who's demanding?
faith in ourselves has superseded faith in god .
early in the 19th century, disputing the religious dogmatism of the puritans, ralph waldo emerson preached that "it is by yourself without ambassador that god speaks to you.
Seven,
I really enjoyed the David Yount quote above.
The kingdom of God is within you." Those whose lives are guided by Jesus' example, who follow him and believe in him as our saviour already have a share in his kingdom. An interpreter is not necessary.
If that is true, where do non-Christians belong in respect to God's kingdom, if it is within us? Or is God's kingdom only within the Christian?
Edited by - AhHAh on 15 October 2000 17:54:5
simply respond to each question with a yes or no answer (or '?
' if unsure):.
before answering, please see my comments on general/main - "how about a survey?"..
Carmel,
I also have a difficult time trying to reconcile the exclusivity of some religions -- we are right and everyone else is wrong -- we have eternal life and non-believers do not.
Why would God choose to exclude vast portions of the world's population from a relationship or acceptable worship, only because those cultures do not have ready access to the exclusive religion?
Those who believe in Christianity would state (as Theo did) that God will eventually make "The Way" known to every person on the planet so that the true religion, the true God, is obvious to all -- although convincing the world of such would seem difficult. For example, how many Christians would be prepared to abandon their whole concept of God and religion if God suddenly revealed to mankind that Islam is the true faith? Most would not even seriously consider the possibility, let alone accepting it. Would not every faithful religious person think that any miraculous intervention was proof of their own faith?
If religion is more than just salvation (as has been argued recently), if it is about daily spirituality and peace of mind, then it would seem to me all the more unlikely that God would limit this opportunity to only a portion of the world's population. When it comes to thinking about all those billions of Buddhists and Hindus, etc. that are alive right now, most Christians seem to think about them only in terms of whether or not God in his mercy will murder them on judgment day for being unbelievers. What about their day-to-day spirituality, happiness, and peace of mind right now? Why don't they also qualify for his daily blessing? Only because they have never heard of Christ or read the Bible?
I realize that the Bible itself encourages such exclusivity -- the us and them mentality. That is why I have a difficult time accepting all of it as from God. It seems so childish and unloving to me personally. I would think that an all-powerful, loving God should not be so insecure and jealous.
Isn't it possible that God is available to everyone who seeks him, regardless of any belief system that they may or may not be aware of?
Isn't it possible that God blesses the efforts of those sincere individuals to become more spiritual, regardless of their currently limited attempts to know him through any religion? And that their salvation is just as assured as everyone else's?
Isn't it possible that God has not authored the Bible and other holy books -- even though they all contain some truths in common, and may have been written by sincere, God-fearing persons promoting their own concept of God?
Doesn't this more open concept of God allow us to be responsible for our own spirituality and efforts to know God, without the divisive human need to validate our own faith at the expense of condemning the "unbelievers"?
Doesn't this allow God to be responsible for others, while we content ourselves with being responsible only for our own spirituality?
That is just my opinion. I could be wrong. What do you think?
Edited by - AhHAh on 15 October 2000 17:38:27
Edited by - AhHAh on 15 October 2000 18:34:42
ahhah .
i did not want to complicate paths thread.
although this is directed to you, ahhah, naturally i welcome comments by all who participate here.. in reference to a portion of what i posted to seven:.
bjc,
Look forward to your next post.
How about just a hint about your name -- maybe we can try to guess what it means.
ahhah .
i did not want to complicate paths thread.
although this is directed to you, ahhah, naturally i welcome comments by all who participate here.. in reference to a portion of what i posted to seven:.
Red,
Your post brings up a very interesting point. The apparent power of prayer and the resultant confirmation of faith in an individual's concept of God, which can differ from one person to the next.
There were times when I felt that my prayers had been answered. Now, I find myself wondering if that was from God or simply another demonstration of the power of positively focusing one's thoughts and actions, as some self-help programs teach. Faith causes prayer, prayers seemingly answered reaffirm faith -- a self-confirming cycle. This seems to serve most people in positive ways. But what if the prayer is for strength to carry out what, in faith, one perceives to be God's will, and that will seems to the individual to require an act of violence or terrorism, such as a suicide bombing? Then we would probably presume that the person was mistaken, that the strength he received to carry out a suicide terrorist mission for his God was not really from God (at least not from our God) right? But then, how would that person know the difference?
I know. This is not a very comforting thought. But such is the world we live in.
ahhah .
i did not want to complicate paths thread.
although this is directed to you, ahhah, naturally i welcome comments by all who participate here.. in reference to a portion of what i posted to seven:.
Frenchy,
Thanks for the elaboration and your kind reassurances. Yes, it does seem that our impressions are closer than we thought.
