NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?

God doesn't love us for our imperfections. He loves us because we are his children. If anything he loves us inspite of our imperfections, and dealing with those imperfections is ultimately why Jesus came. Christians shouldnt be leading a life where they feel guilty, but where they try not to commit the sin that makes them guilty, however if they do it isnt the end of the world. Yes it is a mistake and lessons need to be learnt from it, but God's grace means that you are saved the ultimate consequences of it.

Oooh. Christians got burnt.

Flip it around, if you love someone, and knew that someone loved you, would you not want to be the best you could be? Would you not feel guilty when you knew you failed in that? That you had done something you KNEW you shouldn't have, but you did it anyway knowing that it would hurt that person who loved you?

He never asked us to be perfect, He only asks us to try our best.

Christians generally feel guilty because they are Human and not perfect. The good ones realize this and try to live their lives as the best Christians they can be. The bad ones on the other hand fail to recognize that they are imperfect, and assume that since they and their Lord are, then they are the only one qualified to make any form of moral judgement.

Flip it around, if you love someone, and knew that someone loved you, would you not want to be the best you could be? Would you not feel guilty when you knew you failed in that? That you had done something you KNEW you shouldn't have, but you did it anyway knowing that it would hurt that person who loved you?

He never asked us to be perfect, He only asks us to try our best.

I'd talk it over with that person... I hate feeling guilty, so I'll get it out of the way and move on.
I wouldn't think aobut it for ages, trying to get to every angle and feeling unhappy about it.

Christians generally feel guilty because they are Human and not perfect. The good ones realize this and try to live their lives as the best Christians they can be. The bad ones on the other hand fail to recognize that they are imperfect, and assume that since they and their Lord are, then they are the only one qualified to make any form of moral judgement.

Those would be the ones trying to get the rest of the world to feel guilty, right?

I'd talk it over with that person... I hate feeling guilty, so I'll get it out of the way and move on.
I wouldn't think aobut it for ages, trying to get to every angle and feeling unhappy about it.
Welp, we DO talk it over with Him. That's what prayer is for. ;) And we DO know we are forgiven, but you still feel like kicking yourself sometimes though when you did something REALLY stupid.

BigJimP's got the right of it though, most Christians know we're not perfect and just try out best to be as good of ones we can, and ask for forgiveness when we fail. The extreams are the ones that attempt to guilt trip everyone else around them for the purpose of evangelism.

Though I never did understand that idea or how that was supposed to work.

Those would be the ones trying to get the rest of the world to feel guilty, right?

You got it. There are good Christians out there, The bad ones are just the ones that get the most press. Kinda like Muslims, Jews etc.

You got it. There are good Christians out there, The bad ones are just the ones that get the most press. Kinda like Muslims, Jews etc.

politicians, postal workers, dogs and cats...hell, the good guys *never* get good press.

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?

I'm a christian and sometimes I chase squirrels around the back yard in the buff. :)

I'm a christian and sometimes I chase squirrels around the back yard in the buff. :)

Do you ever feel guilty about it?

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/John_Calvin.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin)

in lieu of blaming canada, I'm blaming calvin. it should also be noted that the modern west has a unique christian culture that doesn't particularly have anything to do with christianity as it's historically been practiced. the eastern orthodox, for example, don't believe in origional sin. at least not like the west does.

Welp, we DO talk it over with Him. That's what prayer is for. ;) And we DO know we are forgiven, but you still feel like kicking yourself sometimes though when you did something REALLY stupid.

BigJimP's got the right of it though, most Christians know we're not perfect and just try out best to be as good of ones we can, and ask for forgiveness when we fail. The extreams are the ones that attempt to guilt trip everyone else around them for the purpose of evangelism.

In that case, I can understand this apparent fixation on guilt and avoiding everything that could possibly eventually maybe be sinful even less.


Though I never did understand that idea or how that was supposed to work.

It doesn't.
It's a bit like the assumption that military can work against guerillas or terrorists. It doesn't work, it never worked, but people are still convinced that you just need to try harder to make it work.

I'm a christian and sometimes I chase squirrels around the back yard in the buff. :)

You do sound a lot like my cat, you know?

Do you ever feel guilty about it?

Probably not, LG's one of the good christians.

Do you ever feel guilty about it?

Hell no! Those squirrels need to be chased! And I know I'd run if I were chasing me naked. :)

Hell no! Those squirrels need to be chased! And I know I'd run if I were chasing me naked. :)

:eek: Oh, my eyes!

You do sound a lot like my cat, you know?

Yes. Except for my sleeping habits, I'm a lot like a cat. :)

In that case, I can understand this apparent fixation on guilt and avoiding everything that could possibly eventually maybe be sinful even less.
I guess the best way to put it is a child/parent relationship. You just try to not disappoint your parent whom you love, and whom loves you. But there's always that one sibling who goes out of his or her way to start proclaiming, "I'm telling on you! You ate a cookie! Mom's gonna be mad 'cause I'm telling on you!" Ye ken?

It doesn't.
It's a bit like the assumption that military can work against guerillas or terrorists. It doesn't work, it never worked, but people are still convinced that you just need to try harder to make it work.
That's why I said I don't understand it.

Hell no! Those squirrels need to be chased! And I know I'd run if I were chasing me naked. :)
Then you're one of the good Christians. All good Christians should chase small animals naked.
Yes. Except for my sleeping habits, I'm a lot like a cat. :)

You bury your shit in sand pits and eat birds and mice? Why does this not suprise me?

Then you're one of the good Christians. All good Christians should chase small animals naked.

Agreed. :)


You bury your shit in sand pits and eat birds and mice? Why does this not suprise me?

You've gotten to know me. :)

:eek: Oh, my eyes!

Admit it, if I were chasing you naked, you'd run too. :)

Admit it, if I were chasing you naked, you'd run too. :)

Depending on how close I was to a weapon, yes.

Then you're one of the good Christians. All good Christians should chase small animals naked.
Oh hell no. My town already is nervous about bears, I'm not about to make things worse!

Agreed. :)




You've gotten to know me. :)
Yes, it's getting scary that your various madnesses are starting too seem perfectly reasonable(well, not perfectly).
Admit it, if I were chasing you naked, you'd run too. :)

Only after I kicked your super-balls. Just so I can tell people that I kicked the worlds most durable testicles, nothing personal :)

Yes, it's getting scary that your various madnesses are starting too seem perfectly reasonable(well, not perfectly).


Only after I kicked your super-balls. Just so I can tell people that I kicked the worlds most durable testicles, nothing personal :)

:eek:

I suppose it's a rare opportunity. :(

:eek:

I suppose it's a rare opportunity. :(

Don't worry, I'd make sure to make my escape through several mud puddles.

God doesn't love us for our imperfections. He loves us because we are his children. If anything he loves us inspite of our imperfections, and dealing with those imperfections is ultimately why Jesus came. Christians shouldnt be leading a life where they feel guilty, but where they try not to commit the sin that makes them guilty, however if they do it isnt the end of the world. Yes it is a mistake and lessons need to be learnt from it, but God's grace means that you are saved the ultimate consequences of it.How come you know so much about what god is, does, wants? And why does anyone care what anything one does looks like in the eyes of god? Why does anyone care what god regards as sin? We are not subjects of any god, we are coequal, and what is right and wrong is ours to determine and to judge and not any god's. We are free.
.

How come you know so much about what god is, does, wants?[QUOTE]
Because they want God to be happy with them, either because they believe God loves them, or they fear smiting.
[QUOTE]And why does anyone care what anything one does looks like in the eyes of god? Why does anyone care what god regards as sin?
Since it's God that is believed to judge whether a person goes to heaven or hell, and that judgemnet is related to how much you've sinned and whether you sincerly sought forgiveness or not, I think God's opinion on sin would be the only one of relevence to those who believe.
We are not subjects of any god, we are coequal, and what is right and wrong is ours to determine and to judge and not any god's. We are free.
So you believe, but not everyone does.

So you believe, but not everyone does.Well, if you keep thinking that your are not free, you will never be.
As for me, I will never be a subject of a fabricated Jewish god who allegedly incarnated himself into this guy named Yeshua.
.

