No desire to run away. I think, however, that perhaps I am misintepreting the term "particular theology". My dictionary defines theology in general terms as the study of god. As a Christian, I believe that true theology is the Christian Gospel. By "particular" I was assuming, wrongly perhaps, that the poster was talking "vying" theologies under the umbrella of Christianity...i.e. Baptist as opposed to, say, Methodist. Faiths which agree in the essential of Christian theology...that salvation is by and through only Christ. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and countless other churches all teach this essential truth of the faith and as such are part of Christ's church.

You said, "Faiths which agree in the essential of Christian theology...that salvation is by and through only Christ. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and countless other churches all teach this essential truth of the faith and as such are part of Christ's church."

Then by your statement, Mormons are indeed part of Christ's church. What you defined was what I was taught in Mormonism- with a few "more truths" of course.

Mormons have a lot of issues, but they fit your criteria...but then again Christians don't need to agree on what the essentials of Christianity actually are.

Back on task...

Not particularly an issue I want to get into (been there done that) but a real study might reveal some major differences between orthodox Christian belief and Mormon belief. I think there are some major differences between the groups on how they might define the term salvation. To the OC salvation would, in simple terms, be the inheritance of all that the Father has in heaven through grace alone. Mormon salvation through Christ might more accurately be described as resurrection...in and through Christ all are resurrected. The rewards of salvation after that resurrection have to be earned "worked out" by the individual Mormon. It might be based on what Mormons call grace but they do teach grace given proportional to their obedience. In OC terms, grace that has to be earned simply isn;t grace. If you don't believe in either I guess its all semantics so the discussion is moot.

So you agree, then, that in order to be "saved" according to x-ian theology, you must first:

1. Learn about who/what christ is
2. Learn why you're in a position to need anyone's help
3. Choose to trust in christ instead of any other deity

Therefore, it's not free. Action must be taken. It doesn't have to be physical action like being baptized, but it requires a choice. If you don't choose to "trust in christ" you can't be saved according to x-ian theology.

Kolobian theology, on the other hand, offers free salvation for all, no matter how bad they are or how little faith they have. The telestial kingdom for kolobians is the equivalent of x-ian heaven, and since kolobians believe they can be in the presence of the holy ghost in the telestial kingdom, since x-ians believe the holy ghost is part of the "one god", there's no difference. In kolobianism, everyone gets to go to heaven and be with god.

Works are only required if you want to be "like god."

So if you're going to talk about unconditional love or salvation through grace it's absurd to point at mainstream x-ian theology. That was my original point.

Re your first three points. In essence what you say is correct. I would, however, reject your premise that because action is required it is somehow not free. If your local car dealer offers free hot dogs and drinks simply by coming in to look at new models, yes it requires some action on your part to go down to the dealership to receive what he is giving away (hotdogs and drinks) for free but there is no charge for the food and drinks unless you count time spent as a "charge". Christianity teaches that everything necessary for christian salvation has been done by Christ. It is done, banked, if you will, and all that is necessary to claim it (salvation) is to believe.

As I said above Mormonism and Christian orthodoxy might use similar terms but mean different things by their use. I realise you disagree, but I emphatically believe that Christian salvation (heirs together with Christ of ALL that the Father has) is in no way comparable to the lowest degree of glory in Mormon theology. In Mormonism, Christ died essentially for just resurrection...something I might term a half-way salvation. I repeat, too, that grace that has to be earned, proportionally given based on obedience, is not grace at all. Grace, another word used by Mormons and OCs but with different meanings.

Unless, of course, the car dealership sends you to, say, Libya for not indulging its freebies.

If we're truly saved by "grace" alone, then there's no need to accept JuHEEsus as our savior or even acknowledge his supposed sacrifice.

Gifts that come with strings attached aren't really gifts.

According to Islamic types, that guy Seal Team Six recently capped is currently enjoying a kinky little shin-dig with 72 virgins.

Are you saying he's in hell because he didn't accept JuHEEsus as his lord and savior?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 02:18PM by Timothy.

I think you are extending the analogy beyond the point...but no matter. Christ is grace...the complete embodiment of the word according to Christian theology. In simple terms you can't have your cake and eat it too. Christian teaching is quite uncompromising in this regard...living life apart from God and then expecting him to change the rules at judgement just isn't part of the plan.

...in OT times was of the type we usually think of. Bancruptcy laws as we know them today did not exist at that time and people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to discharge debts. A craftsman might use his skills in servitide to discharge a debt. A thief could make resitition by serving as a slave. To charge that the Bible is in favor of slavery because it accounts for it as a reality in the society of the past would mean that the great anti-slavery reformers ( Christians like Wilberforce)formed their movement contrary to the Biblical teachings they believed in. I think it a wonderful luxury to look back at the abomination of slavery with 21st century eyes.

