toldailytopic: If you have ever changed your religion, what where some of the reasons

[Town Heretic]

1. I didn't like the idea of worshiping Jesus

It helps if you start with Jesus as God in foundation. Otherwise, of course you wouldn't. It would make as much sense as worshiping C.S. Lewis, likable sod that he was.

2. I couldn't conceive of a God who would throw his children into hell

Me either, but I can understand a God who would let his creation choose its own destiny the same way the prodigal son's father watched him walk away with his inheritance. Don't you imagine he was heartbroken? The restoration that ends the narrative argues, unassailably I think, that he loved his son. And yet...

3. Why would God need someone to come between us?

He wouldn't. Rather, He met the requirement of one aspect of His nature (justice) with another (love) and Christ/Jesus stands at the nexus (grace). God cannot be other than God. He cannot be less than just or loving. And He isn't.

4. It doesn't make sense for God to sacrifice himself, to himself, to appease himself.

Supra.

5. I like to be able to see the Torah from different points and view and perspectives without being told I'm rebellious

No one likes to be told they're wrong. Especially when they aren't, but even when they are...human nature. But then, you're sort of doing that to other people even as you relate your own disposition, when you think on it.

Among a myriad of other reasons that I don't care to discuss here.

Anything else you want to talk about not talking about? :liberals:

Hiya Dena. :wave2: Good to see you about the joint.

 

[greatdivide46]

Started out Episcopalian, changed to Independent Christian Church, now attending a Southern Baptist Church. These changes were based on relationships with people rather than doctrinal belief. My personal doctrinal beliefs are closest to the Independent Christian Church, but there is not one around where I currently live, so I attend an SBC church. And like one poster said, I, too, have been the instigator of many lively discussions at the SBC church I attend.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Me either, but I can understand a God who would let his creation choose its own destiny the same way the prodigal son's father watched him walk away with his inheritance. Don't you imagine he was heartbroken? The restoration that ends the narrative argues, unassailably I think, that he loved his son. And yet...

Hi TH. I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this. I don't have available time currently to address our other debate so I'll try and give a condensed answer here in relation to your reply to Dena.

I don't think your comparison with this passage works in support of your argument. The father is overjoyed to see his son returning before he even has a chance to apologize for his actions. It's certainly obvious that the father loved his son regardless. If you then look at the reaction of his brother who is chagrined at the feast prepared for his return, it strikes me as comparable to the reactions of some who feel miffed about the notion of everyone being reconciled to God. (That's not a personal dig at you btw although you do seem to think that such happens at the expense of those who 'choose righteously'.

This is also a bit rushed for a reply and not up to my usual rubbish standards I'm afraid...

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

...I don't think your comparison with this passage works in support of your argument....It's certainly obvious that the father loved his son regardless.

And yet he allowed his son to leave him, to go into the world in selfishness and risk ruin and unending separation from him. Which is my way of illustrating that love makes a greater demand on its possessor, one of respect for that object's autonomy, even in the face of horrific consequence. Else, the father would have bound his son, or imprisoned him within his home, or set guards to see to it that he could not wander far into the land, etc. There were any number of things short of simply letting him go that could have been accomplished. And yet...

If you then look at the reaction of his brother who is chagrined at the feast prepared for his return, it strikes me as comparable to the reactions of some who feel miffed about the notion of everyone being reconciled to God.

It is certainly an illustration of the attitude of those who believe that grace is earned, which isn't quite what you're saying. The other son is thinking/saying, "I've been good and he hasn't. Where is my reward?" I think that's an important distinction. He doesn't demand that his brother should suffer deprivation, but wonders after his own desire.

I'd be the last fellow to suggest a man earns salvation or deserves anything.

...you do seem to think that such happens at the expense of those who 'choose righteously'.

No, since I don't think the "it" you implying happens at all. I think some men go out and others remain. Some men return and others never do. The Father allows all of this, not because He knows no harm will come but because He understands that it is our will and our choice that meaningfully distinguishes us from a rather interesting play.

This is also a bit rushed for a reply and not up to my usual rubbish standards I'm afraid...

Don't sell yourself short. This is first rate rubbish...lain: (well, you practically dared me, didn't you?)

:cheers:

 

[Newman]

I was raised in a Baptist church with ties to both the SBC and CBF. I became a Christian in third grade when I realized that as a sinner, there is nothing I can do to gain salvation except plead the blood of Christ. My theology and understanding of Scripture has matured since then, but for about two years in college I really really questioned my own beliefs, to the point that I would have labelled myself an atheist if some stranger had asked.

I started thinking that the Bible was errant, that none of it coincided with modern science, and that it really was just an old book written by a bunch of prescientific people.

I'm past that turmoil now, and pretty happy about it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And yet he allowed his son to leave him, to go into the world in selfishness and risk ruin and unending separation from him. Which is my way of illustrating that love makes a greater demand on its possessor, one of respect for that object's autonomy, even in the face of horrific consequence. Else, the father would have bound his son, or imprisoned him within his home, or set guards to see to it that he could not wander far into the land, etc. There were any number of things short of simply letting him go that could have been accomplished. And yet...

