Pope: Whatever religion works for you, cool

[T.Lex]

Hmm I see another post in my future that I expect to complete in 3 paragraphs that ends up in 3 pages.. ..

... said foszoe before every single post he ever wrote.

 

[historian]

... said foszoe before every single post he ever wrote.

 

[rambone]

T.Lex,
I have nothing I care to add about the "Children of God," so the reader can open his bible and see what is (and isn't) written. You got the last word.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex,
I have nothing I care to add about the "Children of God," so the reader can open his bible and see what is (and isn't) written. You got the last word.

Ok. But if I don't respond, then you can have the last word.

...

...

Dangit. I messed that up, didn't I?

 

[foszoe]

... said foszoe before every single post he ever wrote.

Well when I forward one by email so I can use a real editor, I know I might be in trouble. ....

 

[UK2K]

Subscribed... Really good thread!

 

[T.Lex]

Subscribed... Really good thread!

Perfect metaphor for the "right" time to follow Jesus: better late than never.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Okay, serious question here guys:

I understand a "personal connection" to God. A person has an experience which they believe was contact with the almighty. I can understand the power behind that experience.

What I don't understand is religious fervor. Looking at this conversation it seems clear that there is no consensus, even among "Christians", as to what God really wants from you, or what it takes to become "saved", or even what being "saved" really means. On top of that, there are many other religions that also claim divinity, and claim access to secret revealed information about God and his desires for humankind. Even if you have had a personal religious experience, why are you so sure that the creature you had contact with is the one being described by your religion, and why would you believe that any one of them has insight that the others lack? I mean, looking at the totality of the religious landscape as an "outsider", there is no objective way to choose...everyone says their religion is correct, and a person will receive great punishment for following any other.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume God exists, and one can have personal contact with Him...

...that doesn't speak to whether your religion is actually correct or not. Why not be open minded?

Serious question.

Paul, I can definitely understand that you would be left scratching your head. It happens to me too sometimes. Generally, the biggest disagreements within Christianity involve the least important points of doctrine. Not always, but usually. Case in point, you have read at least three different paradigms explaining the beliefs of assorted members regarding the particularly of how eternal life is imparted by the redemptive work of Christ, and the disagreement is that it happens, but the details of how various people believe it happens. I would argue that this very situation is the reason why Paul (the Apostle) arrived in Corinth and declared "I came to you determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified." The point is that the basic truth leading to eternal life is important. The minutiae attached to it, not so much. I am all in favor of the best understanding possible, but not when arguing over that understanding serves to defeat the purpose.

 

[PaulF]

Less attendance than on election day?


I think that tracks human nature. Some people are open minded, some are not. Some seek divisions - real or imagined - and some do not. It is more a balance between poles than buckets to put people in.

That's kinda the theme of the OP. The pope got slammed for suggesting that a certain level of (non-doctrinal) interpersonal inclusiveness is appropriate.

There is a doctrinal issues embedded in the question, though. As Christians, we (I'm pretty sure I can speak for all on this) believe that Christ is the key to salvation. Other faiths, while well meaning (or not), are extremely unlikely to help their followers reach salvation. Some argue that those other religions effectively negate any chance at salvation.

I've stated my personal views elsewhere and don't have the energy to pitch that tent in this thread.

First, I appreciate your response, and all of your posts in this thread. This conversation reminds me of my many years in Catholic school.

That's really what I'm getting at, here. It's well-known in these parts that I'm a strong atheist, but that is a default position. I arrived at the place I am because I cannot square the descriptions of the world that appear in the various holy texts of the available religions with the world that I have actually experienced. The creatures and events described in, for instance, the Qu'ran are so far fetched that I have no problem dismissing the whole thing, but...

If the penitent Muslim bows his head in prayer and makes contact with the Almighty, what difference does it make if his religion is nonsense? Certainly a personal relationship with God Himself is more important than adherence to dogma, right?

Let me put this another way...