Well, if you keep thinking that your are not free, you will never be.
As for me, I will never be a subject of a fabricated Jewish god who allegedly incarnated himself into this guy named Yeshua.
.
That's nice...

Well, if you keep thinking that your are not free, you will never be.
As for me, I will never be a subject of a fabricated Jewish god who allegedly incarnated himself into this guy named Yeshua.
I don't think there's anything in Christianity about not being free. In fact it's a pretty big point that God supposedly gave us free will.

Oh, and I'm not a Christian.


.

Why do you always have that at the end of your posts, out of curiosity?

I don't think there's anything in Christianity about not being free.Then think again.
.

Then think again.
Why? It's not relevant to me if Christians feel like they aren't free. I doubt many do feel like that, but I can't claim to care all that much either way.

.

maybe christians is just masoquistic (or how it's spelled)? anyway it kinda silly to relate ones own actions against a predetermned notion of sin and such from a ghost, mirrage, hallucination, or whatever you classify it IMO.

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act,

You misunderstand, I don't feel bad because of the candy bar thing, it was a jumping off point for a conversation.

As far as bettering myself, doesn't everyone strive to be a better person than the day before?

You misunderstand, I don't feel bad because of the candy bar thing, it was a jumping off point for a conversation.

Sounded different in that thread of yours


As far as bettering myself, doesn't everyone strive to be a better person than the day before?

Er... no? Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm fine with myself.
The moment I feel I need to change my behaviour and make myself a better person again is a sure sign that I'm drifting into depression again.

Sounded different in that thread of yours
how so? if all actions are selfish and all sin comes from being selfish, then all actions are sin (which I am still not sure about the logical jump there...) then that just makes the grace of God that more abundant and puts less pressure on me.

we have all sorts of random conversations at my dinner table, if that one made you think that I feel guilty over every single action taken, then I think a lot of our discussions would disturb you.





Er... no? Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm fine with myself.
The moment I feel I need to change my behaviour and make myself a better person again is a sure sign that I'm drifting into depression again.
when I see someone who says "I am fine with myself, I don't need to change anything" I hear "I am either arogant, or apathetic" either way it's probably not a great situation to be in.

when I see someone who says "I am fine with myself, I don't need to change anything" I hear "I am either arogant, or apathetic" .

thats your friggin problem. apathy is a way to cope with people and the worlds inherant crulety IMO.

how so? if all actions are selfish and all sin comes from being selfish, then all actions are sin (which I am still not sure about the logical jump there...) then that just makes the grace of God that more abundant and puts less pressure on me.

we have all sorts of random conversations at my dinner table, if that one made you think that I feel guilty over every single action taken, then I think a lot of our discussions would disturb you.

That is quite the logical jump. If sin is always selfish then it doesn't necessarily follow that selfishness always leads to sin.

Also I don't see how all actions are sin=>God's grace is more abundant.




when I see someone who says "I am fine with myself, I don't need to change anything" I hear "I am either arogant, or apathetic" either way it's probably not a great situation to be in.

Or, you know, maybe they are just happy with the way they are. After all, if loving someone is accepting the good with the bad then why should it be different when that someone is yourself.

how so? if all actions are selfish and all sin comes from being selfish, then all actions are sin (which I am still not sure about the logical jump there...) then that just makes the grace of God that more abundant and puts less pressure on me.

we have all sorts of random conversations at my dinner table, if that one made you think that I feel guilty over every single action taken, then I think a lot of our discussions would disturb you.

Maybe because I was thinking that further : If committing a sin makes you guilty, and all actions are sin, then everything you do makes you guilty.


when I see someone who says "I am fine with myself, I don't need to change anything" I hear "I am either arogant, or apathetic" either way it's probably not a great situation to be in.

Then I must be arrogant. :)

"The arrogance! She has brought truth, and you condemn it?"
"Apathy is death."

I used to be apathetic, but now I don't care.

That is quite the logical jump. If sin is always selfish then it doesn't necessarily follow that selfishness always leads to sin.
I was hopiing someone would take that stance in the first thread.

Also I don't see how all actions are sin=>God's grace is more abundant.
more sins to forgive?;) (poor logical jump again....I was hoping that someone would catch it)






Or, you know, maybe they are just happy with the way they are. After all, if loving someone is accepting the good with the bad then why should it be different when that someone is yourself.
loving yourself does not imply that you must accept yourself to be perfect, there is a line even as to when you have to accept your imperfections "I accept the things I can't not change" but if you can be better isn't it selling yourself short not to be?




Maybe because I was thinking that further : If committing a sin makes you guilty, and all actions are sin, then everything you do makes you guilty.
we are all guilty, starting from that any sin after that isn't going to make you more guilty, niether is 'not sinning'.



Then I must be arrogant. :)

it's possible. ;)

loving yourself does not imply that you must accept yourself to be perfect, there is a line even as to when you have to accept your imperfections "I accept the things I can't not change" but if you can be better isn't it selling yourself short not to be?

Never said I was perfect. I just said that I don't feel the need to make a better person out of myself. There is a huge difference there


we are all guilty, starting from that any sin after that isn't going to make you more guilty, niether is 'not sinning'.

Thanks. That is exactly what I mean. Constantly feeling that you're guilty. Why?



it's possible. ;)

Yay my arrogance! :D

Never said I was perfect. I just said that I don't feel the need to make a better person out of myself. There is a huge difference there
how so?



Thanks. That is exactly what I mean. Constantly feeling that you're guilty. Why?
you are confusing feelings with a state of being, I am guilty, that's what I am, there is not this emotional camp I have set up, it is what I am.




Yay my arrogance! :D
:p

how so?

I know about my strengths and weaknesses, and I love both. I'm sometimes proud of both. They make who I am.


you are confusing feelings with a state of being, I am guilty, that's what I am, there is not this emotional camp I have set up, it is what I am.

Given that I don't think you'd be able to rationally lay out what your guilt consists of, I daresay it is an emotional issue.

How come you know so much about what god is, does, wants?

Reading the Bible & experiance of him


And why does anyone care what anything one does looks like in the eyes of god? Why does anyone care what god regards as sin?

Its not what God regards as sin. Its what is sin. Sin means disobediance of God, and why that is importnat I will demonstrate in my reply to your last point


We are not subjects of any god, we are coequal, and what is right and wrong is ours to determine and to judge and not any god's. We are free.

This sort of thinking is symptomatic of western secularist thought, and it ties into the notion of democracy. With democracy and with most western ideas post that, it is common knowledge that we must accept that everyone is born equal. This is true, and democracy instills a sense of superiority and equality in ourselves, in the knowledge that we are ruled by those who are ultimately equal to us, where as monarchy did not do the same.

This kind of thinking however only applies to people. And this is the nub. Western thought no longer likes the idea that there is such a thing as objective superiority. In western postmodern thought, no one is objectively superior to you in anything. However, this is only true of people, not God. People do not like the idea of God because he is objectively superior to us, and thus your reaction is symptomatic of this. We are in no way co-equal to God.

Reading the Bible & experiance of him



Its not what God regards as sin. Its what is sin. Sin means disobediance of God, and why that is importnat I will demonstrate in my reply to your last point



This sort of thinking is symptomatic of western secularist thought, and it ties into the notion of democracy. With democracy and with most western ideas post that, it is common knowledge that we must accept that everyone is born equal. This is true, and democracy instills a sense of superiority and equality in ourselves, in the knowledge that we are ruled by those who are ultimately equal to us, where as monarchy did not do the same.

This kind of thinking however only applies to people. And this is the nub. Western thought no longer likes the idea that there is such a thing as objective superiority. In western postmodern thought, no one is objectively superior to you in anything. However, this is only true of people, not God. People do not like the idea of God because he is objectively superior to us, and thus your reaction is symptomatic of this. We are in no way co-equal to God.

how can be be co-equal to something non-existant? anyway believe in god is you will but democracy or any other way of rule, has nothing to do with the notion god, only that what people invest in it imo.

how can be be co-equal to something non-existant?

