There's no point to any of this, Cheese-Head.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

Endless whining in retrospect. Don't read the other posts. They're just as whiney as this one, yet more uninformed.

[Jeff Mason]

Well, Steve, part of your analysis is dead on:

"If I, and my universe, were simply happenings which were not caused but had either always been, or had caused without a causer, then my whole existence is meaningless."

Total agreement.

"Perhaps another religion and its texts are a must for me to discover some meaning; but if they're all simply the work of hopeful humans then surely there cannot be one true account in amongst them."

Again agreed.


But the rest?  Not so agreed.  If you have read the Bible, there is not much left to ask save with what spirit did you read.  Was it someone looking for error?  Or was it with a humble heart saying, "If you are there, God, show Yourself to me?"  If the Bible is of human origin you are correct that it cannot be reliably true.  That's why I believe in its divine inspiration.  Christianity is totally God-centered; it's not about what we can do for Him, it's about what He has to do and wants to do for us.

Steve, what you need I think is an encounter with God, and my experience is that He will not reveal Himself to someone who has the wrong spirit.  I don't know your heart or what all you have done.  But the Bible teaches that He opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Reading the Bible without humility probably won't work.  I can't answer whether you did that or not, but I can tell you this:  without God to illumine the Bible for you, it probably will sound just like you describe.  You need to have His Spirit teach you.  I can't generate that or make it happen; it's up to Him and you and your attitude.  But if you are right, then we all die anyway and turn to dust and nothing matters.  If you are wrong, then you have a whole eternity to deal with.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

I actually read a large part of it on a 13 hour drive to West Virginia. I read with pure and strong interest; seeking answers, comforts, knowledge, truths. My friend and I had talked for hours throughout the drive about the significance and coincidences of the word "light" being used so often; whether that coincides with the supposed "near-death" experiences of which people have reported being summoned to a great light force and becoming part of it. I truly read with a humble spirit, and it did comfort me throughout the trip. Imagine driving through mountain after mountain, all of them covered with trees, seeing eagles flying above, the clear blue sky over them, etc. It was a very interesting experience. Throughout the trip, and through the mountains, we passed at least a dozen "Crucifiction Salutes". I don't know what to call them having never before seen the display; the main cross which Jesus hung on, and the two surrounding it. These were huge monuments which stood out in the lonely roads as signs of hope -- either that or fanatical believers in towns with populations of less than twelve.

What I struggled with after feeling inspired, loved, comforted, and all of those feelings; I struggled with convincing myself that it was actually the "light" of Jesus Christ illuminating me and not just an offset of chemicals in my brain adapting to being stimulated through my reading. I tried to ignore the violence which is sprinkled throughout the whole thing and focus on the message of Christ. If anything I at least kept it in mind that He had excellent ideas even if He wasn't the Son of God. But right now, having returned from a major bummer of a trip; feeling depressed and meaningless (  typical teen? ) it just seems that things like the bible are comfort tools rather than the true word of God spoken throughout men moved with the Holy Spirit. I read things which I morally disagreed with by my own moral definitions which are not influenced by anything but my inbuilt sense of morality. But I ignored these because the focus of most of my attention went into Christ's message, since His was of peace and it truly appeared to me as being Divine and the truth. But again, I fall back into the line of thinking that it's all just a coping mechanism for when we humans have our down spells. Hearing atheists put things into their line of view also challenges my faith very powerfully.

[Jeff Mason]

See, to me the atheist view is the one that seems totally unconvincing.  They have to deal with the fingerprints of God all over creation and the cosmos and try to find a way to explain everything without any reference to an external Creator -- and they still haven't.  There is no impersonal explanation for a Big Bang, no experiment has come close to spontaneous generation of life (which is required in the naturalist view) -- scientists are utterly perplexed as to how life developed under the conditions it had to form in and no workable theory has yet been proposed that meets the geological evidence of the earth's conditions at the time.  And there are many compelling arguments intellectually that shatter their arguments.  True, atheists can sound blustery and initially you think, Oh, gee, maybe they're right.  But get past the bluster and they are as much relying on faith as I am.  They have faith, often just blind faith, that there is no God.

