| Cal, The Source Speaks! |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Vicki ® 01/26/2002, 12:34:50 Author Profile Mail author |
Dear Cal, I chose to bring this to the top and away from the previous thread because I didn't want my response to get lost in the shuffle. Your recent post to me is an example of the approach I tried to spotlight that was used by Bob Jack and someone, though in different ways. When people "assume" what I believe or say that it's been "hard for me to know" what you believe. I see both as cop-outs. If one is interested in authentically determining what, why or how I believe the only way to discern such is to ASK. This is an "inquiry" site after all. I typically will not share my beliefs unless asked. I have Biblical support for this and ususally do not waiver from it. To suggest, to speculate, to mischaracterize, to me, is an inffective way to discern truth. I have, in the past ( possibly before your arrival) freely allowed myself to be questioned at length. I will now, as then, isolate each one of your questions as I respond and thank you in advance fo allowing me the opportunity to do so! Is there something crucial that you've misunderstood in my beliefs? Yes, I think so. You over simplified them. I will try to answer in such a way as to draw out the strands of my belief. Let's hope I can make myself understood! 1. Do I think that failing to accept Christ like an agnostic or atheist does...places souls in eternal jeopardy? In my mind I make a distinction (though I can't know if God does) between agnostics and atheists as follows: Agnostics,from what I've learned here, do not reject a belief in God/Spirit but feel there is (and can never be) no empirical evidence for God. Using that qualification I am, by definition, an Agnostic who holds a belief in God. For I too think there is no empirical evidence for God (or love for that matter). I think that "believers" such as myself have had life experiences and continue to have those experiences through which we interpret God...belief begins, and faith follows as the interaction (in our mind) is repeated and consistent. I believe that God will judge the hearts of believers, the unsure, and the unreached.(I do not place atheists in this category as I'll address later). I stated this at length in an old post called "God, the Heart Judge" which is now in the archives of the old forum and for which I was flamed by at least one believer! I could easily be wrong about this idea but there are people who, over generations, have died never having heard the name of Jesus or his Gospel yet have somehow accessed the "higher power". I believe that God will, in some way, provide for those souls. I believe that God loves what he made and that the Bible strongly suggests he will exhaust all efforts to preserve it. (us). Atheists- I tend to think that outright rejection of God/Spirit does place one on a path to hell. I believe that hell is eternal separation from God/spirit. I can't be sure what hell actually is. Is it a place? A state of being? Both? I don't know. When I try to imagine hell as a place, I think of what this present world would be like absent of love, compassion and conscience. When I think of hell as a state of being I think of fear. None of what I've stated so far deals with the Tribulation of the last days. If there is a tribulation, I see that as God's last ditch effort to access people for preservation. But that only includes people living at the time. It doesn't account for the generations of people (atheists) who died in disbelief. Why single out only the last generation? I have no clue. I cannot begin to imagine what has become or will become of those who have died previously in their disbelief. The Bible states that no one knows the mind of God.
First off, I don't think that the masses of Mormons knowingly preach a false Christ. The only one I can point a finger with any certainty is Joseph Smith. For he, above all those who followed, knew exactly what he was piecing together and for what purpose. I strongly believe that there are Mormons who have a relationship with Christ, who at the same time sincerely follow the precepts of the LDS church and that God will judge the hearts of those. In my mind, it is not unlike the state of Agnostics who aren't sure about God and don't have all the pieces. I think that the typical Mormon has been so indoctrinated to the Quad that they cannot begin to discern the Bible as a separate (even contradictory) scripture to the others. But some have! Posters like Zoe, kentish and Brian J. Mackert are examples of Saints who came out of Mormonism as a result of reading the Bible as a lone set of scriptures and through that reading began to see a difference between the Bible on it's own and what they were taught via the supplemental scriptures of Mormonism. Perhaps it is their mission to share that experience with the Saints to help them in their journey? 3. REJECTION of God/Spirit (I think) is the key to hell.