Can you prove that? I only offer it as my faith. I know I can't prove it with certianty but there is evidence that points towards it


anyway believe in god is you will but democracy or any other way of rule, has nothing to do with the notion god, only that what people invest in it imo.

Democaracy in terms of its presence in our culture, makes people find the notion of God offensive in one sense, but democracy is just one aspect of it, the other aspects being parts of the postmodern whole. Postmodernism doesnt like absolutes, and it likes absloute objective superiorty even less.

Reading the Bible & experiance of him1. The Bible only tells what Jews see in their god, and that is a pretty one-dimensional perspective. You should also learn what others had to say about this particular god.
2. What experience do you have and how do you ascertain unambiguously it is god you have the experience with?
.

1. The Old Testament only tells what Jews see in their god, and it's a pretty one-dimensional perspective.
Fixed.
.

Can you please take the "Does god exist or not" question to another thread? That's not what this is about.

Can you please take the "Does god exist or not" question to another thread? That's not what this is about.This is not about "Does god exist or not", but about "why the heck should god be like the Jews tell us in the bible".
.

My experience with god tells me that it is impossible to understand the mind of god. God may love us, but only god knows why. I do not try to please god, as I do not know her mind. I try to be a good person to everyone and everything. Sin is a foreign concept to my relationship with god.

This is not about "Does god exist or not", but about "why the heck should god be like the Jews tell us in the bible".
.

I have a question for you. In real life, do you speak in stentorian tones, like a fire-and-brimstone preacher? Because every time I read your posts, that's how I hear it in my head.

Fixed.There is no need for a fix. The OT is Jewish, but since Yeshua is allegedly the incarnation of the OT god the NT is just the ideological continuation of it(as Yeshua is said to have stated himself that he had only come for the Jews). The NT is only a short appendix to the OT, and the changes in ideology are only superficial.
.

This is not about "Does god exist or not", but about "why the heck should god be like the Jews tell us in the bible".
.

Which isn't exactly what this thread is about, either. ;)
It's not about the nature of god so much as the nature of sin and guilt in Christian belief.

There is no need for a fix. The OT is Jewish, but since Yeshua is allegedly the incarnation of the OT god the NT is just the ideological continuation of it(as Yeshua is said to have stated himself that he had only come for the Jews). The NT is only a short appendix to the OT, and the changes in ideology are only superficial.
.

Yes, which is why the New Testament isn't one of the Jewish holy books, but it is part of the Christian holy book.

Which isn't exactly what this thread is about, either. ;)
It's not about the nature of god so much as the nature of sin and guilt in Christian belief.The assumed nature of sin and guilt in Christian belief completely depend on the the perception of god in the Christian belief, and this perception is basically a Jewish fabrication. Christians do not care what other (much older) perceptions there were or are.
.

Yes, which is why the New Testament isn't one of the Jewish holy books, but it is part of the Christian holy book.Christians are merely Jews who think that the Messiah had already come. The god and the "scriptures" are the same. Anything else?
.

Christians are merely Jews who think that the Messiah had already come. The god and the "scriptures" are the same. Anything else?
.

Um, no. Jewish perceptions of guilt and christian perceptions of guilt are very different. Especially as to how that affects their relationship with God.

The assumed nature of sin and guilt in Christian belief completely depend on the the perception of god in the Christian belief, and this perception is basically a Jewish fabrication. Christians do not care what other (much older) perceptions there were or are.
.

Well, neither do I.
I was wondering what this obsession with guilt was all about, and how it affects Christians today.

Christians are merely Jews who think that the Messiah had already come. The god and the "scriptures" are the same. Anything else?
.

That may have been true in the first 10 years or so after the Crucifixion, but once Saint Paul got involved taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, Christians and Jews diverged at a rapid pace. If what you say were true, there would be no Chrisitianity as we know it today, it would have been reabsorbed into Judaism long, long ago, and would be a footnote in the history of that religion. It is true the Christians say their God is the same God as we see in the OT, and that yes, Jesus fulfilled the requirements for the coming of the Messiah, and they accept the OT as scripture, but that's about it.

That may have been true in the first 10 years or so after the Crucifixion, but once Saint Paul got involved taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, Christians and Jews diverged at a rapid pace. If what you say were true, there would be no Chrisitianity as we know it today, it would have been reabsorbed into Judaism long, long ago, and would be a footnote in the history of that religion. It is true the Christians say their God is the same God as we see in the OT, and that yes, Jesus fulfilled the requirements for the coming of the Messiah, and they accept the OT as scripture, but that's about it.Jews were not numerous or homogenous enough to "reabsorb" this apostate sect of theirs. BTW when Saint Paul got involved there were no gospels written yet.
.

Responding to the OP

Which is more loving? A god who loves you and doesn't care about what you've done, or the God who loves you despite the fact that He is unimaginably wroth with you? I would go with the second.

And our sinfulness is one of the basic ideas of Christianity. Otherwise, there would be no need for Jesus death and resurrection which is the very basis for Christianity.

EDIT: It's only when we fully understand our guilt that we fully understand God's love.

There certainly are Christians and Christian denominations that, in my opinion, focus too much on guilt. I have to wonder if it is because they haven't come to terms with their own fallibility, if it is because they feel that they *should* be perfect.

I don't think any of us are perfect, or that we should be. When we find a fault within ourselves, we should work to get rid of it, but always with the knowledge that we will make mistakes, that we will fail sometimes, that we will never be perfect. And, here's the kicker: That's ok! That is being human!

I've said this in a lot of threads, but the main point for me is that it isn't the destination that matters, it is the journey. None of us will ever be perfect. None of us will ever know everything. None of us will ever "have it all figured out." It is the attempt to better ourselves and the search for knowledge that matters. As long as we do that, and do it in love, we are following God.

It's sad. Christianity may well be the single worst thing to have ever happened to the west. It perpetuates ignorance, and, in its lovely protestant form, puritanical self-denial, hard work and the necessity to be forever guilty. Why? Frankly, a hellenestic pantheon would be much more fun.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections. Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?
I dont really endlessly self-examne myself, unless you calling praying every night that.
Yes God loves everyone [you, me ,Hitler] the same. We can do nothign bad enough to loose his love. However God hates sin. If you dont pray for him to forgive your sins and beleive your sins are wiped away because Jesus died on teh cross you cannot go to heaven, even though god loves you so much. He sacraficed his own son for you.

in its lovely protestant form, puritanical self-denial, hard work and the necessity to be forever guilty
That is not true! Those are the beliefs of the 19th centuries and before! Sure splinter groups liek mormons and others hold those beleifs, but they are mentioned nowhere in the bible.

That is not true! Those are the beliefs of the 19th centuries and before! Sure splinter groups liek mormons and others hold those beleifs, but they are mentioned nowhere in the bible.

No. You're completely wrong. Granted, calvinism and the like were extant prior to the 19th century, however, the most prevalent form of christianity within the west remains protestantism, which just so happens to be the most prevalent form ofg christianity to espouse such tedious and unjoyous values cited prior.

That is not true! Those are the beliefs of the 19th centuries and before! Sure splinter groups liek mormons and others hold those beleifs, but they are mentioned nowhere in the bible.

Actually, if you look at the Bible, a lot of things which the Puritans forbid are forbidden. People just dislike that they followed the Bible so closely, so they exaggerate.

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?

I won't try to speak for other individual Christians, but I rarely feel guilt. I have to do something that really harms another person or myself to feel guilty about it, and that's not something that happens often.

What I will do (and always have done) is a fair amount of self-analysis, looking for ways to make myself more effective and efficient as a person.

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?
One could ask you the very same question. I do reacall some earlier threads where you were doing a lot of self reflection and trying to rationalize and justify. I think you were using one of the strongest qualifying words when looking at something. The word you used was hate. I also remember when you were reflecting on others, also using the word hate. i.e :don't you hate it when....

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to judge you. I am just making an observation based on your original post.

BTW, for me, the Prayer of St. Francis (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5979/help/list_stfrancis.html)is the ideal.