What if the Bible is misleading? The Christian Bible was undeniably written and collected by men. What if those men had an agenda other than your salvation? What if they were more interested in accumulating power? The story of Jesus has been awfully effective to that end over the last 20 centuries. What if the original editors of the bible put words into Jesus' mouth that he never actually uttered? Well, I think it doesn't really matter...if the penitent Christian bows his head in prayer and makes contact with the Almighty, what difference does it make if his religion is a giant Ponzi scheme?

If God really existed, I think he would welcome all of us with open arms, no hoops to jump through, no mysterious messages, no prophets, no messiahs...a truly Almighty God doesn't need any of that. If there is any point to religion at all, at least from the perspective of this outsider, it is to create a personal relationship with God...the rest seems so superfluous.

First, we are arguing over the process of salvation, not salvation itself. Salvation is faith in Christ's work on the Cross. That the perfect Son of God came and took His sins upon us.

Some believe in eternal security (once saved/always saved), others believe in an ability to "lose" ones salvation (i.e., they believed, but then ceased to believe) and there are many shades in between.

What does God want from us? First to be saved. Secondly, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Finally, to love our neighbor as ourselves.



Because Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me."

We believe that. This conversation was started because of a choice of words from a Christian leader concerning other religions. If we believe what Jesus said as truth (which we do), then being open minded is whistling while people go to a (literally) damned eternity.

As always, this conversation is much better in person, rather than through a screen.

ETA: Cross-posted with T.Lex. However, even though he is a Catholic and I am a Baptist, we both have the same view of salvation. We are pretty much on opposite ends of the Christian spectrum otherwise.

Thank you for your response.

If you believe this sort of thing, then God created all humans. I don't think god has an interest in excluding large parts of humanity from salvation over what amounts to tribal squabbles between men.

Like I stated in my answer above, I don't think dogma is required for salvation. If the Almighty exists, earnest prayer should be sufficient for "salvation"...it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Adherence to religious dogma displays a willingness to submit to the will of other men, earnest prayer displays a willingness to submit directly to the Almighty. With something as important as eternal salvation, it must be available to all human beings regardless of the indoctrination of other men...prayer is the only direct conduit available to man without the intervention of other men, and is the common denominator among all faiths.

Well then, serious answer.

First, we in this thread are a bunch of theological geeks discussing our views on stuff that really has little bearing on how we practice our faith. We all strive to follow after the example of Jesus and writings of Paul, we all belief in heaven, we all belief the only path to head is the one paid for by the blood of Christ, we all want to spread that message to as many as possible.

Second, yes we are exclusive in that we believe the only path to salvation is through Jesus - because he said so.

And the short answer to why Christianity? It's Jesus. Here we have a very well documented individual going around, doing miracles, fulfilling the old testament prophecy, being crucified then being resurrected. That's the lynch pin that ties everything together. That's the logical, historical evidence that solidifies it in my mind.



EDIT: Whoa three answers in four minutes!

I think Jesus existed. I don't think he rose from the grave. I certainly don't think he was God. I don't think he was a prophet of God. I think Jesus was sold to the poor to keep them pliable, and I think it has worked remarkably well for two millennia now.

Your religion was made by men, all of it. All religions were...and we cling to them with irrational fury. We can't all be right with our dogmatic minutia, but we can all bow our heads in reverence to the Almighty and try to find our spiritual place in His universe. If the point of religion is to bring Man to God, then religion is a beautiful and important institution, that serves a valuable purpose all over the world...and a thousand different faiths are fulfilling that need. Otherwise "religion" just replaces "tribe" and becomes just another reason for us to kill each other.

Again, I think the personal connection to God is the ultimate point of any religion...the rest is set dressing.

I just noticed a different question within your question: "personal relationship with God."

For me, it isn't about a single "experience" like a near death experience or anything like that. I've always felt God. While I wandered outside of Catholicism for awhile, I didn't doubt the existence of God. In my life experiences - the process of getting older - I came to see God working in and around me.