"not all slavery" -- stop right there. By saying "not all slavery" it is implied that "some slavery" in the bible IS the type we usually think of.

Are you serious right now?

Perhaps you are trying too hard to find something to argue with. I was simply pointing out an aspect of "slavery" of the time.

Circular reasoning at its best.

X. Christ is grace
Y. How do you know?
X. The bible says so
Y. How do you know the bible is right?
X. Because god wrote it
Y. How do you know god wrote it?
X. Because the bible says god wrote it
Y. How do you the bible's not lying?
X. The bible can't lie
Y. How do you know?
X. Because god can't lie
Y. How do you know?
X. The bible says so

Anyway, kolobian theology states that everyone goes to heaven no matter what. The kolobian telestial kingdom is the equivalent of the x-ian version of heaven. The only difference is that in kolobian theology, everyone will have genderless bodies. In x-ian theology, everyone will be genderless spirits. Who cares?

In X-ian theology, only those who go along with the murder of an innocent jew 2,000 years ago will go to heaven, while those who don't support the murder of this jewish zombie will be tortured for eternity.

For your analogy to work, I must not only go to the dealership to claim my hot dog and soda or whatever, I must also agree that I'll never go to another dealership and eat their hot dogs for the rest of my life. I must also stand and watch while the dealership owner beats his son to death to "pay" for my hot dog. No thanks. I'll have pizza.

Edit: and like Timothy said, the dealership also didn't threaten to throw me in a torture chamber or kill me if I didn't accept their "free" hot dog...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:23PM by kolobian.

Was a recognition of this flaw. My Xian friends would tell me I was following the wrong path, and I would ask for evidence. The answer was essentially what you just laid out. Even as a dumb high school TBM, I could see that this was not evidence. At least I had a formula for getting to my conclusion:

a. Felt good (coincidentally, when I was saying and doing things that brought praise from TBMs around me) reading BoM.
b. Already KNEW what the good feelings meant from reading the BoM - it was true!

The Xian evidence is even weaker than this, if that is possible to do. It basically comes down to, "this is [kinda] what Xians have believed for 1,000 years."

The "Saved" idea is, unfortunately for some of my closest friends, a lot younger than they think. It is actually only a little older that the Morg.

But it makes sense to a capitalist society. Salvation is a transaction. That is the best critique I have, and, I believe, the most accurate description. Especially apt since the example being used here is giving away hot dogs.

Life is too big and amazing to come down to one transaction.

Just my 2 cents.

I wasn't aware that I was presenting "evidence"...am I required to? I am not telling anyone what to believe only what Christians believe. If you choose to disagree, that's your right and no amount of arguing on my part will change that now, will it.

I don't presume that you have that belief, and no, wouldn't require any evidence of you. I don't know you, and wasn't really hunting for a debate.

I have stated before that being raised in Mormonism, and letting it go ruined the idea of any other literal scripture. I have investigated Christianity for 30 years now, and have never been given a reason the Bible must be taken as literal truth that does not point to the Bible itself as evidence. Basically, it comes down to, "this is the way things have always been done." Maybe your take on things is a bit different.

If you don't believe what the bible says, why should anyone else?

What kentish is attempting to profess as x-ian belief directly contradicts the bible. When presenting an analogy of x-ian theology kentish purposefully left out the most relevant details and when called on it didn't acknowledge it. This is exactly what kolobians do.

"Hell? I don't know that we teach it. i don't know that we emphasize it. I'm just trying to say what x-ians believe..."

In your "analogy" you propose no consequence for not accepting what's offered. The so-called "plan" doesn't work that way.

According to "the plan" those who choose not to accept JuHEEsus’ so-called sacrifice will be punished throughout eternity. The car dealership doesn't say "Come out and eat our free food or we'll send you to purgatory." The so-called 'plan" does.

Or are you suggesting that one is obligated to buy a car in exchange for the free food?

So god creates humans on a whim, places us in the most ambiguous of circumstances, demands that we meet unexplained expectations, then condemns us to hell for making the slightest mistake ** UNLESS ** we accept the highly questionable notion that he (god) had his first-born kid brutally beaten and savagely murdered to correct the fact that he (god) made us less than perfect and therefore highly susceptible to making mistakes.

Not much of a plan ifin ya axe me. The whole "salvation" thing could have been avoided had god made us otherwise.

So did the one-eyed bad guy get his virgins or not?

Timothy

of Xian theology I have ever read!

Kentish writes:

"Christianity teaches that everything necessary for christian salvation has been done by Christ. It is done, banked, if you will, and all that is necessary to claim it (salvation) is to believe."

Fair enough.