Thank you for asking me these questions and to share with you what I actually do believe Cal. I think as you question believers in the same way you are going to find different perspectives. I think that belief and the road to belief is highly personal. I think it was INTENDED to be personal.I would like to address what I see as the believers role in the Salvation of others. But I won't do so...unless you ask! Thanks again! Sincerely,
Modified by Vicki at Sat, Jan 26, 2002, 21:01:12 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Just 2 more cents... Re: Cal, The Source Speaks! -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/26/2002, 13:16:45
Author Profile Mail author
In addition, I'd like to point out that sin was re-defined as 'against the will of God' (after Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses)... And Jesus insisted that without the Father he could do 'nothing.' And the Greatist Sin is denial of the Holy Ghost (and/or God the Father after recieving witness from the Holy Ghost)...
Waspi~
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
2 Cents Worth Much! Re: Just 2 more cents... -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/26/2002, 14:43:19
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks Waspi!Along the same lines and with regards to the believers role in the Salvation of others...Christ's words tell us that "I (Christ) am the vines and ye (us) are the branches without me ye can do nothing"... Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Quick response for now Re: Cal, The Source Speaks! -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
01/26/2002, 20:08:50
Author Profile Mail author
Hey Vicki, I don't have much time tonight, but I'd hate to leave your thread dangling without a response. After all, my name's in the title!
I will respond to you in depth later. For now, however, let me just say that I don't know what you're thinking when you lump my posts with Bob Jack's and someone's. I don't have much substantial in common with either from what I can tell. As for Bob Jack in particular, I'm about as close to him as you would be to a pseudo-Christian troll. This also goes for the post I wrote that impelled you to start this new thread. I don't see the connection.
Oh, well. Maybe I can only show you why there's a difference when I respond more fully.
--Cal
P.S. Thanks for the post. There is a lot of interesting material in it, and I look forward to our discussion.
(edited to add postscript)
Modified by Cal at Sat, Jan 26, 2002, 20:20:16
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Quick response for now Re: Quick response for now -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/26/2002, 20:55:36
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks Cal! The connector between Bob Jack, someone and you is that you assumed rather than asked what my beliefs were. I'll look for a response over the weekend!
Vicki
p.s. I'm fairly certain this thread will go hay wire and in several different directions...I'll try to stick to responding to you in as much as is possible for me. Have a great weekend!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Back at The Source Re: Cal, The Source Speaks! -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
01/28/2002, 00:09:21
Author Profile Mail author
Hey Vicki, Here's my response, genuinely offered in the hope of mutual understanding:
You wrote, Your recent post to me is an example of the approach I tried to spotlight that was used by Bob Jack and someone, though in different ways. When people "assume" what I believe or say that it's been "hard for me to know" why you believe. I see both as copouts. If one is interested in authentically determining what, why or how I believe the only way to discern such is to ASK.
I have to plead not guilty here. My post was precisely an attempt to ask you what you believe. And it didn't assume I knew what you believe exactly, which is why I went to The Source and, well . . . asked, ending the post with the question, "Have I misunderstood you?" Having heard from you, of course, I have a better sense though certainly an incomplete sense. So I don't think I deserve the indignation clearly expressed here. At any rate, this indignation doesn't square well with the thanks at the end of your post for having asked you my questions so that you could share what you actually do believe.
Tolerance--In no way did I request tolerance! My original OP on the other thread was to point out the contradictory nature of agnostic and atheist posters on this board. The "superior" nature of their own tactics and position. For example, some of them, when believers cite scripture for their beliefs, accuse believers of being "cafeteria" Christians for choosing what they believe. I say that you, Cal, are a cafeteria non-believer. Want to know why? On that previous thread when I told you that slavery was a societal norm you wouldn't accept it as such. You chose to imply that Christianity promotes slavery. I see you have no gripe with crucifixion then, as it too was a societal norm in those days . . . do you think that Christianity promotes crucifiction also? I doubt it.
I'll break down my response to this in parts.