And yes, my God is a loving God and a forgiving God. I believe that he wants me to do the same. :)

No. You're completely wrong. Granted, calvinism and the like were extant prior to the 19th century, however, the most prevalent form of christianity within the west remains protestantism, which just so happens to be the most prevalent form ofg christianity to espouse such tedious and unjoyous values cited prior.
im protestant i know what im talking about

im protestant i know what im talking about

You hardly speak for the entire group of Protestants. What does Protestant mean? All it means is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. There are many other divisions:

Evangelical vs. Non-Evangelical
Reformed vs. Arminian
Charismatic vs. Cessationist
Covenanting vs. Dispensationalist
etc.

im protestant i know what im talking about

You evidently don't my dear. I doubt you happen to have read the Bible to any great extent, since much of the excesses I deplore as boring and morose are prescribed by the bible. That catholocism previously disregarded them through the expediant of confession is an irrelevancy.

Incidentally, I suggest you learn to use capitals....

im protestant i know what im talking about

There are around 2,000 different Protestant sects last I checked. Just being Protestant is unlikely to make you familiar with all the divisions and their historical roots.

b[/B]lessed Chris;11924761]You evidently don't my dear. I doubt you happen to have read the Bible to any great extent, since much of the excesses I deplore as boring and morose are prescribed by the bible. That catholocism previously disregarded them through the expediant of confession is an irrelevancy.

Incidentally, I suggest you learn to use capitals....
I have read the bible. Maybe I misinterpereted what you said..hardwork is not needed for sins to be forvigen and you dont have to be forever guilty because God forgives you if you pray to him with an honest heart!

There are around 2,000 different Protestant sects last I checked. Just being Protestant is unlikely to make you familiar with all the divisions and their historical roots.
yeah, but the largest ones, Baptist and Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian (i am methodist, and presbyterian) do not hold those beleifs.

yeah, but the largest ones, Baptist and Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian (i am methodist, and presbyterian) do not hold those beleifs.

Which means only that you are familiar to some degree with mainline Protestantism, not an expert on the history of all of the Protestant churches.

yeah, but the largest ones, Baptist and Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian (i am methodist, and presbyterian) do not hold those beleifs.

Contradiction. Presbyterians are by definition Reformed and Methodists are by definition Arminian (or anti-Reformed), two Christian traditions which are at odds with each other. You can not be both.

I have read the bible. Maybe I misinterpereted what you said..hardwork is not needed for sins to be forvigen and you dont have to be forever guilty because God forgives you if you pray to him with an honest heart!

But why honest? Pre-Christian religion made no necessity of honesty.

Why should we need to be forgiven? Because humanity is naturally sinful? My arse we are. Sin is subjective, and, bereft of christian behavioural presuppositions, such guilt would not be necessary.

Just admit that Christianity is, by a country mile, the least inspiring or fun of all religions, and, therein protestantism more so.

yeah, but the largest ones, Baptist and Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian (i am methodist, and presbyterian) do not hold those beleifs.

Baptist churches, in many cases, absolutely do hold these beliefs. The "fire and brimstone" types love to play off of guilt. Of course, in my experience, they tend to claim the beliefs, but never really live up to them.

And Presbyterian, IIRC, is a Calvinist denomination. They don't have to deal all that much with guilt becaues, by Calvin's doctrine, you're either saved or you aren't and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Lutheran is very close to Catholic, which makes sense, as Luther never meant to form his own faith. He just got kind of blindsided when he got excommunicated.

I've never seen any major problems with Methodist theology, but I haven't really studied it in depth either. The favorite reverend I ever had was Methodist.

Anglican - I'm not all that familiar with, except that it was basically begun because the British king wanted to disobey the pope.


Interestingly enough, nearly all of these faiths hold to the Anselmian version of the atonement, although all but the Calvinistic ones tend to be Pelagian as well, and therefore heretical according to the Catholic church. =)

Just admit that Christianity is, by a country mile, the least inspiring or fun of all religions, and, therein protestantism more so.
What do you call fun exactly? I have fun and i am a christian.:confused:

And Presbyterian, IIRC, is a Calvinist denomination. They don't have to deal all that much with guilt becaues, by Calvin's doctrine, you're either saved or you aren't and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

You misunderstand Reformed theology, then.

What do you call fun exactly? I have fun and i am a christian.:confused:

As a result of your specific religion itself?

What do you call fun exactly? I have fun and i am a christian.:confused:

I daresay your perception of "fun" is one inflected by Protestant presuppositions that render simple amusment "fun". I allude to proper debauchery, quite literally in the form of Bacchus, whereas you allude to something entirely more sedentary.

You hardly speak for the entire group of Protestants. What does Protestant mean? All it means is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. There are many other divisions:

Evangelical vs. Non-Evangelical
Reformed vs. Arminian
Charismatic vs. Cessationist
Covenanting vs. Dispensationalist
etc.
Actually, it means anything split from the Catholic church or descended from a church split from the Catholic church. It's a historical rather than theological division. Ethiopian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian, etc etc etc are not Protestant. Recently developed African churches with their origins in the 17th-20th centuries should probably not be called Protestant either.

I daresay your perception of "fun" is one inflected by Protestant presuppositions that render simple amusment "fun". I allude to proper debauchery, quite literally in the form of Bacchus, whereas you allude to something entirely more sedentary.
and your perception of fun is?

But why honest? Pre-Christian religion made no necessity of honesty.

Do you see something wrong with being honest?

Why should we need to be forgiven?

Why does anyone ever ask anyone for forgiveness?

Human beings are fallible. We make mistakes. We screw up and hurt others. It happens.

Just admit that Christianity is, by a country mile, the least inspiring or fun of all religions, and, therein protestantism more so.

I find it to be nothing of the sort.

You misunderstand Reformed theology, then.

I'm talking about Calvinistic theology, which says exactly that. You can do nothing to receive salvation - God just chooses who to grant it to. You can do nothing right until you have received this grace.

Actually, it means anything split from the Catholic church or descended from a church split from the Catholic church. It's a historical rather than theological division. Ethiopian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian, etc etc etc are not Protestant. Recently developed African churches with their origins in the 17th-20th centuries should probably not be called Protestant either.

That is my point: that it is historical (and in some ways politcal and geographical) rather than theological.

There are some "churches" which would fall under none of there categories because they are not Christian to begin with: LDS, Coptic churches, etc.

I'm talking about Calvinistic theology, which says exactly that. You can do nothing to receive salvation - God just chooses who to grant it to. You can do nothing right until you have received this grace.

Reformed is the proper term for what most people call Calvinist. Calvinism is a division within Reformed theology which Presbyterianism is not really part of.

What you said above is correct. What you said before was not.

Do you see something wrong with being honest?

Personally, I don't try to be in every case, however I would rather question the necessity to be honest.

Why does anyone ever ask anyone for forgiveness?

Because we offend or hurt a fellow human, however, Christianity obliges us to seek forgiveness for percieved transgressions that, in the case of blashphemy and the like, have no tangible or emotional implications upon other humans. Therefore, we are obliged to perpetually seek forgiveness for transgressions against a deity whose existance we cannot be sure of. Indeed, such presuppositions now inflect social behavioural codes. Oh goody.

I perhaps should have clarified.


I find it to be nothing of the sort.

Any mythology akin to Bacchus? Nope.

Any glorification of huamn emotion? Nope, we must deny ourselves. Oh goody, how very lucky we are.

and your perception of fun is?

No. I asked you, and you failed to respond.

For me, the carnal pleasures are fun, as are academic pursuits, drinking and generally buggering about. All of which are considered an anathema to christian morality.

No. I asked you, and you failed to respond.

For me, the carnal pleasures are fun, as are academic pursuits, drinking and generally buggering about. All of which are considered an anathema to christian morality.

Nothing wrong with drinking. Jesus turned water into wine. Why shouldn't you drink? You just shouldn't drink to excess.

Nothing wrong with academic pursuits. Why would there be?

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?
No, it's not about feeling bad about yourself all the time, it's about humility, loving God and living a good life. I'm sure that almost anyone can relate to that.