It is important (IMHO) to recognize that there is a part of God in everyone. Everyone can have a "personal connection to God" that is personal to them. That is what I think is encompassed in the "spiritual journey" everyone is on - even those that do not believe in God. That doesn't necessarily change whether God believes in them.

Not everyone has to have the same personal connection, let alone the same reasons for a personal connection. To really act in unison with faith, though, there does need to be a connection. Well, I can't imagine trying to fake it, but I guess people might do that for worldly reasons.

I don't have an awesome response to this. I wanted to include it because I like it, and I want people to read it again.

I was raised in a religious home. I was subject to a Christian education, continuing into college. I have never felt the connection you describe. I have been told by Christians that the reason for that is that I wasn't open to receiving the experience. I can only give my word that isn't so.

I have never had a supernatural experience in my life, but I try to keep an open mind. I don't know what tomorrow will bring.

Paul, I can definitely understand that you would be left scratching your head. It happens to me too sometimes. Generally, the biggest disagreements within Christianity involve the least important points of doctrine. Not always, but usually. Case in point, you have read at least three different paradigms explaining the beliefs of assorted members regarding the particularly of how eternal life is imparted by the redemptive work of Christ, and the disagreement is that it happens, but the details of how various people believe it happens. I would argue that this very situation is the reason why Paul (the Apostle) arrived in Corinth and declared "I came to you determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified." The point is that the basic truth leading to eternal life is important. The minutiae attached to it, not so much. I am all in favor of the best understanding possible, but not when arguing over that understanding serves to defeat the purpose.

I am a skeptic by nature. Religion has done a lot of harm to our kind. It continues to do so today.

I don't begrudge anyone their belief in gods, they may have had experiences I have not. I would never ask someone to take their relationship with their gods any less seriously.

It's just, sometimes...I wish some people would take their religion a little less seriously.



Alright. It's been a long typing session. Thank you all for your responses, I am really enjoying this thread.

 

[T.Lex]

Certainly a personal relationship with God Himself is more important than adherence to dogma, right?

Maybe, maybe not. This is a variation of Pascal's Gambit: there are false gods who lead people astray, it is a bit of a gamble as to which is which.

If God really existed, I think he would welcome all of us with open arms, no hoops to jump through, no mysterious messages, no prophets, no messiahs...a truly Almighty God doesn't need any of that. If there is any point to religion at all, at least from the perspective of this outsider, it is to create a personal relationship with God...the rest seems so superfluous.

Sounds like you're half way to agnosticism.

Again, I think the personal connection to God is the ultimate point of any religion...the rest is set dressing.
...
I was raised in a religious home. I was subject to a Christian education, continuing into college. I have never felt the connection you describe. I have been told by Christians that the reason for that is that I wasn't open to receiving the experience. I can only give my word that isn't so.

I have never had a supernatural experience in my life, but I try to keep an open mind. I don't know what tomorrow will bring.

I'd like to put a slightly different spin on this (I think). There is nothing wrong with doubt. I've also had that my whole life. Its like, the one thing I DIDN'T doubt was God. I doubted all the same dogmatic issues you've raised and dozens others. For a time, I looked at other religions (because I did have a basic faith) but they didn't resonate with me. I returned to Catholicism, by my own choice.

For you, it seems to me that God hid faith away inside you someplace deep. It is harder for you to have faith. In a sense, that is your cross to bear. Like you say, no one knows what tomorrow may bring. You might experience something that draws you "in" and never look back. It sounds to me like you are open to it. That's cool. Keep an open mind - not just about the doubts, but about the faith. Just because you haven't felt it, doesn't mean you can't.

I am a skeptic by nature. Religion has done a lot of harm to our kind. It continues to do so today.

But it has also done much good, and continues to do that today. It is all about emphasis. How we each, individually, choose what parts to look at, and what parts to emulate.

It's just, sometimes...I wish some people would take their religion a little less seriously.

Amen! (BTW, at the risk of re-igniting the embers of this thread, I think that's kinda what the pope was trying to say in the video in the OP.)

