fate of the faithless

Why is it confusing?

In order for that to be true, all the paths would have to ultimately end in the same place. Unfortunately, they don't. And I'm not talking about legitimacy of doctrine here -- I'm talking about taking each at its word, and following them through to their own ends.

One of my favorite quotes is from Harry Anderson (remember 'Night Court'?)...

"The trick is to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Your prayer isn't a bad one -- not at all. To recognize truth when you do see it is one thing, but to pull the trigger on that... to get any kind of value out of it at all... you have to pursue it. And to do that means closing some doors. Be honest with yourself -- what are you really looking for? And if you find it, under what conditions or to what degree are you willing to accept it? That's a question each of us must ask and answer for ourselves. No one can answer it for us.

 

It's confusing because I'm faced with 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints--& I can see validity in each.

On the one hand is the point you've made about truth, by definition, not leading in so many different directions--all paths not leading to the same conclusions. That seems logical & right.

But what I've experienced in my own life, & witnessed, seems to contradict that.[/QUOTE]

I don't think ALL paths end at the same place. But it seems to me--again, because of what I've seen & experienced--that some do--or CAN. It seems to me there is SOME truth--not all--contained in a myriad of philosophies.

One particular bible passage comes to mind; & I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. Galatians, maybe? "By their fruits you shall know them." And I've seen (& tasted!) both good & bad in relation to more than 1 path.

Yes, I LOVED that show! And I get your point

I must admit, there are some things I DO close the door on, at this point in my life. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong--or maybe my understanding is limited. But I admit that there are some things I cannot, or will not, accept.

I don't accept people being held responsible for things they don't understand. I don't accept people completely escaping responsibility for their behavior just because they decide to agree with something (a profession of faith). I don't accept the traditional Christian teaching about hell--what it is, & who is damned to it. If hell is what is taught by most Christian churches, then I can't help but find it a grossly unjust end for all but the most consciously evil of persons. I don't accept that ANY sin is as bad as ALL other sins. I have tried in the past to reconcile these things in my mind . . . & I cannot.

If I am ultimately proven wrong, so be it. I do my best to understand & follow my conscience.

 

I don't think the viewpoints (I'm assuming paganism and Christianity?) are as diametrically opposed as they seem, from a certain point of view. You may be getting hung up in perceptions rather than what the two truly claim to be in their purest forms. There actually is validity in each, as both are at least reflected and represented in the world around us. But follow each through to their completion, and you will see them part ways. It is in the parting that I feel the main focus of comparison and contrast must be. After all, even Satan believes in God.

 

Then perhaps we are differing in our understanding of 'truth'. To me, truth is something that is constant and unwavering. It doesn't require worship, praise, money, or the efforts of its faithful to be real. It is oblivous and impervious to politics, ambition, and agenda. It's bulletproof. It simply is, regardless of whether we see it, or choose to acknowledge it.

That's a tall order, to be sure. And I'm not saying I've found anything that falls in lock-step with that definition that doesn't require at least some aspects to be taken on faith. But I will say without hesitation that of the many belief systems and world religions I've studied over roughly the past decade, Biblical Christianity has painted the most complete and logical picture I've found, and asked the least amount of faith from me. It has never asked me to ignore, never asked me to overlook ("Never mind that man behind the curtain -- I AM OZ!"). It has always accepted my questions, challenges, and outright attacks (not to mention those of much more brilliant minds than mine) without compromise, and always given me responses that make sense and seem plausible in the progression of logic.

 

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But as I said earlier -- our primary focus should be on the differences, if we are trying to determine which is true.

 

Matthew 7:15 - 23
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many 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?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I took the liberty of including the whole passage, not only to give it context, but also to show that Jesus Himself warned that not all who claim to be His followers will be welcomed into heaven. The 'fruit' we all bear will play an important part in determining our eternal future, according to the Bible.

 

There's nothing wrong with that, if it's done for the right reasons. If we've proven an idea or doctrine to be illegitimate or untrustworthy, then I think we should close the door on it and move on to other possibilities.

Nor do I. But there's a big difference between 'don't understand' and 'don't want to accept'.

 

Nor do I, and that's not what the Bible teaches. An old preacher named Billy Sunday once told his congregation, "Being in church on Sunday will no more make you a Christian than standing in your garage will make you a car," and he's absolutely right. Consider the passage I referenced from Matthew 7 above, and let what Jesus is saying there really soak in. It's a warning, not an empty threat. It's got teeth. He's saying that a lot of those "Sunday morning Christians" who have turned you and so many others away from Christ because of their 'bad fruit', might be in for one hell of a rude surprise on Judgment Day. Literally.

 

The Bible teaches that hell was never intended for mankind -- only for Satan and the angels who chose to join him. The Bible teaches that the hope and purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is that all of mankind would be saved and spend eternity with Him in heaven. That is the goal. It always has been, and always will be. Those who are condemned to hell are those who can see the influence and evidence of God all around them, yet refuse to acknowledge Him. They are those who choose to believe the lie that they are in control, and answer to no other authority but themselves.

To put it another way, the Bible has always described heaven as a kingdom. Hell is for those who don't want to live under the rule of the King.

 

Sin is actually a violation of the first commandment -- "You will have no other gods before Me." Sin is a choice to put ourselves above God. Our will, our desire, our wants above His. The actions that are spawned from that choice are a natural consequence. Those actions have varying levels of impact upon both ourselves and those in our circle of influence. Yes, some are worse than others. There are some things done as a result of sin that really piss Jesus off, if you'll excuse my crudeness, and some of those things are illustrated in the Bible. Using God's name to glorify ourselves, taking advantage of or abusing those in need, or causing harm to come to children are a few examples.

The reason sin is spoken against so strongly in the Bible is that it breaks the relationship between God and man. It causes separation. It's no different than a child who refuses to acknowledge his parents' authority and instead acts on his own will. In our homes, that creates tension and distance. It breaks trust and damages intimacy. The effect is the same between mankind and God.

Genesis 6:6 shows us how sin affects God:
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

Grief is not anger, it's being heartbroken. It's ultimate sadness. Despair. It's a sense of loss. Sort of a surprising, yet significant concept that we could hurt God so much, isn't it?