Happy Easter TH. I only have time to address this part for now but for better or worse a new laptop is in the pipeline for next week...

This still doesn't work as a comparison IMO. Most parents realize that their children are going to leave the nest at some point. Most also realize that they're likely to make some questionable decisions as they, when children would have done likewise. Being human it comes with the territory. I'm fairly certain that a loving parent would choose to intervene at the expense of their child's autonomy were their life at risk if the opportunity afforded itself. I most certainly would. Obviously there are times where that simply isn't possible but again, it's not a comparison that particularly works.

It's pretty evident that the only unending separation would be at the son's behest and compounded by the inevitability of death, of which both the son and the father are subject to. If time weren't a factor then the door would be open for as long as it took for the son to return. In your framework the door ends at physical death. Game over so to speak. Furthermore the 'horrific consequence' of eternal hell is one conceived and designed by God before life even comes into being. It's a 'one shot' at getting it right effectively. Everything such as pain, loss, joy, the capacity to learn, suffering, emotion etc etc etc are also designed by God and I can't say I see there's much 'respecting autonomy' in regards as to how we feel such things in our lives there TH.

Effectively all suffering, knowledge, learning, development etc are pretty much pointless because you've got to get the one correct answer between the ages of 20 something to 100 odd otherwise it's all for nothing anyway. lain:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Happy Easter TH.

Same to you. I'm sharing my birthday with it this year. :think:

I only have time to address this part for now but for better or worse a new laptop is in the pipeline for next week...

Excellent news!

This still doesn't work as a comparison IMO...I'm fairly certain that a loving parent would choose to intervene at the expense of their child's autonomy were their life at risk if the opportunity afforded itself.

That's the key phrase at the very end, but you need the right context for application. If God views our autonomy as necessary then its that very autonomy, applied to the moral, that restricts that opportunity AND necessitates the danger.

It's pretty evident that the only unending separation would be at the son's behest and compounded by the inevitability of death, of which both the son and the father are subject to.

Exactly so. And I believe there are other laws that fathers and sons are subject to. I think the Bible illustrates what love is and how it operates and what it will do. Christ's sacrifice is a perfect illustration of its desire related even to the undeserving. But implied in this is what love cannot and will not do. It cannot and will not choose for you, though it will take the burden of your choice if allowed.

If time weren't a factor then the door would be open for as long as it took for the son to return.

Which he might, literally, never do.

In your framework the door ends at physical death.

Just as Hamlet's dilemma ended with an act.

Game over so to speak.

That's how things work, yes.

Furthermore the 'horrific consequence' of eternal hell is one conceived and designed by God before life even comes into being.

You're still missing my pigs in slop analogy and I wouldn't say God designed a consequence. I also think our arrow notion of time is off in relation to God, but that gets complicated beyond what's needed here when the simpler answer is sufficient.

It's a 'one shot' at getting it right effectively.

In the same way that any number of things/choices are. If you murder someone you're a murderer. It's a one shot sort of thing.

Everything such as pain, loss, joy, the capacity to learn, suffering, emotion etc etc etc are also designed by God and I can't say I see there's much 'respecting autonomy' in regards as to how we feel such things in our lives there TH.

Those things come with sentience and reflect His perfection, but I don't see the connection between that commonality and your not seeing the respect for our autonomy in them. God isn't choosing what you love for you, etc. to try to connect with your meaning.

Effectively all suffering, knowledge, learning, development etc are pretty much pointless because you've got to get the one correct answer between the ages of 20 something to 100 odd otherwise it's all for nothing anyway. lain:

Let me know when you get to the stuff I actually said...lain: It might be tragic if you couldn't get where you need to be. You can. God is just and loving. If you don't believe that you don't understand what I mean when I say God. If you do you needn't have your anxiety.

Good news, again, on the laptop (though I'll likely never own one...it's that resting point for your hands...nope). :cheers:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Same to you. I'm sharing my birthday with it this year. :think:

:e4e:

Excellent news!

Hopefully this one will last longer than 5 months... lain:

That's the key phrase at the very end, but you need the right context for application. If God views our autonomy as necessary then its that very autonomy, applied to the moral, that restricts that opportunity AND necessitates the danger.

Why would danger be necessary for moral autonomy to take effect? I would argue that any doctrine of eternal hell itself usurps autonomy as the core has fear as the catalyst for any response or "choice" at least initially.

Exactly so. And I believe there are other laws that fathers and sons are subject to. I think the Bible illustrates what love is and how it operates and what it will do. Christ's sacrifice is a perfect illustration of its desire related even to the undeserving. But implied in this is what love cannot and will not do. It cannot and will not choose for you, though it will take the burden of your choice if allowed.

