[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it

You may have noticed that no one actually does this. They may think they do, but they don't. There are genetic, cultural, familial, and other experiential factors that come into play. For example, that I come from a Dutch, Reformed (protestant Christian) background, am third generation American, all play a role in what I believe. So does the fact that I was introduced to Tolkien's "Riddles in the Dark", the revised version, when I was 8 years old, and found my life changed forever.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Indeed. It shouldn't be an obsession. You have chosen not to think about it, and I have chosen to resolve the issue by deciding to accept Jesus at his word. For both of us it's a done deal (although I hope that you reconsider ). My life is now all about, "what to do now"? Of course, this means for me being aware of God's presence, and living within the "confines" of heaven already.

Originally Posted by davem

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes.

This reminds me of another poem, although it names the problem not belief, but analysis:

I had a moment
clear -
like a water balloon
small as the space between
cupped hands -
big as day.

In and through it I could
taste God and touch being
see all colors of earth, water, sky
smell fresh cut grass and rich loam
hear bird song and squirrel chatter.

With rational blade I took hold
bisected, laid it open to dis-
cover what was inside
dissected to analyze its parts
diced and weighed to evaluate its worth
to discern the whole.

I lost the moment
having never lived it.

© 2001, littlemanpoet

(You may notice that this was written in an "Emily Dickinson" phase )

hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Interesting. It seems that Tolkien's conception of evil was quite complex by comparison, more mature. Though this properly belongs to the "Absolutely Evil" thread, I'll just mention that Tolkien described in LotR that good and evil cut through everyone, rather than any character being clearly good or clearly evil (except perhaps Sauron...?)

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith?

This makes sense. But it's an attempt at a psychological explanation for something that doesn't immediately make sense to you. I might prefer to believe that there's more than one road to God, but there's this constant theme repeated by Jesus (who is my God) in all of the gospels: "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of hard for me to argue with that, psychological leanings being what they are....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.

Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

Originally Posted by davem

'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?'

There's only one way you'll ever discover the proof, and that's to take the test.

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Originally Posted by davem

Bit pejorative there - the God you believe in is 'the True God' other people's Gods are 'false' or 'demonic'. You see, you're imposing your belief on the world as though its objectively true without supplying any proof.

It's not meant to be pejorative. I've been quite honest that "I believe" these things. I've also been forthcoming that "proofs" are quite limited. I'm very aware that all of my beliefs rest on a set of paradigms that I accept, by choice. That's the nature of belief. I don't apologize for what I believe, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Anything I do say by way of answering questions posed to me, is going to come in the context of what I believe.

Originally Posted by davem

No it doesn't heal them. Go tell that to the survivors. Its just platitudes.

Not if you believe the human is eternal, which I do. If the human isn't eternal, then there is no worse tragedy, especially since the suffering becomes frankly meaningless. The universe I understand, has at the back of it a God who hungers for all his children to know him, and wants to heal them and give them unimagined joy.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not talking about God hurling thunderbolts, or sending universal floods, just intervening to stop children being raped or pensioners being mugged or maniacs flying airliners into tower blocks.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

Originally Posted by davem

Again, you're 'assuming that which is to be proved'. Where is the evidence for a 'Fall'?

In the heart of every human.

Originally Posted by alatar

I always saw the god of the Old Testament as much different from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The OT one is more tribal and punishing; the NT more forgiving and loving.

One must factor in the increasing knowledge of God over time. The earliest Hebrews didn't understand God as well as, say, Daniel, for whom by that time there had been a good 500 years or more of dealings with God; time to get to know Him better.

God can't be unchanging, or else there could not be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. It amazes me how systematic theologians seem to just blithely pass over this little stumbling block in their understanding of God. God did change.

Originally Posted by alatar

Would it be impolite to ask what your deepest desire, met seemingly, was?

To experience real joy in Christ. It took 45 years of living before that happened.

Originally Posted by alatar

See Isaiah 45:6-7. Are we sure that concepts like 'all good' and 'sin' (though we do know that He hates it) apply to such a being?

It was a rhetorical question that I threw out there somewhat haphazardly. I'm not prepared to back it up with sound argument. Note that in the passage, God is the author both of peace and calamity. Does that bother you? I suppose it might. God's motivation for calamity is to bring his children to him.

Originally Posted by alatar

God is not so limited, and yet...What always sparks me is any god that would allow the innocent (children and the child-like) to suffer. Death, okay, but suffering? He could end it, but chooses not to do so for some purpose "beyond our understanding." Those words are ashes in the mouths of anguished parents.

And should never be said to anguished parents. Jesus did alleviate suffering while he was on earth, wherever he found it. It's a Christ-followers role to "be Jesus" to those in anguish, not to offer platitudes, but to be present in the midst of their suffering with them. Bearing another's burdens.

Originally Posted by alatar

On the other hand, seeing Truth in a text, though dictated by God yet written and printed and interpreted and heard by human hands and minds and ears is unquestionalby 100% accurate.

This is an unnecessary hang-up, my friend. The crucial matter is not its accuracy (even though I do generally accept it as so), but its power to change lives.

And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?).

I answered this. Noah preached righteousness for hundreds of years (according to the account, a good 500), and none turned from their evil ways, not one.

One additional thing: if you want to know what the Christian view of God's character is, it is found in the story of Jesus while he lived on earth.

(up to 155, and I gotta quit) I'll be away at St. Gregory's Abbey in Three Rivers, MI from Sat. noon until Sun. evening, so I'll be away from here for a bit....