Also when reading responses remember that Christians are a very varied group, so you'll never get a unified response that speaks for the whole religion.

No. I asked you, and you failed to respond.

For me, the carnal pleasures are fun, as are academic pursuits, drinking and generally buggering about. All of which are considered an anathema to christian morality.

Only if by "Christian morality" you mean "the traditional views of certain fundamentalist Christian sects".

Really. Doing well in school, sex, and drinking are hardly opposed across the board in Christian circles. Not even close.

All of which are considered an anathema to christian morality.
I dont think so. Except for drinking heavily and what kind of "buggering" you may be talking about...

Reformed is the proper term for what most people call Calvinist. Calvinism is a division within Reformed theology which Presbyterianism is not really part of.

What you said above is correct. What you said before was not.

That is a logical impossibility, since they both say the same thing.


Personally, I don't try to be in every case, however I would rather question the necessity to be honest.

If you aren't being honest and sincere, there is no reason for any being, God or not, to provide help or forgiveness.

Because we offend or hurt a fellow human, however, Christianity obliges us to seek forgiveness for percieved transgressions that, in the case of blashphemy and the like, have no tangible or emotional implications upon other humans. Therefore, we are obliged to perpetually seek forgiveness for transgressions against a deity whose existance we cannot be sure of. Indeed, such presuppositions now inflect social behavioural codes. Oh goody.

All religions rely on dealing with a deity that we cannot be 100% sure of. If this bothers you, you probably don't really believe in any deity, and shouldn't worry about it.

Meanwhile, if one *does* believe in a God, the entity hurt with blasphemy is God, just as it would hurt your friend if you insulted or lied about him.

Any mythology akin to Bacchus? Nope.

Any glorification of huamn emotion? Nope, we must deny ourselves. Oh goody, how very lucky we are.

Some Chrisitan denominations deal with denying human emotion, but this was not Christ's message. In fact, Christ's message was centered in and depends upon the greatest of human emotions - love.

For me, the carnal pleasures are fun, as are academic pursuits, drinking and generally buggering about. All of which are considered an anathema to christian morality.

The carnal pleasures are not an anathema to Christian morality. Most of us see them as limited, not because there is anything wrong with them in and of themselves, but because they are special and are thus reserved for a special relationship.

There is nothing at all wrong with the academic pursuits in Christian morality. Those who try and oppose them do so, not because of anything in Christianity itself, but because they are weak of faith.

Drinking and "buggering about" (which I assume to be hanging out and having fun - goofing off, as it were) are also not "an anathema to Christian morality." Neither should be done to excess - to the detriment of oneself or others - but neither is forbidden either.

That is a logical impossibility, since they both say the same thing.

Here's what you said the first time:

And Presbyterian, IIRC, is a Calvinist denomination. They don't have to deal all that much with guilt becaues, by Calvin's doctrine, you're either saved or you aren't and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Reformed theology (Calvinism) is all about guilt. The guilt of Man through original sin is what makes us all sinners and which is the whole basis for total depravity, the first of the 5 points. And there is a time when someone is not saved, but is later. It's not as though we're stamped "saved" from the time we are conceived. There is a temporal aspect to it.

Your second:

I'm talking about Calvinistic theology, which says exactly that. You can do nothing to receive salvation - God just chooses who to grant it to. You can do nothing right until you have received this grace.

This is correct. God grants us grace, and we can do nothing to merit it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be grace.

Here's what you said the first time:



Reformed theology (Calvinism) is all about guilt. The guilt of Man through original sin is what makes us all sinners and which is the whole basis for total depravity, the first of the 5 points. And there is a time when someone is not saved, but is later. It's not as though we're stamped "saved" from the time we are conceived. There is a temporal aspect to it.

Your second:



This is correct. God grants us grace, and we can do nothing to merit it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be grace.
Doesn't that just mean go about your daily life as you see fit and God will sort you out?

Doesn't that just mean go about your daily life as you see fit and God will sort you out?

Does God sort things out? Yes.

Are we free to do what we want? Yes.

Are we free from the guilt of the sins we choose to do simply because God will sort it out? No.

Does God sort things out? Yes.

Are we free to do what we want? Yes.

Are we free from the guilt of the sins we choose to do simply because God will sort it out? No.

Well, yes. Because what we cannot gain God's favor simply by not committing sins for the wrong reasons, if I understand the theory correctly. The sins just seem to be irrelevant in that they are not knowable since we cannot use any sort of merit system to gain favor with God, I'd think it follows that we cannot know the guidelines which God uses with which to grace us with salvation. It seems to be like playing the NY lottery but when you get the ticket, there are no numbers on it. You just might have a bunch of money in your bank account next week.


But then... realize this, I got no sleep last night. Bananarama.

Well, yes. Because what we cannot gain God's favor simply by not committing sins for the wrong reasons, if I understand the theory correctly.

Good is more than just not doing evil. It is also doing good. But, everything we touch is stained with our sinful nature.

"6We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."
Isaiah 64:6

Even our good deeds are dirty.

The sins just seem to be irrelevant in that they are not knowable since we cannot use any sort of merit system to gain favor with God,

If God reveals them to us, of course they're knowable.

I'd think it follows that we cannot know the guidelines which God uses with which to grace us with salvation.

God hasn't revealed how He determines who to give grace, no.

It seems to be like playing the NY lottery but when you get the ticket, there are no numbers on it. You just might have a bunch of money in your bank account next week.

It seems that way, but God is not Chance.

Reformed theology (Calvinism) is all about guilt. The guilt of Man through original sin is what makes us all sinners and which is the whole basis for total depravity, the first of the 5 points. And there is a time when someone is not saved, but is later. It's not as though we're stamped "saved" from the time we are conceived. There is a temporal aspect to it.

But there still is no room in the theology for any focus on guilt of the individual. If you are guilty, you can't be not guilty unless God chooses to grant you grace. If you're saved, there's no reason to feel guilty, God has chosen you to receive grace.

There is absolutely no room for worrying about individual guilt, because you are either certainly saved or certainly not saved by the time you die, and your own actions have nothing at all to do with it.

This is correct. God grants us grace, and we can do nothing to merit it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be grace.

...which means that there is no point focussing on guilt. If we're guilty, too bad, nothing we can do about it. If we're saved, no need to worry about guilt, we're saved.

But there still is no room in the theology for any focus on guilt of the individual. If you are guilty, you can't be not guilty unless God chooses to grant you grace. If you're saved, there's no reason to feel guilty, God has chosen you to receive grace.

I don't know how you got that idea from Reformed theology. There is plenty of room for individual guilt. It is because individuals are convicted of their individual guilt that they come to God.

There is absolutely no room for worrying about individual guilt, because you are either certainly saved or certainly not saved by the time you die, and your own actions have nothing at all to do with it.

Oh, yes your actions do have something to do with it. They have everything to do with it. You choose to sin and that is what will damn you. You choose to repent and that is why God will forgive you.

...which means that there is no point focussing on guilt. If we're guilty, too bad, nothing we can do about it. If we're saved, no need to worry about guilt, we're saved.

2 Peter 1:10
"10Therefore, brothers,[a] be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."

The attitude you are proposing (or repeating) is horrible. Again, it is only when we are convicted (through the inward working of the holy Spirit) of our guilt that we come to the knowledge that we must be saved or perish. And if we our already saved, guilt helps us to remain diligent that we are serving God as we ought.

I dont really endlessly self-examne myself, unless you calling praying every night that.
Yes God loves everyone [you, me ,Hitler] the same. We can do nothign bad enough to loose his love. However God hates sin. If you dont pray for him to forgive your sins and beleive your sins are wiped away because Jesus died on teh cross you cannot go to heaven, even though god loves you so much. He sacraficed his own son for you.

Ok, now that makes even less sense than my original presumption.
To make one thing clear : I don't believe in god. Or in sin, for that matter. And I most certainly don't believe that Jesus' possible death on the cross has nything to do with anything that I may or may not be guilty of.

But thank you for taking the whole "guilt complex" thing a step further : Ok, let's assume that Jesus was the son of god and that he did die on the cross. How was that your fault? Did you ask for any sacrifice? What do you need it for?