1. I stand corrected in thinking your posts were a plea for tolerance. They're clearly something else.
2. But the question still remains for me of what, exactly, your complaint is. You refer here (i) to the "contradictory nature of agnostic and atheist posters on this board"; and (ii) to the "'superior' nature of their own tactics and positions."
I really can't for the life of me get very clear on what you mean by (i). Does it mean that, as I think your example of "cafeteria disbelievers" tries to show, that atheists and agnostics here are often guilty of doing what they accuse Christians of doing? If so, what other common agnosto-atheistic moves here do you think exemplify this failing?
As for (ii): What, precisely, do you mean by "superior" here? I don't think it's that agnostics or atheists disagree with you on certain issues, and offer reasons for the disagreement, with the belief that their view is better than yours.
Because if that were your complaint, then you yourself would be left by your own standard incapable of saying that Mormons are mistaken, that they indeed have an inferior and wrong view of Christ when they base their view on Mormon scriptures. You do claim the "biblical" view of Christ is superior to the Mormon view. And in that way you embody a sense of superiority that's not objectionable to you.
So I gather you have a different type of "superiority complex" in mind when you criticize the agnostics and atheists on this board. We're not, on your account, necessarily being "superior" simply by thinking we have a better view than you do on certain crucial issues.
In any case, it looks like your example of cafeteria disbelief was meant to clarify the kind of superiority that bothers you.
But then I have serious problems with your account of cafeteria belief, at least in my case and in the case of some other agnostic and atheistic posters on this board. But let me speak for myself . . .
3. You wrote that I'm a cafeteria disbeliever analogous to the so-called cafeteria Christian who picks and chooses from scripture what to believe. Except that, in your view, I (like many other agnostics and atheists here) pick and choose from scripture "what I will" in order to oppose Christianity. Our exchange on slavery apparently exemplifies my cafeteria disbelief.
Well, Vicki, you couldn't be more wrong here on what I had in mind in talking about the issue of slavery in NT writings. Yes, I believe the treatment of slavery in biblical writings counts against the belief that the Bible, including the NT, has a divine origin. But the question of slavery could be entirely absent from the Bible and I'd still believe, for myriad other reasons, that it has wholly human origins.
In other words: That there's no single condemnation of slavery as a human institution in the NT; and that there are repeated instructions on how a Christian slave owner should treat his slaves and on how a Christian slave can be a good slave, none of which, again, question the institution of slavery as such-- All of that could be absent from the Bible and I would still have disbelieved in its divine origin for reasons extraneous to this particular issue.
And so I wasn't picking the issue of slavery among others to criticize the NT in some cafeteria disbeliever way. The slavery issue instead serves as an example in a broader pattern of examples of why the Bible seems to have been written by human beings in the absence of divine inspiration. And it's an example that could be dropped from the pattern and still the Bible could be said to have thoroughly human origins. This isn't cafeteria disbelief at all, as far as I can tell.
4. One last point: You argue that my claims about the NT teachings on slavery imply that I "have no gripe with crucifixion, as it too was a societal norm in those days." What?! I oppose both slavery and crucifixion, and my argument that the NT fails to condemn slavery in no way has any bearing on whether crucifixion is justified. Where in the world did you get that idea?
At any rate, this is, I hope, the start of an interesting discussion. Believe me, Vicki, I would love to understand your position better, including your criticisms of agnostics and atheists on this board. And I'd love to understand better the biblical Christianity you've embraced. Of course, I think you could do with a better understanding of the best disbeliever views as well--mine included, of course. ;)
--Cal
Modified by Cal at Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 00:44:07
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Vicki Re: Cal, The Source Speaks! -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
01/30/2002, 00:51:14
Author Profile Mail author
Am I to assume you've lost interest in this discussion for now? That would be fine with me. We could take it up later. Or maybe you're coming up with a response as I post? I did, in any case, spend a significant amount of my time working up a response to your questions here, and I'd hate to see it all go into oblivion, however much I'm dissatisfied with the arguments I've made.
--Cal
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
