related to my thesis.

Namely: Your acceptance of moral principles and rejection of supernatural occurences in the Bible, neither proves nor negates the accuracy, authenticity, or historicity of the Bible.

"Love thy Neighbor"...is that only valid because a supposed diety said so ? If Jesus never said it, would this be invalid ?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I ignored your other points because, as the respondent, I reserve the right to touch on issues I consider to be of particular relevance. Your admiration of Buddhism, for example, is entirely your right; but it is not related to my thesis.

But to remove it from his quote can be seen as disrespectful.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Namely: Your acceptance of moral principles and rejection of supernatural occurrences in the Bible, neither proves nor negates the accuracy, authenticity, or historicity of the Bible.

...and your acceptance of supernatural occurrences in the Bible, neither proves nor negates anything. All is equal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But to remove it from his quote can be seen as disrespectful.

...and your acceptance of supernatural occurrences in the Bible, neither proves nor negates anything. All is equal.

Regarding your last...

I agree. My acceptance of supernatural occerences in the Bible is by no means proof of such occurences. However, I have already laid out an exhaustive case for my belief in the text of Scripture (in another string) and it is a violation of the rules to repeat that post here.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Regarding your last...

I agree. My acceptance of supernatural occerences in the Bible is by no means proof of such occurences. However, I have already laid out an exhaustive case for my belief in the text of Scripture (in another string) and it is a violation of the rules to repeat that post here.

Do you respect other people's beliefs who are not Christian?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you respect other people's beliefs who are not Christian?

Respect? Yes. Give equal footing to? No. I believe the religion of Jesus is exclusive. While others are free to believe or disbelieve what they please, I espouse only the biblical faith.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Respect? Yes. Give equal footing to? No. I believe the religion of Jesus is exclusive. While others are free to believe or disbelieve what they please, I espouse only the biblical faith.

You might be surprised how many Christians disrespect Buddhism, even to the point of discrimination. I thought your lack of responding to the parts about Buddhism was a sign that you are one of these people. I am glad you are not.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So I guess all those Bible studies I see people attending really don't count for anything.

Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

😆

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

What would you consider to be a worthwhile mode of discussion or study?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That sounds like fairly serious discussion.

Sure, it is up to a point. But it's when they subvert their own understanding for what is being told to them, that serious discussion is over. But bible meetings were not my point in teh beginnig. You don't see christians on teh streets engaging other christians or trying to convert this one type of christian into thinking about the bible or god their way. (Except mormons and jehovah's witnesses) I have a lot of respect for those christians, despite me believing their religion is silly, who manage to wade past the hypocrisy and get to teh heart of Jesus' teachings.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, it is up to a point. But it's when they subvert their own understanding for what is being told to them, that serious discussion is over. But bible meetings were not my point in teh beginnig. You don't see christians on teh streets engaging other christians or trying to convert this one type of christian into thinking about the bible or god their way. (Except mormons and jehovah's witnesses) I have a lot of respect for those christians, despite me believing their religion is silly, who manage to wade past the hypocrisy and get to teh heart of Jesus' teachings.

What do you see as the "heart" of Jesus' teaching?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

Maybe you've just been going to the wrong Bible studies. Or maybe I live some sort of ideal life where even the most religious people I know, at least on a personal level, are open to seeing religion interpreted in different ways.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe you've just been going to the wrong Bible studies. Or maybe I live some sort of ideal life where even the most religious people I know, at least on a personal level, are open to seeing religion interpreted in different ways.

What have your religious experiences been like?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to me. The one's I've seen rarely involve serious discussion. They involve one guy standing at the pulpit telling everyone how they should interpret the bible or a group of people that break into smaller groups, discuss the meanings behind passages or the intentions of god, and then everyone gets together and shares their conclusions, which are then judged and critiqued by the person, usually the minister, to whom they all default their own opinions.

Yeah, you have a good point. However, I don't think this is an exclusive trait for religion. I think you can see that in all layers of the population: politics, company policies, famlies... Maybe it has to do with a general sense of identity and a need to belong, fueled by insecurity. That's why may people have some sort of idol, leader what have ya and they follow him without dispute. Because the leader gives them a feel that they belong and he gives them some kind of identity. I mean you do see that in churches a lot, but one sees it in anti-reiligious organisations as well. heck, you even see it on these boards: tehre seems to be a very shapr line between religious sympathisers and non-sympathisers. And each member of the group nods very hard with statements made that fit in his ball park. But also notice that the sharper the line is, the more common group cohesion gets. And the more common group cohesion gets, the more stereotyped the perception of the opposing group gets. And by that time we're pretty close to tribal war.

So I totally support your plea for independent thought. But that doesn't mean the conclusions drawn from idependent thought lead to the same conclusions. In other words, independent thinkers don't have to agree to be considered an independent thinker. But the only way to find out if someone is an idenpendent thinker is to show some interest and not to throw some stereotype at him.