I see a few main points surfacing in our discussion here:
1. We agree that the Bible teaches a resurrection for believers and un-believers.
2. We agree that the Bible teaches that there will be testing and judging for salvation after the resurrection. (Although, in the scriptures that clearly refer to a heavenly resurrection, there would not seem to be any judging. Physical vs spiritual resurrection is another discussion.) Of course, any judging after a resurrection would imply that the individual now has first hand knowledge of God's existence and love. That is much different and is a much more fair concept for judgment, than killing humans on earth.
3. Who we are and what we do with our lives seems to be more important than a mere profession of belief. Especially when a person learns the value and beauty of self-sacrifice for love and the joy of giving something truly meaningful to the lives of others.
4. Our impressions of a judgment day from God seem to be different. Not, however, because we disagree on what the Bible teaches. It is because I do not believe that the Bible's teachings on this are logically consistent with a loving, all-powerful Creator. It sounds more like the God of the old testament. Christ spoke of a resurrection to judgment, but he never in my recollection described an Armageddon where God will kill living humans who do not suit him. He did describe a great tribulation where no flesh would be saved unless God intervened for the purpose of saving people, not destroying them. In the same discussion he in fact described tribulation at the hands of the lawless. It could be argued that he also draws a parallel there to the flood of Noah, but still, he does not explicitly state that the tribulation marking his coming would be from God, only that it would similarly be unexpected by most and swift -- just like the destruction of Jerusalem. In Matt. 25: 31-46 Christ does indeed describe a judgment associated with his coming where some would be judged unworthy of eternal life. But where and when does this occur? Does it necessarily imply that humans would be killed on earth? I am not convinced that it does. I am aware of the book of Revelation, of course, but I don't think that most (other than JWs) would presume to know which parts should be considered literal. But even if Armageddon is meant to be taken literally, I cannot accept it as from God. I am inclined to believe that there will be no killing of living humans by God, that the afterlife is assured, and that then, and only then, are we able to truly know God, his purpose, and therefore qualify for any judgment that God may have in mind. If this is true, then at that point there will of course be no un-believers, and most likely no one would then want to hold on to any past evil that may have previously defined them.
5. I guess that is another area where we differ, in that I am less inclined to believe that all of the Bible must be accepted as from God.
Edited by - AhHAh on 14 October 2000 15:9:7
Edited by - AhHAh on 14 October 2000 15:47:15
just picture this.. two jehovah's witnesses walking through the local mall or shopping center on saturday morning doing what most active jws do on saturday.
trying to get in their hours to report to big brother, or in this case, mother.. the two witnesses are doing street work.
one of the witnesses is a well known jw elder in the congregation.
I forget not to use the refresh screen after I post ... sorry!
Edited by - AhHAh on 14 October 2000 5:48:44
just picture this.. two jehovah's witnesses walking through the local mall or shopping center on saturday morning doing what most active jws do on saturday.
trying to get in their hours to report to big brother, or in this case, mother.. the two witnesses are doing street work.
one of the witnesses is a well known jw elder in the congregation.
I think we all have some fantasies similar to that. Is it a true story?
hey who here as a kid added little embelishments to the wtbt publications?
a real favourite was drawing in arrows and spears on the guys on the inside cover of the song book.
you know the ones clutching both hands to their chest as they sang their hearts out....well all of mine were actually clutching at an arrow that was sticking out of their chest.
Wow, puppylove, you must be REALLY OLD!!
ahhah .
i did not want to complicate paths thread.
although this is directed to you, ahhah, naturally i welcome comments by all who participate here.. in reference to a portion of what i posted to seven:.
Welcome bjc.
I am also inclined to believe what you said about God revealing himself to everyone, if our salvation depends on it. The scriptural evidence you presented for that is very convincing. It also seems more consistent with God's love, than to think that there would be no clear way of identifying acceptable worship and therefore condemning most of us. Thanks very much for that encouragement!
I am excited that we have several new posters, including yourself, sharing thoughts in just the last couple of days! I sincerely hope that you and Theo and Defender and TR (sorry I missed welcoming you TR!) will continue to jump in and share anything that is important to you and join in any threads you would like. I am new here, but I have begun to feel very welcome and comfortable lately sharing my thoughts. As outspoken as I tend to be, that says much about the tolerance of this group, don't you think? So, everyone, please don't hesitate to join in and share your thoughts!
Btw, bjc, would you like to post a response to the survey? It is entitled "Do you believe ..." and is on the Bible Research forum. You and the other new posters may also enjoy reading many recent threads such as "God and Religion", "How about a survey", and several others. There have been many interesting topics discussed recently with very good participation!
Interesting name ... any significance?
Edited by - AhHah on 13 October 2000 18:33:25
why is it that most r&f witness can take anything the gb dishes out and swallow it whole?.
my mil takes everything she reads in the wt and calls it "meat in due season".
i guess this week's wt is about patience.
Let’s evaluate the situation with what we have and see what we can work out. What is there to be learned here.
I don't understand what you are saying.