But doesn't christianity also teach that rejecting JuHEEsus' supposed sacrifice is a hell-worthy trespass?

It would seem to me, and I brought this up earlier, that were "grace" truly emloyed in this case, the so-called "sin" of not believing in JuHEEsus would also be covered.

Why is that not the case?

Timothy

Is if Christianity embraces Universalism and repudiates Hell. Then it does become a free gift. But it doesn't resolve the other issues you raise (i.e. God's responsibility for the fall and the means he had to use - slaughtering an innocent man - to correct it and save us from himself).

If you ask me, the great flaw of American Xianity is the addition to the Jesus myth of ideas that don't make sense for his time and place. Jesus was Jewish. Therefore he couldn't have been talking (asssuming for a moment that he ever spoke) about hellfire, becuase the Jewish religion doesn't embrace the idea of hellfire. Modern Xians have put themselves in a situation where the whole thing falls apart without hell. And, as you pointed out, that doctrine is the antithesis of compassion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:48PM by rogertheshrubber.

... and one of the great things about fairy tales is that you can modify them as you go along.

I believe that's what whoever concocted the JuHEEsus myth did. Horn-Dog Joe just followed in that tradition.

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... I'll guarantee there's more than one born everyday!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:57PM by Timothy.

The message that religion doesn't have that much to offer unless it completely morphs from time to time, basically just makes sh*t up, in order to survive.

As an answer to that idea, though, the "reformer" was focused on pointing out to people where they were falling short in the belief system they already had. He wouldn't have taught a new idea about the afterlife, because it would have been nonsense to the Jews.

I do disagree with your assertion that one basic doctrine - please correct me if I am misstating here - brings the Christian churches under one big tent and family. Having studied a little bit about the battles over doctrinal differences, it seems this is a very new, and almost entirely American,idea.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 06:58PM by rogertheshrubber.

Kolobian...

i don't know that you should engage him or her, cause really it seems as though if you don't agree with him/her well you must be wrong.

And you know what...I did not appreciate the personal attack, I don't know why you have to bully someone.

I am the black one and unless you are black like me on what grounds can we even speak.

You are bugged according to your words because I claim to be black and yet believe in a God whom you see as claiming to be pro-slavery etc...

And no, your skin color still doesn't make you an expert on anything but your own life. My best friend was black and she'd have torn you a new one if she caught you claiming no one could "speak" to you unless they too were black.

That being said, I don't know what this "personal attack" is and I'm not trying to discount it if it happened.

But on another thread you made claims for God and its "unconditional love" for others, then backtracked to saying you only spoke for yourself, then got hot and bothered when people pointed out THEIR experiences. That seems like bullying to me.

I'll put in a couple cents here. I don't even know if the slaves justified in the Bible were black.

The Bible (full of conflicting messages that can justify any view) does give examples of God approving slavery. It also was used to abolish slavery, so go figure. We have brought this up several times here. This time one of the posters happened to be black so I think unfortunately things crossed over into a sensitive area.

Being a new resident of Alabama, I have made quite a few black friends for the first time in my life. Most of them are Baptist.

I'm personally not bugged that you or anyone else would believe in the Bible god because every Christian I've met simply picks what they want from the Bible anyway. If you don't see the cruel nature of the OT god it's your interpretation. I say the kind of God you describe reflects your own values.

I don't know what it would be like to be black. I've wondered how I would respond to the unfair treatment of my ancestors if I were black. I don't think I would be Christian because that was the main religion of the people who were so unfair and racist. I think I would be pissed that a religion was forcefully imposed on my ancestors (the way I am pissed Mormonism was sold to my ancestors). But I digress.

The thing is, there have been slaves of all types throughout time in many cultures. Human history is so depressing. I cringe when I hear people defending God's approval of slavery in the Bible. I would not want my black friends or any other friends to think for one minute that I would worship a god that had favorites of any kind.

And Rebekah is right above. There is no grouping of blacks or whites anymore that means much to me. We are individuals and hold differing opinions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 10:49PM by dagny.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll put in a couple cents here. I don't even know
> if the slaves justified in the Bible were black.
>
> The Bible (full of conflicting messages that can
> justify any view) does give examples of God
> approving slavery. It also was used to abolish
> slavery, so go figure. We have brought this up
> several times here. This time one of the posters
> happened to be black so I think unfortunately
> things crossed over into a sensitive area.
>
> Being a new resident of Alabama, I have made quite
> a few black friends for the first time in my life.
> Most of them are Baptist.
>
> I'm personally not bugged that you or anyone else
> would believe in the Bible god because every
> Christian I've met simply picks what they want
> from the Bible anyway. If you don't see the cruel
> nature of the OT god it's your interpretation. I
> say the kind of God you describe reflects your own
> values.
>
> I don't know what it would be like to be black.
> I've wondered how I would respond to the unfair
> treatment of my ancestors if I were black. I don't
> think I would be Christian because that was the
> main religion of the people who were so unfair and
> racist. I think I would be pissed that a religion
> was forcefully imposed on my ancestors (the way I
> am pissed Mormonism was sold to my ancestors). But
> I digress.
>
> The thing is, there have been slaves of all types
> throughout time in many cultures. Human history is
> so depressing. I cringe when I hear people
> defending God's approval of slavery in the Bible.
> I would not want my black friends or any other
> friends to think for one minute that I would
> worship a god that had favorites of any kind.
>
> And Rebekah is right above. There is no grouping
> of blacks or whites anymore that means much to me.
> We are individuals and hold differing opinions.


