Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Except when it comes to tax policy. Then I want other people to pay for my preferences.
You sure do like to stir the pot and start arguments you can participate in don't you?
Except when it comes to tax policy. Then I want other people to pay for my preferences.
Except when it comes to tax policy. Then I want other people to pay for my preferences.
This assumes that the point of following Jesus is not going to hell (which is a completely understandable assumption giving the revivalistic history of the US and how most talk about the faith in our individualistic dominant culture), but the story of Christianity is much much larger than that (and our popular understanding of hell is more informed by medieval artists and Dante than it is by Scripture). It isn't even the story of heaven and hell at all, but rather heaven and earth. The story of Scripture is one where God is setting all things right and the restoration of humanity to it's God-image-bearing self is a big part of this. The culmination of the story isn't being plucked off the earth and rewarded with heaven or tossed into hell, it is the restoration of the earth and humanity to the way it is supposed to be, as the Christians pray, "[God's] will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And the majority of my time as a follower of Jesus is spent working toward that end - talking about and working for the future God envisions for the earth (the Kingdom of God as it's called in Scripture) inaugurated by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. So our church feeds the hungry because one day there will be no hunger. We fight economic and racial injustice because one day those will not exist. I don't consider one second of being part of the church wasted. Reducing Christianity to living by silly rules and worrying about the gays, while completely understandable [and regrettable] in our current climate, especially if you're in the American South, is incredibly myopic.
Most other things are political/power consolidating distractions from what the church is supposed to be.
You sure do like to stir the pot and start arguments you can participate in don't you?
I'll let the warm fuzzy platitudes pass without comment in the future.
Creamy's question, to which I was responding, was specifically asking about the risk of not believing when consequences are eternal life in heaven or eternal torment in hell. If that is the only reason to be religious, as Creamy's post that I was responding to indicated, then it all seems rather silly if you believe neither heaven nor hell exist. I was not intending to belittle your or anyone's good works and efforts to make the world a better place, I was just responding to Creamy's simplified dichotomous reasoning to believe.
Having said that, if God is going to do away with hunger and racial injustice at some point in the future anyway why bother working on it now? That seems futile. This is a serious inquiry on my part. I don't follow that logic. It seem much more imperative to work on fixing those things if you were the only force out there intending to try and fix them. If an all powerful being is going to fix them at a time of his choosing in the future, why would our efforts now have any impact?
No you won't, you get off on arguing. It's cool. I'll just ignore your comments overall.
You have to admit, progressive policies are anything but what you describe. It sounded pretty good, though.
We talked about Pascal's Wager yesterday, but I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in.
To make the wager you don't have to make yourself believe in anything. You just have to live as if you do. According to Pascal, anyway, the belief will come.
Creamy's question, to which I was responding, was specifically asking about the risk of not believing when consequences are eternal life in heaven or eternal torment in hell. If that is the only reason to be religious, as Creamy's post that I was responding to indicated, then it all seems rather silly if you believe neither heaven nor hell exist. I was not intending to belittle your or anyone's good works and efforts to make the world a better place, I was just responding to Creamy's simplified dichotomous reasoning to believe.
Having said that, if God is going to do away with hunger and racial injustice at some point in the future anyway why bother working on it now? That seems futile. This is a serious inquiry on my part. I don't follow that logic. It seem much more imperative to work on fixing those things if you were the only force out there intending to try and fix them. If an all powerful being is going to fix them at a time of his choosing in the future, why would our efforts now have any impact?
That's a great and important question. I have a meeting @ 11, but will respond when I get back - didn't want you to think I was ignoring you or leaving your hanging.
Short answer that needs a lot of unpacking (which I'll come back to do):
a) because people matter and we don't know when everything will be set right - so we work toward that goal pointing toward that hope as we do it knowing that as Paul said to the Corinthians, our work is not in vain.
b) We do it now because it is who we were created to be - in doing these things now, we are fulfilling our job description as humans, which is basically: 1) Display God's Image (including mercy, love, creativity, etc.) 2) Live in a close relationship with God and 3) Care for God's creation (which includes people)
c) Living in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus affects all of this, most notable our relationship with God - which in turn affects how we live here.
This argument falls apart. Couldn't this equally be true about another religion that requires belief to achieve salvation?
Hard pass.
I'll let the warm fuzzy platitudes pass without comment in the future.
Pascal sucks.
You didn't let Beatrix's about the infallible US of A. :noidea:
Well this is what we have done for 13 years in the region. How do you like the results?
Also. You left out a bullet point 6) bought and sold by monied interests who dictate foreign policy to secure natural resources.
Perhaps we are the bullies you speak of in some circumstances. Is that possible, that out great power could be corrupted?