The core issue as well is an issue of control.  Most people's objections to theism are moral, not intellectual.  You can "convert" a person mentally and they still will be a million miles away from God.  While there is no cost to God's gift, and you can do nothing to earn it, it still costs you everything in the sense that you must yield all control.  And morally, most people are unwilling to do so.  You indicate that you feel the same ("I morally disagreed with by my own moral definitions which are not influenced by anything but my inbuilt sense of morality.").  If God's morals don't fit with your own ideas, then you assume it's all man-made, as if your ideas were the best or only standards out there.  If there is a God, and He is transcendent, we should expect Him to be very different from us and have different standards of morality than us, especially if the Bible is true in teaching that man is fallen morally, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.

If you have to "convince yourself" that God is real, you haven't encountered Him yet.  True conversion is initiated by God.  The best thing you can do in your state IMO is to ask God to reveal Himself to you, that you are open to Him however He might be, even if you don't like His ways.  I can't argue you into a conversion, I can only explain how I interpret your words.  Only God can do the work.  But you have to be willing to change to meet God; God won't change for you.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

Thanks for your input, Jeff. There's not many people I can have a serious discussion with on this issue at all.

Another thing I have trouble comprehending is that Jesus said that He is the only way. Through Him one finds the Father and only through Him. But what about Islam, where the Qu'ran was also written under seemingly divine inspiration of a sort? Has God shown himself to all kinds of people on all different regions of the planet? The views often aren't that different, Christianity is set apart because of Jesus. Because it says that the only way to gain eternal life is through Him and nobody else. Now it seems strange to me that millions of unbelievers, and millions of people from different faiths will all be seen as wrong come their physical death.

I believe that I've had a small amount of spiritual experiences. Just a few and not powerful ones either; just moments when I realized without a shred of doubt that I'm safe in a world which has been created for a reason by a creator. Sometimes it's just a very moving clarity which comes across my mind which provides this view. I'm not sure if I believe in the concept of a soul yet. Scientists have done tests on people who meditate heavily for a lengthy period of time. They achieve their goal within that time and reach God, or reach a certain enlightenment, or perhaps just simple break free of thought altogether. But the brain scans done during this activity merely shows the brain behaving in an altered way than usual. It shows increased activity in certain parts of the brain, while decreased activity in the more normal, everyday use sections. Now when you meditate, you truly feel seperate from the brain; it's possible to feel your "self" escaping the body and floating around the room. But it seems the sad fact is that that is just an illusion caused by the brain's altered state through meditation.

It's just so hard to imagine what comes after this life. I find it hard to believe that our physical death is THE end of us (due to some personal losses and sad experiences with death,) but it's even harder to imagine what comes after our bodies death. Obviously this is probably the biggest and most important question in our lives, to find out who or what God is and if he has anything in mind for us. I'm not sure if I put my thoughts across properly here but the question is really one which plagues me throughout each day. I wouldn't jump off of a cliff knowing that there's no trampoline type of thing to save me at the bottom.

[Jeff Mason]

Thanks for your input, Jeff. There's not many people I can have a serious discussion with on this issue at all.

Another thing I have trouble comprehending is that Jesus said that He is the only way. Through Him one finds the Father and only through Him. But what about Islam, where the Qu'ran was also written under seemingly divine inspiration of a sort? Has God shown himself to all kinds of people on all different regions of the planet? The views often aren't that different, Christianity is set apart because of Jesus. Because it says that the only way to gain eternal life is through Him and nobody else. Now it seems strange to me that millions of unbelievers, and millions of people from different faiths will all be seen as wrong come their physical death.

Without a doubt this is the most commonly stated objection to Christ's claims.  And it underlies the entire issue of why Christ is needed.  Everyone thinks that because the basic morality seems to be the same (which really it isn't -- for example, Christ has no room for jihad, which however modern Islamic scholars spin it was part of Mohammad's message -- convert or be attacked), all faiths teach the same thing.  Leaving aside the contradictory views of God that, say, Hinduism and Christianity hold, looking at the core message you have two choices.  On the side of all religions except Christianity, you have: "Work very hard doing x, y, and z, and maybe at the end you will have done enough to have earned your admission to Nirvana/Paradise/Shangri-la/wherever".  Christianity alone teaches this:  "You can't do enough; in fact, you are hopelessly isolated from God and are in rebellion and can't fix it on your own.  But God died to heal that rebellion, and to allow you back in -- if you come on His terms and submit to Him and His ways.  But your ticket in is not in any way, shape or form based upon any action you can do, because without Him you are nothing."