Speaking of which, hey rambone, I have an "elect" question for you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's just, sometimes...I wish some people would take their religion a little less seriously.

I can understand this, especially given the matter of perspective. One thing I would like to emphasize is that while we bring to the table a great deal of, well, variation in what we believe, I am satisfied that the single most important element at a personal level, is that you have quite a few people here who genuinely care about you and sincerely want what is best for you, even if we may not agree exactly on the details.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh and foszoe, rather than start a new thread, this one seems about right:
Pope Francis set for historic Orthodox Patriarch meeting - BBC News

It is the first papal meeting with a Russian Church head since the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity split in the 11th Century.

So, the Pope and the Russian Patriarch meet up in Havana....

 

[historian]

What if the Bible is misleading? The Christian Bible was undeniably written and collected by men. What if those men had an agenda other than your salvation? What if they were more interested in accumulating power? The story of Jesus has been awfully effective to that end over the last 20 centuries. What if the original editors of the bible put words into Jesus' mouth that he never actually uttered? Well, I think it doesn't really matter...if the penitent Christian bows his head in prayer and makes contact with the Almighty, what difference does it make if his religion is a giant Ponzi scheme?

I understand your frustration on the power level. Christianity (like all religions) has been abused. The Popes in the 1400s all the way up to Jack Hyles in The Region.

I will say this, the New Testament was written by, as Trump would say, "Losers". Of the 12 disciples, only one died of old age, and he didn't have an easy life either. A tax collector, a man who renounced his great power, men who gave up the family business. They all gave their lives to follow this radical man. Once again, a cartoon says it better than me: Not an option - Adam4d.com

If the Almighty exists, earnest prayer should be sufficient for "salvation"...it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I think I said this upstream, but I'll say it again. If you don't have the Gospel given to you and have no access to these beliefs, then yes, I believe that will save you. I like how you used the word "earnest" as that is what I was striving for earlier when I mentioned that their are people who pray a prayer, and maybe even act saved for a while, but are not truly believers. There is the parable of the sower as well: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13.

 

[foszoe]

Oh and foszoe, rather than start a new thread, this one seems about right:
Pope Francis set for historic Orthodox Patriarch meeting - BBC News



So, the Pope and the Russian Patriarch meet up in Havana....

Saw that this morning. Unfortunately work is keeping me at bay. I haven't got around to Paul's original post and already there are more Posts to which I feel the need to incorporate. Just how many characters can go into a single post?

By the time I get to it, everyone will be unsubscribed.

Which is probably a good thing. The longer they are the more proofreads to make sure it's as unoffensive as possible

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh and foszoe, rather than start a new thread, this one seems about right:
Pope Francis set for historic Orthodox Patriarch meeting - BBC News



So, the Pope and the Russian Patriarch meet up in Havana....

Ecumenical agreement on meeting someplace with good weather! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

 

[historian]

Ecumenical agreement on meeting someplace with good weather! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

Cuba is the only place a Spanish speaker and a Russian can call neutral territory!

 

[indiucky]

I just wanted to post this and this thread seems right...I always liked Hitch...On the question of the Almighty he and I disagree but I had never heard this left handed compliment he delivered to someone I admire a great deal.....

Hitch reminds me of Jamil and PaulF...He's intellectually honest in regards to the great mysteries....

[video=youtube;swx75k1GWEo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swx75k1GWEo[/video]


[video=youtube;E9TMwfkDwIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TMwfkDwIY[/video]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Cuba is the only place a Spanish speaker and a Russian can call neutral territory!

 

[rambone]

Speaking of which, hey rambone, I have an "elect" question for you.

I'll do my best.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll do my best.

I know you will.

And, as usual, this question is born of ignorance of how certain non-Catholic dogma developed, so I do not mean this question to be confrontational.

So, going back to our moderately sinful Muslim. He dies, but is saved at the last moment. Does he become part of the Elect at that point, or was he all along? Or am I completely confusing your interpretation of the Elect?