Amusing Finds 21

But belief affects behaviour and, in my case, the two are so closely intertwined that to modify one requires that you modify the other (see James 3).

I think I was trying to be amusing with the "shuts up" thingy. Unfortunately I was very very tired and rather annoyed and so it all went "doon the darve coot"!

I read James 3 as advocating governance of the tongue. Is that what you were saying?

In any case, I prefer to build and test my common sense and morality by myself - from life, not ancient teachings, if you like.

That might be because I meant James 2 vs 14-26.

And Biblical teachings don't lose their relevance with time. God's direct words to mankind don't have a best before.

Although James 3 is shockingly relevant. Well, not so shocking really, considering what I just said.

And I just read the bullfighting one, too. I don't think whoever wrote it has seen one, because the description really are very, very wrong!

But then again, I'm an aficionada!

Hmm. It's rather silent on works without faith. (But then, I have neither!)

With any sort of ancient teachings - and I certainly wasn't confining myself to Abrahamic writings - there's a danger that the relevance is going to be lost because of the style and language, or the irrelevant and dated parts.

I guess I don't understand the 'creationist' mindset in that way, keeping things the same when they could be improved. *g* Not that (eg) the NIV bible is perfect - Prot-centric, left some bits out - but it's on the right track in my opinion.

The relative 'beauty' of old and new translations can be debated forever, of course; the accurate translation of terms likewise.

For works without faith see Hebrews 11:6 - "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Actually, all of Hebrews 11 deals with faith.

---

quote:

roughly half of evangelical Christians believe that non-Christians can go to heaven

---

Chavs, Si!

Go my child, join your people... *grins and ducks*

(For those blissfully out of the know, a chav is similar to a scally.)

See, that bugs me. The Bible clearly states that's wrong, so why do people believe it?

Toby says my hat is chavish... *sulks*

Cool or wot?

And re: the Bible, I think they just don't like to think of their Jewish, etc friends going to hell (and them peering down and enjoying the torments).

It's a humanitarian sort of response, but guys -- you did choose to believe in a system that damns everyone with slightly differing ideological views to eternal pain. Live with it; realise that it is not a nice fluffy friendly religion, it's sect supremacy.

Or decamp. I'm quite behind anyone who believes in the spirit of the text but not the letter, and is willing to say so. It's people being dishonest with themselves that troubles me.


BTW, everyone else, feel free to \flame{this discussion} if you think it gets out of hand. (I think it's been fine so far, but just in case.)

Of course nobody like to think that their friends are going to hell. I'd much rather have the pleasure of seeing you in heaven, Mutt.

As for slightly differing ideoligal views, the only thing that decides whether or not you go to heaven is your attitude to Jesus. All the other religious curfuffle that occurs over baby baptisms and communion and gay bishops is just differing opinions on how God wants us to live our lives NOW. As for our eternal life, that's plain and simple faith. It's the deeds that everyone gets tangled up in, but it wouldn't necessarily affect their salvation. After all, noone gets it 100% right.

As for nice fluffy religion, see Matthew 10:34 - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the Earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword, for I have come to turn 'A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

I'm afraid the message I preach is offensive, since part of believing it is true requires that I believe everything else is wrong. So it really doesn't matter if we don't like to think of our friends going to hell, changing your beliefs won't solve that problem.

When you were talking about the relevance of the text earlier, Mutt, I think you are right. Viewing some of the stories from this time and culture, a lot of the rituals and phrasings (if you like, the letter of the text) will be completely alien to us. But underlying principles (the spirit of the text) will be just as relevant. After all, the story of the man who built his house on the rock was not told to illustrate planing permission and building regulations.

I know the sword quote well. It encapsulates his followers' message for me and I think of it when people talk about Yahweh's "peace".

Changing one's beliefs obviously would solve the problem of believing one's friends are going to hell. What it wouldn't do is change the beliefs of anyone else who thinks your friends are going to hell. I don't think we can say any more than that; factually, nobody KNOWS.

So for me it boils down to whether believing without evidence brings more benefits than drawbacks - the answer to which, for me, is clear - and whether the values espoused by this or that religion are things I can support without conflicting with my morality - which they aren't.

I meant it wouldn't stop them going to hell, just because you didn't believe they would. Some things are true whether you believe them or not, and I'm really opposed to the multiple truths ideas that say otherwise.

I never viewed my beliefs as being without solid evidence. Of course, there is an element of faith (see Hebrews 11:1), but there's plenty of historical evidence that Jesus existed and these sources mostly concur with what's written in the Bible. One's attitude towards Jesus is very very limited, seeing as he was very clear about who he believed he was and why he was sent. You may have even heard C. S. Lewis' "Good, Bad or God" theory, which has been re-worked by Nicky Gumble into the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" study for his Alpha Course.

As for me personally, the work of God in my life is plain to see (perhaps not for others, but certainly for me) and I can see a sharp contrast when I look at my life with God and my life without God.

On a random note that's not really much to do with the particulars of this conversation, many people I meet at university believe what they believe because it fits in with their lifestyle and what they want quite nicely. It's more a matter of convenience than a search for truth. My beliefs and my faith bring me benefits, of course they do. Living the way you were designed to live obviously makes your life easier. But that was NOT the reason I chose to follow Jesus, and at times it's been very difficult. But the joy outweighs the pain, cliche as it may sound.

But take (for example) Judaism's attitude to Jesus, or Islam's. It's possible to accept that such a rabbi existed around that time without being obliged to give credence to any of the legends surrounding him.

Believing people will go to hell doesn't cause them to.

Multiple 'realities' is a fact, unless you believe everyone interprets the same data in exactly the same way; and we know that something that seems miraculous to one person is more satisfactorily explained by algal blooms or weather balloons by another.

For Jules and other Lloyd-Weber fans.

Watch/listen to carols! (requires RealOne Player)

I can guarantee we're almost the first people to know about this. *bwedg*

Someone else's thoughts on article above

To that RealOne Player thing. There's a very good alternative.