Slaves in ancient times were not neccessarily black. Conquered people of all races were slaves/

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Bible (full of conflicting messages that can
> justify any view) does give examples of God
> approving slavery. It also was used to abolish
> slavery, so go figure. We have brought this up
> several times here. This time one of the posters
> happened to be black so I think unfortunately
> things crossed over into a sensitive area.
>

I think what we do is assume the Bible is a unitary book and it is not: It is a "book of books" and these books often represent different points of view and different values from different times.

As for the New Testament, my take is it reflects two basic points of view: One that Jesus would return at any moment and the other, later, view that Jesus is delaying his coming and the church has to settle in for the long haul and figure out the social problems it encounters.

So, Paul for example, doesn't recommend bucking the status quo because it is all going to end soon, anyway. Modern Christians, on the other hand, faced with human rights issues and the prospect of society being around for a while (because after all nearly 2,000 years have passed and Jesus hasn't shown up) make an effort to transform society.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Somehow I'm not able to denounce slavery because I'm not black? Give me a break.

Slavery is w-r-o-n-g. Period. There is no equality in owning another human being as property. When I showed you the biblical supports for slavery, your only response was that you're black so it's ok for you to support a god that supports slavery.

Ok, so if I'm white and support slavery that's wrong, but if I were black and supported slavery that would be ok? That's what you want to teach your children?

I think kolobian is the same as chulotic is snarky and if so I agree. He/she is always right and resorts to personal attacks if challenged.

chulotc is Kolobian!! better name IMHO! other than that....::carry on::

Yeah i like it a lot better, too. :)

Super-sleuth bona dea writes:

"I think kolobian is the same as chulotic is snarky and if so I agree. He/she is always right and resorts to personal attacks if challenged."

Much like bona dea is doing with that statement.

By a show of hands, who didn't know?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 02:27PM by Timothy.

Not sure I have experience of any "personal attacks" but to me they are not relevant on religious issues since they have no determining value on my views. I have more issues with accuracy than anything.

Aliveinchrist made the positive claim that the x-ian god loves unconditionally. This is patently absurd, and several of us demonstrated how this was not true.

To further illustrate the point, we pointed out that aliveinchrist is guilty of cherry-picking what parts of the biblical canon she wants to view as relevant, which is exactly what kolobians do with their scriptures.

It's an open & shut case. The bible god demonstrably favors some tribes over others, allows his favored peoples to own other humans as property (black, white, brown, or yellow), and either tortures or annihilates those who do not submit to his authority.

I will say that I was indeed referring to the particular theology (Judeo-Christian) wherein "God" set up a system where "sins" had to be paid for either with your own life, a human sacrifice, or an animal sacrifice. A blood sacrifice.
This is what Christian theology is based upon.
Trusting in Christ as your savior is based upon this particular theology. Therefore, christian salvation is indeed based upon acceptance of a particular theology.
It is not free. It is not unconditional.
If a person simply thinks this theology is absurd and unbelievable, then that person burns in hell for all eternity.
I think I've got that correct.

You've got it right, as long as you're in a x-ian church. In the world many contemporary x-ians attempt to sanitize their doctrine just like kolobians do by pretending the bible only speaks of hell "metaphorically."

In this case, the bible-god doesn't torture his children for eternity, he just annihilates them. As if that's taking the moral high ground.

Milk before meat is not unique to kolobianism.

The part that is relevant is what is required for salvation.
Accepting a particular theology is required for salvation.
I couldn't care less what someone's definition of "hell" is.

Please stop derailing my arguments, because they are very specific and well-reasoned.

I wasn't trying to derail your argument. I think you made an airtight argument that couldn't be derailed. I guess I just got caught up in the momentum.

but the brainwashed will never be capable of seeing outside their box.

If a person simply thinks this theology is absurd and unbelievable, then that person is annihilated.
I think I've got that correct.

If you read my first post you will see that I acknowledged a misinterpretation of your term "particular theology".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b_zIy97FyE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:46PM by matt.