Does God sort things out? Yes.

Are we free to do what we want? Yes.

Are we free from the guilt of the sins we choose to do simply because God will sort it out? No.

But, according to Calvinism, the elect have been granted grace, and thus can and will choose not to sin.

I don't know how you got that idea from Reformed theology. There is plenty of room for individual guilt. It is because individuals are convicted of their individual guilt that they come to God.

Oops! You just committed Pelagianism, which is heretical in Calvinist theology. Individuals cannot come to God. They cannot repent of their guilt, not of their own accord. Only after God grants them grace can they repent of their sins and come to God. Of course, the act of granting them grace means that they will come to God and repent, since that's what grace provides them.

Oh, yes your actions do have something to do with it. They have everything to do with it. You choose to sin and that is what will damn you. You choose to repent and that is why God will forgive you.

Pelagianism again. This goes completely and totally against the idea of grace being given with no regard for your own actions. Based on this statement, the actions of a person - repenting - is what causes God to grant grace. That is the exact opposite of Calvinist theology.

The attitude you are proposing (or repeating) is horrible.

And yet, if we go by actual Calvinism, instead of the Pelagianism you were using above, it is the only attitude that a reasonable person can reach. That's the problem with Calvinism. Basically, it holds that all people, deep down, are just evil. They can't do anything about it. But, if God grants them grace, now they can and will. If God doesn't grant them grace, they can't do it - they can't even want to. So there's no room for free will or personal guilt, since it's all up to God no matter what we do.

But, according to Calvinism, the elect have been granted grace, and thus can and will choose not to sin.

Yes.

Oops! You just committed Pelagianism, which is heretical in Calvinist theology. Individuals cannot come to God. They cannot repent of their guilt, not of their own accord. Only after God grants them grace can they repent of their sins and come to God. Of course, the act of granting them grace means that they will come to God and repent, since that's what grace provides them.

They choose to repent because the Holy Spirit convicts them and changes their hearts so that they want to come to God.

Pelagianism again. This goes completely and totally against the idea of grace being given with no regard for your own actions. Based on this statement, the actions of a person - repenting - is what causes God to grant grace. That is the exact opposite of Calvinist theology.

God forgives, because we repent. We repent because God convicts. God convicts because He gave us grace to understand the conviction.

And yet, if we go by actual Calvinism, instead of the Pelagianism you were using above, it is the only attitude that a reasonable person can reach. That's the problem with Calvinism. Basically, it holds that all people, deep down, are just evil. They can't do anything about it. But, if God grants them grace, now they can and will. If God doesn't grant them grace, they can't do it - they can't even want to. So there's no room for free will or personal guilt, since it's all up to God no matter what we do.

We lost free will in the Fall. Our will is not onger free, it is bound to sin.

We still have free agency (often called free will, especially by older Reformed theologians), or the ability to choose.

There is most certainly room for personl guilt. Each person is judged personally. And each person is judged personally on his/her personal sins. The guilt from their personal sins is what condemns them (or why God condemns them).

The guilt of the Christian is used by the Holy Spirit to prompt the Christian to follow God's commands. But, that guilt will be removed when s/he is judged because of Christ's sacrifice.

Given that I don't think you'd be able to rationally lay out what your guilt consists of, I daresay it is an emotional issue.
I am guilty at the very least of breaking the greatest commandment, if I killed someone (not that I would) and was not caught I would still be guilty of murder.

They choose to repent because the Holy Spirit convicts them and changes their hearts so that they want to come to God.

Then it has nothing to do with personal guilt. God *makes* them realize their guilt, so now they do. There is no impetus for them to do so themselves.

God forgives, because we repent. We repent because God convicts. God convicts because He gave us grace to understand the conviction.

...which still means that it's all on God. God decides that God will forgive person A, so God grants grace to person A, which causes person A to repent, which means God forgives person A. Person B, on the other hand, is not chosen. Person B cannot repent, because God has not granted person B grace. Therefore, God does not wish to forgive person B.

We lost free will in the Fall. Our will is not onger free, it is bound to sin.

We still have free agency (often called free will, especially by older Reformed theologians), or the ability to choose.

This is just a rewording of Augustine's argument that "Sure we have free will, just free will to do bad things, until God grants us grace and we can choose the right path."

There is most certainly room for personl guilt. Each person is judged personally. And each person is judged personally on his/her personal sins. The guilt from their personal sins is what condemns them (or why God condemns them).

But it is God who decides whether or not they get grace. Therefore, the only factor in whether or not a person is condemned is whether or not God has chosen them.

Thus, everyone is not judged on their own sins. They are judged on whether or not they have repented of their sins. And they can only repent if God has given them grace. Thus, the real basis for judgement is whether or not God has chosen them.

The best analogy for Calvinism I ever heard is this:

Every human being is in a long line on the way to Hell. God stands outside the line and, every now and then, points at someone and says, "Get out of line, you're coming with me."

The guilt of the Christian is used by the Holy Spirit to prompt the Christian to follow God's commands. But, that guilt will be removed when s/he is judged because of Christ's sacrifice.

There is no need for that in Calvinist theology. Once grace is granted, the person wants to do good things and will do good things. Guilt isn't necessary, because grace itself propels a Christian to good works.

"The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
-Steve Hays

Arminius teaches that God is lazy. He only went part of the way for all, because He didn't care enought about Man to make sure they would come.
Calvin teaches that God went all the way for some, for His glory.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we, pitiful humans, should have any effect on the plans and designs of an omnipotent, sovereign God. Much more, if we should assume that we can command Him what to do with His grace.

"The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
-Steve Hays

What a silly quote, considering that the God of Calvin, if God so chose, could save all sheep from the wolf, but chooses only a small flock with which to do so.

The God that I believe in wishes to save everyone, but only if we choose to love God. We aren't forced into either path. God will fend off the wolf, if we ask God to. If we want to go it alone instead, God will allow that as well.

Arminius teaches that God is lazy. He only went part of the way for all, because He didn't care enought about Man to make sure they would come.
Calvin teaches that God went all the way for some, for His glory.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we, pitiful humans, should have any effect on the plans and designs of an omnipotent, sovereign God. Much more, if we should assume that we can command Him what to do with His grace.

So you aren't going to actually address anything I said, I take it?

The point remains that your argument is circular. You claim that God forgives because people repent. You then claim that people repent because God has chosen to grant them grace. The logical outcome of this, which you seem to want to avoid, is that personal guilt and personal responsibility are completely removed from the equation. God chooses those whom God will forgive, and grants them grace so that they can be forgiven. The entire impetus, in Calvinism, is on God. God could choose to forgive everyone, or choose to forgive no one, but no aspect of that particular human being, their guilt or their repentence, in the end, has anything to do with it. It is all on God to choose.

"The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
-Steve Hays

Arminius teaches that God is lazy. He only went part of the way for all, because He didn't care enought about Man to make sure they would come.
Calvin teaches that God went all the way for some, for His glory.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we, pitiful humans, should have any effect on the plans and designs of an omnipotent, sovereign God. Much more, if we should assume that we can command Him what to do with His grace.

Isn't this what tyrants would have us believe?

God doesn't love us for our imperfections. He loves us because we are his children. If anything he loves us inspite of our imperfections, and dealing with those imperfections is ultimately why Jesus came. Christians shouldnt be leading a life where they feel guilty, but where they try not to commit the sin that makes them guilty, however if they do it isnt the end of the world. Yes it is a mistake and lessons need to be learnt from it, but God's grace means that you are saved the ultimate consequences of it.

Unfortunatly modern christians seem to be under the impression that being christian is better than being, say, muslim in the eyes of god. Hell (supposedly) exists for a reason, the point is you shouldnt sin and then forget about it because you didnt mean it, or you had good reason. God came out with "I know you're not perfect, but im sure you can obey 10 basic rules", if you really believe in god, dont break them for any reason

Christians generally feel guilty because they are Human and not perfect. The good ones realize this and try to live their lives as the best Christians they can be. The bad ones on the other hand fail to recognize that they are imperfect, and assume that since they and their Lord are, then they are the only one qualified to make any form of moral judgement.

