My biggest problem with Born-Again Christianity

[Venkman]

Ok, yes I have a problem with the whole idea that if you accept Christ you're saved and going to heaven, no matter how you live your life subsequent to being saved.

But what I really have difficulty with is that a good person who is not a Christian is going to hell for eternity, no matter what good they did in this life. Never even heard of Christ? Too damn bad. It's just total BS and doesn't square with my idea of a God that is merciful and just.

At least that's how I understand the doctrine. Maybe some of the born-agains like Shaff (or Santos ) can set me straight if I'm wrong.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Ok, yes I have a problem with the whole idea that if you accept Christ you're saved and going to heaven, no matter how you live your life subsequent to being saved.

But what I really have difficulty with is that a good person who is not a Christian is going to hell for eternity, no matter what good they did in this life. Never even heard of Christ? Too damn bad. It's just total BS and doesn't square with my idea of a God that is merciful and just.

At least that's how I understand the doctrine. Maybe some of the born-agains like Shaff (or Santos ) can set me straight if I'm wrong.

Haha me and Shaf, huh? On point one, I think you misunderstand Christian doctrine. On point two, I agree. The funny thing about doctrine, though, is that the lay church member may not always believe what is official church doctrine. Most Christians I run into on my mission and since are much more reasonable and logical on these points. Most people Christian or not, believe in the concept close to our baptism for the dead concept and our eternal marriage concept, though their official doctrine may not comply. Case in point, notice BG's mention of "eternal marriage" language at Christian weddings she's attended.

[Archaea]

To me, it's the Oprah Winfrey/Jerry Springer religion for the masses. They get you in an uproar, cry with you and then take your money in their Bentleys. It's not theologically sound, it's not historical, unless one considers things hearkening back to the 20th Century historical, and there is no rationality about it. And the faith is not a deep, calming faith, but a showy, flashy faith that doesn't hlep during times of crises or other trials. Probably an unfair caricature, but it's a bunch trailer people looking for an easy way to explain their behavior without changing their behavior.

Many strains of Christianity are interesting, especially some of the Gnostic or older strains, from an academic as well as philosophical point of view. Some, such as the 7th Day Adventists actually demonstrate a compatible lifestyle.

[SeattleUte]

I really hope I'm the only one who replies to the thread starter here. The religion section is going all to hell. Robin once said something very funny drawing an unflattering simile to people who argue about religious doctrine/dogma. I wish I had it at my fingertips now.

In any event, Mormons who really care about learning something regarding the Protestant concept of saving through grace that has been around at least since Augustine, and ascendant since Martin Luther, should check out Wikipedia, or a book, if that piques your interest. Beyond that, I don't know what else there is to say except that I'm sorry your own faith hasn't given you a more coherent response/explanation on this tiresome issue.

Was Venkman trolling, imitating others? I hope so. If so, I'm sorry for being snarky. In any event, I call a boycott of this thread, except for this post.

[SeattleUte]

I see that as I composed my reply my wish was dashed.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Haha me and Shaf, huh? On point one, I think you misunderstand Christian doctrine. On point two, I agree. The funny thing about doctrine, though, is that the lay church member may not always believe what is official church doctrine. Most Christians I run into on my mission and since are much more reasonable and logical on these points. Most people Christian or not, believe in the concept close to our baptism for the dead concept and our eternal marriage concept, though their official doctrine may not comply. Case in point, notice BG's mention of "eternal marriage" language at Christian weddings she's attended.

Yeah, let me clarify. I don't think point one is doctrine, but that's the belief of many born-agains. Point two, I agree many don't believe that doctrine, but the hard-core born-agains I've run into do, since "it's in the Bible" supposedly.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I really hope I'm the only one who replies to the thread starter here. The religion section is going all to hell. Robin once said something very funny drawing an unflattering simile to people who argue about religious doctrine/dogma. I wish I had it at my fingertips now.

In any event, Mormons who really care about learning something regarding the Protestant concept of saving through grace that has been around at least since Augustine, and ascendant since Martin Luther, should check out Wikipedia, or a book, if that piques your interest. Beyond that, I don't know what else there is to say except that I'm sorry your own faith hasn't given you a more coherent response/explanation on this tiresome issue.

Was Venkman trolling, imitating others? I hope so. If so, I'm sorry for being snarky. In any event, I call a boycott of this thread, except for this post.

Not trolling. Why, is that your exclusive doman?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Ok, yes I have a problem with the whole idea that if you accept Christ you're saved and going to heaven, no matter how you live your life subsequent to being saved.

But what I really have difficulty with is that a good person who is not a Christian is going to hell for eternity, no matter what good they did in this life. Never even heard of Christ? Too damn bad. It's just total BS and doesn't square with my idea of a God that is merciful and just.

At least that's how I understand the doctrine. Maybe some of the born-agains like Shaff (or Santos ) can set me straight if I'm wrong.

Mr. Venkman. There is a wide range of Christian thought on the means of salvation. There are Baptist sects which believe, as Calvin did, in the preservation of the saints. There are also Baptist sects which believe in the Arminian potential to fall from grace.

I can say a ton more on this (and on your second point) but I'm not sure how much interest there is, and I shall have to wait until later when I have more time. Today is, after all, Land Run Day. So I have two boys to dress up as cowboys so they can go re-enact the part of American History in which we take the land away from the Indians and give it to homesteaders free of charge.

[non sequitur]

I know I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've got to say that this whole debate seems beyond silly. It seems like the two sides are arguing over whose version of the fairy tale makes more sense. If you're going to buy off on the whole concept of a loving God, then how can anyone think that that God is petty enough to exclude anyone based on who they accepted as their personal savior or based on how many times they went to Church. Is this earthly existence really nothing more than a cosmic episode of Survivor? I don't mean to trivialize beliefs that people hold sacred, but come on!! Don't you think that a God that could create a Universe could come up with a plan that makes a little more sense than what the two sides here are arguing about?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Mr. Venkman. There is a wide range of Christian thought on the means of salvation. There are Baptist sects which believe, as Calvin did, in the preservation of the saints. There are also Baptist sects which believe in the Arminian potential to fall from grace.

I can say a ton more on this (and on your second point) but I'm not sure how much interest there is, and I shall have to wait until later when I have more time. Today is, after all, Land Run Day. So I have two boys to dress up as cowboys so they can go re-enact the part of American History in which we take the land away from the Indians and give it to homesteaders free of charge.

That's Dr. Venkman.

Ok, I didn't intend to paint born agains Christians with the same broad brush. I'm talking about those two beliefs which many hold that I find very objectionable.

And I'm definitely interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.