Yes, the law of gravity for a start I believe the biblical illustration of love in Corinthians is the most evocative and positive definition of love there could be. The importance of it is stressed continually throughout the NT. Love does not choose for people but nor does it create life with the inevitability of interminable suffering as a result.

Which he might, literally, never do.

Perhaps not, but as long as the door remains unlocked the possibility remains.

Just as Hamlet's dilemma ended with an act.

Then why do so many miss it? Do you think that avoiding hell is as obvious a choice as taking treatment for cancer?

That's how things work, yes.

Well, it's how you believe they work certainly. I beg to differ...

You're still missing my pigs in slop analogy and I wouldn't say God designed a consequence. I also think our arrow notion of time is off in relation to God, but that gets complicated beyond what's needed here when the simpler answer is sufficient.

I can relate to your argument concerning time as that's where my own thinking is at. However, if things work as you suggest then it's God who sets up the parameters from the very outset with eternal hell as a direct consequence. Nobody else designs the way the system works...

In the same way that any number of things/choices are. If you murder someone you're a murderer. It's a one shot sort of thing.

Before informed choice can take place there has to be knowledge and awareness of consequence. A bit like knowing that gravity isn't just some abstract concept and jumping out of a plane at 5000 feet is going to end with a messy splat...

That can hardly be applied to "hell". Modern orthodox religion teaches it as consequence (in a myriad different forms) but it's hardly surprising that such a concept baffles and alienates people.

Those things come with sentience and reflect His perfection, but I don't see the connection between that commonality and your not seeing the respect for our autonomy in them. God isn't choosing what you love for you, etc. to try to connect with your meaning.

Well here's an example of what I mean which could hardly get any more relevant really. I know a woman who used to believe in an orthodox hell. Her very close sibling died suddenly in a car crash and as to the best of her knowledge he was an atheist - and pretty unlikely to have converted that fateful day - was likely bound for the place.

It tore her apart, as I imagine it would to anyone in the same or similar situation. It's more than bad enough to lose a loved one but to think that they're going to suffer interminably in either some fiery pit or whichever other take on hell there is would be absolutely heart rending. God gives us the capacity to feel intense emotion from love to despair in which choice is absent.

Let me know when you get to the stuff I actually said...lain: It might be tragic if you couldn't get where you need to be. You can. God is just and loving. If you don't believe that you don't understand what I mean when I say God. If you do you needn't have your anxiety.

We're not all carbon copies of each other TH. Some people take a lot longer to learn than others. If everyone was on the exact same starting line and the 'choice' was as obvious as accepting a life raft while drowning then I'd concede the point. It isn't.

Why would you suggest that I may not think that God is just and loving? Of course I understand that. What causes anxiety is the doctrine of hell from the literal to your own version of which the example earlier aptly demonstrates. The concept of eternal suffering in any form has that effect... lain:

Good news, again, on the laptop (though I'll likely never own one...it's that resting point for your hands...nope). :cheers:

If this one stuffs up I'll likely not be owning another one myself and just get a PC and be done with it!

:cheers:

 

[Ktoyou]

I was raised and Anglican, or Episcopalian and have remained one; the only difference between my mother and myself is I prefer the Low Church more than the High Church, which is more similar to the Catholic Church. I read the English Bible, preferring the King James Bible. I have some of a Mid-Acts position, and would say I place the Body of Christ beyond any church dogma. I did not begin that way, rather was raised with a very strong New Testament preference. My Christology is based on the salvation through Jesus Christ and my way of Prayer is to Jesus Christ. I believe Christ is the Word and all we know comes through Him; we know of the Father only through the Son, who is the Door.

I have not noticed a big change, just a river flowing towards a deeper understanding.

 

[Cracked]

I went from Episcopalian to Nazarene - a big jump I know. However, I was at a point where I really wanted to be in a church that believed what it preached. I love the people in both denominations, however. As far as the Episcopal church was concerned, I just couldn't continue to support some of the stuff the leaders accepted and taught. Now, the Nazarene church is changing currently and its an exciting time. It is expanding rapidly outside of the US, and there is a shift going on away from some of the legalism that has plagued it toward more Wesleyan roots and even beyond this.

 

[vnctblzn]

toldailytopic: If you have ever changed your religion, what where some of the reasons you did so?

the christian fundamentalists had ex-communicated me 12 years ago, so i had joined the mormon church.

 

[Jacob]

I've been a Christian my entire life. I have recognized that people have differing beliefs within Christianity, and had to sort out my own. I still have questions, for example, on why we have abandoned God's law or substituted another for it. I know that a Christian is under grace and not under law, but I also know that grace is not a license to sin.

Shalom,

Jacob

One of the reasons that I became a Jew is to observe all of God's commands. Those who criticized me and told me that I can't or couldn't are and were wrong. Being of Israel I accept the TaNaKh (the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim) and Matthew through Revelation. There is much to the Jewish library. I don't understand it all yet, but there is such a wealth in regard to God's commands.

Shalom.

Jacob