> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > I don't think that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as an > > > "evangelical." > > > > > He's a Baptist. He fits within a broad category of "born again > > Christians" > > who know that they are already saved, so their actions cannot condemn > > them. > > >This is where I get all wierded out about religion. He is already saved, > >so his actions can't condemn him? So, what did he do to earn this > >apparent inability to commit any more sins?. Or am I reading this wrong? > > You are reading it wrong. No Christians think that we earn salvation...it > is a gift of God that merely has to accept. There is significant > differences of opinion on what constitutes acceptance....but that's not > the point.
Well, earn was a poor choice of words perhaps, acquire then. My interest was more in the fact that his "actions cannot condemn him". So there are people out their who believe that because they have accepted God into their hearts, everything they do is automatically right, and they can no longer commit "sin"?. Isn't that a bit of a circular.... actually, hang on, that helps explain a lot. Yes there are such people aren't there... I have seen them on TV. > > >It's like the Mafia bosses who raped, murdered, prostituted etc etc for > >60 years and then, on their death bed confess, admit they have sinned > >and apparently get the express bus to heaven. It just seems way too > >easy, and thus shallow and meaningless, and of no benefit to ensuring a > >better world. > > I think that you miss the Christian perspective here: it is impossible to > game the system, dealing with someone who knows you better than you do: > God. It has to be more than an admission of sin, it has to be an honest > repentance. Being sorry you did wrong because you might go to hell for it > doesn't cut it. One must honestly repent. Umm... I will think upon how the meaning of repent differs from being sorry, it's an interesting question. > > The prodigal son story is one of the best explainations of the Christian > concept of forgiveness. > > However, lets assume that the system can be gamed...just for the purpose > of arguementation. Then, Christians should expect to have the same > results > after they die, whether their actions are all good or all evil. This is, > essentially, the perception of an athiest, right? For an athiest, after > death, there is nothing, no matter how one behaves. So, if there is > heaven, instead, no matter what one does, what's the difference as far as > influencing behavior? > If you are asking me to answer questions on how atheists perceive, you have the wrong guy. I am most definitely in the agnostic group (I think, except on certain occasions). And your example was what I was asking, if one can just repent, or one can be "pre-saved" what is the point. It provides little incentive either way. > > >Indeed, I am reminded of Groucho Marx's comments. Any religion that would > make > >it that easy to be saved, I wouldn't want to be part of. Of course, I am > >probably missing something. Heaven, almost certainly, as I don't think a > >two minute confession or a 2 hour born-again experience is sufficient to > >wipe away a life of sin. > > For a Christian, nothing we can do is good enough to earn heaven. We only > can get it because of a gift from God; all we have to do is accept it. > > Indeed, most of the mature Christians I know do not operate on the delayed > gratification view of morality...I'll do the right thing now because I > will > get lots later. Rather its acting out of love of and faith in God, and > love of neighbor. Fair enough, but I am sure there are some, less mature ones, who do and that's what wierds me out. > > It's also worth understanding the Christian's understanding of God if one > wishes to understand this viewpoint. Picturing God as a powerful alien > does not help in understanding a Christian's faith in God, because that's > not how a Christian views God. The Christian hymn which proclaims "God is > Love, and he who abides in love, abides in Him" and the proclamation of > Jesus that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light" gives a flavor of the > Christian understanding. So, love of God reflects of love of truth, love > itself, right action, etc. incarnate. Love of neighbor is love of all. > I love hymns, they do make me believe more in a God, and they are just good fun to sing. And fine sentiments you have expressed, and I have an understanding of what you are saying. Of course, this version of 'truth', and 'right action', is your Gods version, which may or may not represent 'right action', or 'truth' to others of a different persuasion. They in fact may see some of your actions as a mortal sin. But than one can have only one Master I guess. This may sound a silly question, but are there multiple heavens, or are those who have honestly accepted the love of another god, repented truly in his/her/its eyes, doomed. Or can you swap horses? Does one have to be sorry for things done while one believed in another god, when they weren't sins? > There is no doubt that Christians fall short of this ideal. Probably > every > Christian has been guilty, at one time or another, of trying to negotiate > with God or gaming the system. But mature Christians understand that > these > attempts reflect our own failings. > Yes, agnostics are guilty of much the same failings, we just aren't sure if we should feel guilty or not. But love, well, however it's defined, and wherever it came from, if its in ones heart, then you can't go too far wrong. Repent Harlequin, said the Ticktockman Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