The point is, next to no christians try to live their lives to be the best christians they can be, they're christians when its convenient for them

Ok, now that makes even less sense than my original presumption.
To make one thing clear : I don't believe in god. Or in sin, for that matter. And I most certainly don't believe that Jesus' possible death on the cross has nything to do with anything that I may or may not be guilty of.

But thank you for taking the whole "guilt complex" thing a step further : Ok, let's assume that Jesus was the son of god and that he did die on the cross. How was that your fault? Did you ask for any sacrifice? What do you need it for?

I dont get it either, just cos a guy died nearly 2000 years ago, its not our fault, and if god really wants us to have free will then he cant go around assuming that we want people to die for our uncommitted sins, all christianity really did in the long term is turn us against the jews, who seem to be following his words a lot better, maybe not so much since they got tanks...

"The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
-Steve Hays

Arminius teaches that God is lazy. He only went part of the way for all, because He didn't care enought about Man to make sure they would come.
Calvin teaches that God went all the way for some, for His glory.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we, pitiful humans, should have any effect on the plans and designs of an omnipotent, sovereign God. Much more, if we should assume that we can command Him what to do with His grace.

Our god seems to be awfully lazy then, he doesnt intervene and stop bullets anymore, we seem to be left with "ok, i've given you the rules, if you obey these then it should be fine" but as far as im concerned the only large group of people that are going to heaven are those buddhist monks who dedicate their lives to being good people

(Im gonna get majorly flamed now so i might play WoW for half an hour)

Unfortunatly modern christians seem to be under the impression that being christian is better than being, say, muslim in the eyes of god.

Most people of any religioin seem to think this. It is rare for anyone to think that there may be more than one way to properly worship - more than one path to God.

I dont get it either, just cos a guy died nearly 2000 years ago, its not our fault, and if god really wants us to have free will then he cant go around assuming that we want people to die for our uncommitted sins,

Anselm strikes again. I often wonder how many people know that the things they say about the atonement generally come from a theologian from the Middle Ages who based his entire idea in the already well established penance system? Many Christian denomination have dropped the penance system, but kept the Anselmian view of the atonement.

I tend towards the Abelardian view. Christ died, not to pay for our sins, but to demonstrate God's infinite love. The purpose was to turn God's followers away from fear - so that they would follow out of love, not out of fear. But, IIRC, Abelard's stuff got mostly burnt up and he was forced to recant and Anselm lived on.

all christianity really did in the long term is turn us against the jews, who seem to be following his words a lot better, maybe not so much since they got tanks...

Huh? How did Christianity turn anyone else against the Jews?

But thank you for taking the whole "guilt complex" thing a step further : Ok, let's assume that Jesus was the son of god and that he did die on the cross. How was that your fault? Did you ask for any sacrifice? What do you need it for?
Well, one, we didn't ask for it, you don't ask for sacrifice, it as given as one. The second part is a wee bit complex.

Ok, I'm gonna make a lot of assumptions here, just follow along without saying "I don't believe that" for a bit, Cabra. These are my belifs and understandings. Your actual milage may vary and all that. ;)

Human beings sin, whether you agree with the notion of orginal sin, or not, we all end up violating the Laws of God. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we covet, we eat shellfish, we do all those things we've been told not to do. This is a bad thing because we cannot be admited into the presence of God unless we're free from sin.

Kinda like you can't get into the best restaurant covered in mud (LG excepted of course).

Before Jesus came, people would have to sacrifice of themselves to get clean. However, if you think about it, it doesn't work well, we sin too much to keep ahead. Jesus came to take our sins onto himself. We didn't ask for this to happen, but He did it all the same. The best anaology I can come up with is think of someone you do not know taking your place to be killed for the crimes you committed, and doing so just because He loves you. It was the ultimate sacrifice, the one that allowed people to stop sacrificing of themselves and the one that washed us forever clean of our sins.

Let me guess, that just made you even MORE confused. :p

Hey everybody my name is Larry and I am not a Christian. While I may have been one on paper at one point in my childhood my family pretty much ignored the whole church thing.

to add to this question further I am pretty confident in the fact that
A) The Jesus guy in the bible never existed historically
and
B) the best you can argue for a "historical jesus" is he takes elements of 3-6 guys and combines them togther as part of a religous movement that now seems to pre-date any of those guys.

This is where my critique is from.

Christianity, like any system of social order changes. The christianity of 50 years ago is signifigantly different then the Christianity of today, and the Christianity of our founding fathers day is almost alien to our own. You people speak of the institution of christianity as if its something outside our times. Christianity is as it always will be a reaction to the times individual christian believers live in.

Todays christianity is much more end of days oriented. It believes much more in a literalist final conflict just around the corner.... that can and probably will change.

their are some 12,000 major flavors of christianity and they have their true believers and their sunday christians and all sorts of folks inbetween so that makes for a rather ecclectic mix of thoughts and ideas.

What is Sin. Western and Eastern Christianity would argue on it... heck they argue on what the soul is. And they spread influences back and forth amongst each other.

Christianity is a faith, and faith serves those who believe in it. It serves those who feel the need to build it at the core of their community. The vilifying of faith by those who purport a form of truth is one of those sad things we have on the internet like shooting ducks in a barrell and bear baiting. Fun yes but really not edifying to us both.

Sin is only about guilt if you choose to make it so. By the western christian thinking by mans knowledge of good and evil his inperfection makes him more likely to do evil. That evil nature is combatted in your life by the grace of christ and your devotion to his teachings (whatever you think you are). Sin is not something you flip on a switch and its over.... Say what you want to about baptist theology but their decleration of "I'm a sinner" is very much like AAs "I'm an alcoholic"

Now some churches are more or less focused on the message of helping others away from their sin. To use the A.A analogy living in sin every day causes you to hurt yourself, hurt your loved ones, and ruin your life. It goes contrary to the sense of human compassion and empathy that is coded into our very cells to allow one to suffer.

You may not like what those people are doing, but they however care about you.... sometimes to much, as to much empathy and to much devotion can also be sinful. Its why people in the mental health field often burn out. You may not like what they have to say, you may view their actions as part of some evil animus...... but just smile, thank them for their concern and enjoy your life.

I couldn't help but notice how much you seem to talk about guilt, sin, having to better yourselves, etc.
Smunkee feeling bad because maybe giving a bar of candy to her husband was a selfish act, Edwardis proclaiming that everything is sinful, Multiland justifying suffering with accumulated guilt, I could go on for ages here.

Is that really what it's about for you? Endless self-reflection to find the tiny spots of sin, guilt, imperfection, humanity?
Now, I won't presume to speak for your god, but isn't he supposed to love you? I know that if I love someone, I don't love them for their level of perfection. I love them for their imperfections.

Can somebody please explain this apparently endless guilt-trip to me?

We who aspire to be the best people we can be, will have to pass through some introspection and guilt.

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" (Hebrews 12:6-7 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/12/6-7#6))

I'm not self abusive about it, "for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength" (Mosiah 4:27 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/4/27#27)). But I do push myself to do my best, and when I fall short of that I pick myself up and try again. And I will keep trying until I get it right, however long that takes, "for we know it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/23#23)).

Well, one, we didn't ask for it, you don't ask for sacrifice, it as given as one. The second part is a wee bit complex.

Ok, I'm gonna make a lot of assumptions here, just follow along without saying "I don't believe that" for a bit, Cabra. These are my belifs and understandings. Your actual milage may vary and all that. ;)

Human beings sin, whether you agree with the notion of orginal sin, or not, we all end up violating the Laws of God. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we covet, we eat shellfish, we do all those things we've been told not to do. This is a bad thing because we cannot be admited into the presence of God unless we're free from sin.

Kinda like you can't get into the best restaurant covered in mud (LG excepted of course).