The Bible teaches that all men at least understand their rebellion and God's righteous judgment of it without any reference to Scripture.  As to those who have never heard, what does God do?  It's hard to say as the revelation isn't clear.  I won't speak dogmatically save to say that God is just and will not comdemn anyone without their having earned it (and understanding that they have rejected Him).  But since you and most people reading this HAVE heard, I can tell you the message of Scripture is clear:  the only way to get right with God is through Jesus.  Not my idea; his -- "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me."  (John 14:6).  If this is troublesome, then you have a problem with the words of Jesus.

One other thought -- you will never be able to find God unless He lets you find Him.  God is transcendant enough over the universe that He can hide Himself from anyone and everyone.  Hebrews 11:6 teaches that whoever would find Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek him (and in context, that would mean on His terms, not theirs).

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only  begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did  not send the Son into the world to  judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He  who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their  deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

So a person could live a life of evil and sin, and at some point before their death if they actually and properly believe in Jesus Christ as their savior they will be forgiven of their sins?

Are people who are naive to the teachings of Jesus Christ accepted by default if they led their lives well with goodness?

To be fully saved by Christ must one be baptized, or is simply believing enough?

..............................................................

It also makes it hard to feel the good message when there are parts like this:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. ...
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. -- Genesis 19:8, 31-36

[Jeff Mason]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only  begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did  not send the Son into the world to  judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He  who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their  deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

So a person could live a life of evil and sin, and at some point before their death if they actually and properly believe in Jesus Christ as their savior they will be forgiven of their sins?

That's the point.  The moment you look at it as those who are gross sinners and those who aren't, you miss the point.  ALL have sinned.  ALL are unworthy.  All sins look as repulsive to God as each other.  We see some sins as worse because to us there are worse consequences.  But to God they are all the same.  Look at the thief on the cross.  Jesus told him that that very day he would be in paradise.  Can't get much later in life than being put to death as a murderer.

Are people who are naive to the teachings of Jesus Christ accepted by default if they led their lives well with goodness?

As I said above, I will not speculate on those who have not heard as the Scripture is not plain on that.  But again, NO ONE lives their life well with goodness.  Every act you try to do with goodness apart from Jesus looks flawed and ugly to God.  Why?  Because a person without Christ is incapable of doing anything good in their heart.  To use the obvious example, since it always comes up, yes, Gandhi did activity that benefitted others and in material terms hurt himself, and to most of us he looked very "good".  But, assuming that Gandhi was not a believer and had heard and rejected Christ's message (and that is probably a safe assumption actually), the Scripture says that in his heart of hearts the motivation was not, could not, be right.  He could do it to earn approval of man, or to prove himself worthy, or all sorts of motivations save one that puts others before himself.  In that sense, then, no one can do good and, to quote Isaiah, "all of our righteousness is as filthy rags to God".  So the question refers to no one in existence, since no one lives their life with goodness without Christ.

To be fully saved by Christ must one be baptized, or is simply believing enough?

There are certainly those Christians who believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation, so I can't give you the universal answer.  But I don't think that it is a requirement, nor do I think it has any efficacy to make a spiritual change.  What it is is an act of obedience and a public declaration of loyalty to Christ.  It doesn't mean much here, but in a Muslim country, baptism is a step out of the entire community.  People have been killed for being baptized.  In that context, the requirement for baptism as obedience AFTER becoming a Christian is clearer than here where it just means getting wet.
..............................................................

It also makes it hard to feel the good message when there are parts like this:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. ...
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. -- Genesis 19:8, 31-36

Would you prefer that the Bible pretend that people weren't sinners, removed all times where people screw up, and make it look like you have to be perfect to please God?  There is a comfort that King David could commit murder, adultery, and be a lousy dad, and still the Bible says that he was a man after God's own heart.  It means that whatever sins I do, I can't cut myself off from God's love.  I still sin.  All believers do.  But that doesn't mean that we are cast out from His family.

Also please note that the Bible merely reports Lot's actions, it doesn't comment on them or condone them.  If anything, this is a defense of the accuracy of the Bible.  If it were man-made, you would be less likely to get heroes of faith who violate their own standards or who look so bad.  But the sins of the men of faith aren't hidden in the closet -- they are reported and dealt with.

[Rerun]

I don't want to add much to this thread as it is pleasant enough as a spectator, but one question I have about this quote:

"Are people who are naive to the teachings of Jesus Christ accepted by default if they led their lives well with goodness?"