Before Jesus came, people would have to sacrifice of themselves to get clean. However, if you think about it, it doesn't work well, we sin too much to keep ahead. Jesus came to take our sins onto himself. We didn't ask for this to happen, but He did it all the same. The best anaology I can come up with is think of someone you do not know taking your place to be killed for the crimes you committed, and doing so just because He loves you. It was the ultimate sacrifice, the one that allowed people to stop sacrificing of themselves and the one that washed us forever clean of our sins.

Let me guess, that just made you even MORE confused. :p


No, not more confused.
However, I have to say that if I did believe that, I'd be pretty mad at both god and Jesus.
I mean, just look at the situation : You've got a god there who claims to love you. But you can only be with him if you meet his exacting standards totally and entirely, if you alway do what he wants you to do and never ever slip up.
Apparently, even god realsed himself that that's a ridiculous thing to demand, but instead of simply lowering his standards so that humans actually could meet them, he goes and lets his son get killed off.
If you were in a relationship with a person like that, most people here would advise you to get out of it immediately or at least to get counseling.

What a silly quote, considering that the God of Calvin, if God so chose, could save all sheep from the wolf, but chooses only a small flock with which to do so.

And? He's God. He's allowed to do that if He wants.

The God that I believe in wishes to save everyone, but only if we choose to love God. We aren't forced into either path. God will fend off the wolf, if we ask God to. If we want to go it alone instead, God will allow that as well.

Again, you're arguing where there is no argument. God helps those who want help. But we only want help because He makes us to want it.

So you aren't going to actually address anything I said, I take it?

I'm tired of addressing your argument which has no point. You keep saying that guilt has no place in this theology. But you keep ignoring that it is the very basis for theology.

The point remains that your argument is circular. You claim that God forgives because people repent. You then claim that people repent because God has chosen to grant them grace.

I only repeat what Scripture teaches.

The logical outcome of this, which you seem to want to avoid, is that personal guilt and personal responsibility are completely removed from the equation.

I don't know what "Calvinist" told you this, but it is completely false. You are judged for what you have done. It is your responsibility to do what God has commanded you to do. You have your own personal guilt because of your lack of total and utter conformaty to the Law.

God chooses those whom God will forgive, and grants them grace so that they can be forgiven. The entire impetus, in Calvinism, is on God. God could choose to forgive everyone, or choose to forgive no one, but no aspect of that particular human being, their guilt or their repentence, in the end, has anything to do with it. It is all on God to choose.

And what's the problem with this? There is no problem, except that our sinful nature wants to say "I'm in charge. I'll do it my way. God has no affect on what I do unless I want Him to have an affect."

Isn't this what tyrants would have us believe?

God is a dictator. But He is good, and so not a tyrant.

And? He's God. He's allowed to do that if He wants.

Certainly. But if God chooses to do things this way, then personal culpability is entirely removed from the equation. Everything is completely up to God, and has nothing to do with the nature or actions of human beings. This is especially true when you realize that, by Calvinist theology, not only are humans flawed and unable to repent except at God's choice, but God even chose to make them such, by applying the sins of two to all of humanity.

Again, you're arguing where there is no argument. God helps those who want help. But we only want help because He makes us to want it.

...which is circular. In other words, God doesn't help those who want help. God helps those that God wants to help by making them want help. In the end, it has nothing at all to do with what anyone wants. It is all completely and entirely up to God.

I'm tired of addressing your argument which has no point. You keep saying that guilt has no place in this theology. But you keep ignoring that it is the very basis for theology.

No, it isn't. There is no place for personal guilt in a theology that has nothing to do with personal actions and relies entirely on the whim of God.

I only repeat what Scripture teaches.

No, you repeat what human beings teach about what Scripture teaches.

I don't know what "Calvinist" told you this, but it is completely false. You are judged for what you have done. It is your responsibility to do what God has commanded you to do. You have your own personal guilt because of your lack of total and utter conformaty to the Law.

It can't be your responsibility to do what God has commanded if it is impossible for you to do what God has commanded. Only God can make you do what God has commanded by granting you grace. Thus, it has nothing to do with personal culpability, and everything to do with the whim of God.

Why on Earth would you feel guilty if you cannot possibly do as God commands? If you have no ability to follow because of "Original Sin," then you have no reason to be guilty. God has chosen to let the sins of two people force you into a sinful nature that you are powerless to overcome. Feeling guilty would be like feeling guilty because you were born. It's something you have no control over, and didn't ask for.

In the Calvinist theology, by virtue of being human, you cannot conform to the law unless God makes you do so. If it is impossible for you to conform, how can you be held responsible for not doing something it is impossible for you to do?

And what's the problem with this? There is no problem, except that our sinful nature wants to say "I'm in charge. I'll do it my way. God has no affect on what I do unless I want Him to have an affect."

God can do what every God wants. But the logical outcome of Calvinist theology is that there is no room for individual culpability, responsibility, or guilt. It all falls on God to decide, and human beings are powerless in the equation.

Meanwhile, God does have an affect on what you do, regardless of your wishes. God grants you grace (or so I assume you believe) which *makes* you want to obey God. Thus, God has effectively forced your hand, by making you want to follow.

Without that grace, you are unable to want to follow - to want God to have an effect. With that grace, you, by definition, want to follow and want God to have an effect. Your wishes are controlled by God.

Maybe some Christians do not understand grace. Well, I don't claim to know everything about it either. I'm glad about what I do know though.

I think it really turns out being one of those things where sometimes a person gets the forgiveness of God but cannot forgive themselves.

Maybe some Christians do not understand grace. Well, I don't claim to know everything about it either. I'm glad about what I do know though.

I don't claim that any of us truly understand it. To do so, we'd probably actually have to be God. But if we posit a particular description of grace, then we must be able to follow that description to its logical conclusions. Anything less would be dishonest.

I think it really turns out being one of those things where sometimes a person gets the forgiveness of God but cannot forgive themselves.

Indeed. That can be a problem. It can be a problem even in personal interactions with other people, where a person you have wronged has forgiven, but you still cannot get over it.

Your wishes are controlled by God.

And I have no problem with that. God is my Creator. He is sovereign. He can do what He wants with me. That is His right. He could blast me right now and it would be perfectly within His rights. I am a sinner and have earned a worse punishment than anyone can imagine before they reach it. He can choose to send me to that punishment. Or He can choose to be gracious and merciful, only because there has been payment for that debt I have accumulated.

I see no problem with this. I see it clearly taught in Scripture. It is only when we allow our sinful egos to get in the way that this doctrine is rejected. Even when we say that Reformed theology leaves no room for guilt, it is not because the doctrine truly does so (because it does not). It is because we want to say that our actions are in control. And I see no greater arrogance and no greater example of our sinful nature.

And I have no problem with that. God is my Creator. He is sovereign. He can do what He wants with me. That is His right. He could blast me right now and it would be perfectly within His rights. I am a sinner and have earned a worse punishment than anyone can imagine before they reach it. He can choose to send me to that punishment. Or He can choose to be gracious and merciful, only because there has been payment for that debt I have accumulated.

You may have no problem with it, but you obviously have a problem with the logical conclusions that must be drawn from it. You may have done things that are deserving of punishment, but by your own doctrine, you could not refrain from doing them. As such, there is no room for guilt at doing them, any more than you should feel guilty for sweating when it gets hot.

I see no problem with this. I see it clearly taught in Scripture. It is only when we allow our sinful egos to get in the way that this doctrine is rejected. Even when we say that Reformed theology leaves no room for guilt, it is not because the doctrine truly does so (because it does not). It is because we want to say that our actions are in control. And I see no greater arrogance and no greater example of our sinful nature.

The only way we can have guilt is to be in control of our own actions. You are not guilty of having a heartbeat. You are not guilty of having bone cells constantly break down and remake your bones. These are aspects of yourself that you do not control, and thus cannot be guilty of. If you cannot possibly do good, you cannot be guilty of not doing good. Only if you could do it but choose not to can you actually be guilty.

If we are not in control of our actions - if we are incapable of choosing the right path, that is fine, but it means we have no personal guilt. We were created without that ability, and thus cannot be guilty of not doing it. Should I feel guilty because I cannot lift an entire building? Of course not, I was not made with the ability to gain strength to lift an entire building.