Is, if this was true, wouldn't it be better to all live in ignorance of Christ to avoid accountability?  To spread the message would do more harm than good because come Judgement, the naive would no longer be so and would have to defend their neglect.  I know Jeff is hesitant some in saying what will happen to these people, but I believe what I've already alluded to...that ignorance isn't an excuse and that's why it is so important that we do have missionaries that do His work in Africa and other third-world countries.

My thoughts on the topic...not to allude that Jeff hasn't been eloquent enough, but I just wanted to point this out.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Another thing I have trouble comprehending is that Jesus said that He is the only way. Through Him one finds the Father and only through Him. But what about Islam, where the Qu'ran was also written under seemingly divine inspiration of a sort? Has God shown himself to all kinds of people on all different regions of the planet? The views often aren't that different, Christianity is set apart because of Jesus. Because it says that the only way to gain eternal life is through Him and nobody else. Now it seems strange to me that millions of unbelievers, and millions of people from different faiths will all be seen as wrong come their physical death.

That is why I personally believe that however you feel God speaks to you is the way to go. I don't belong to any particular religion, but I do have a close relationship with God. What is a sin and what constitutes a sin is up for debate, but IMHO what is truly heinous are those who commit foul acts and then claim that it's in the name of their religion, when that religion's holy book says to do just the opposite. Bullshit.

[Jeff Mason]

I don't want to add much to this thread as it is pleasant enough as a spectator, but one question I have about this quote:

"Are people who are naive to the teachings of Jesus Christ accepted by default if they led their lives well with goodness?"

Is, if this was true, wouldn't it be better to all live in ignorance of Christ to avoid accountability?  To spread the message would do more harm than good because come Judgement, the naive would no longer be so and would have to defend their neglect.  I know Jeff is hesitant some in saying what will happen to these people, but I believe what I've already alluded to...that ignorance isn't an excuse and that's why it is so important that we do have missionaries that do His work in Africa and other third-world countries.

My thoughts on the topic...not to allude that Jeff hasn't been eloquent enough, but I just wanted to point this out.

That points ignores two very important facts from Scripture...

1. Jesus told us to go.  That settles the matter right there.

2. We are doing more than spreading the Gospel when we go.  We are agents in the expansion and break-in to the world of the Kingdom of God.  A careful study of Scripture confirms that this is to be true.  While the Kingdom's fullness will not be tasted until Jesus returns, its realness and beauty can be tasted now. 

What does that mean?  It means that the hungry should get fed, wrong relationships should begin to be made right, marriages that were meant for divorce will get healed, Christians get out into the world and truly become salt -- things that could only happen by divine intervention take place to the glory of God and for the good of others.  The crime is that most churches, especially in the US, are content to get you saved and sitting on a pew, when there is so much that should be done.  The church I have chosen (and this is a big reason why I chose it) has ministries to the poor, the AIDS victim, the single mom, the community as a whole, trusting that as people see God at work through these outlets, that the Kingdom will expand and the spiritual will take place alongside the physical.

A hidden fact, hidden because the media won't report it -- 25-35% of sub-Saharan Africa is now vibrantly Christian.  And the standard of living for those Christianized countries is on the rise.  HIstorically, peoples that accept Christ have a tendency to do better after that acceptance as God establishes his rule.  Africa is more Christian than the US now and in truth, though most US Christians are too proud to admit it, we are far less Christian a nation than many African nations, and the center of Christianity has left this country.  Had we just kept it away from those people, their lives now would be far worse.  There IS a material advantage to Christianity now.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

Jeff (and others) if you have the time could you please view and later comment on this video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T9sftSyWeVE&search=God

It's a lecture by this professor on some very, very interesting theories. It's over an hour so whenever you have time, but I will tell you that it's a very rewarding video.

[Rerun]

I don't want to add much to this thread as it is pleasant enough as a spectator, but one question I have about this quote:

"Are people who are naive to the teachings of Jesus Christ accepted by default if they led their lives well with goodness?"

Is, if this was true, wouldn't it be better to all live in ignorance of Christ to avoid accountability?  To spread the message would do more harm than good because come Judgement, the naive would no longer be so and would have to defend their neglect.  I know Jeff is hesitant some in saying what will happen to these people, but I believe what I've already alluded to...that ignorance isn't an excuse and that's why it is so important that we do have missionaries that do His work in Africa and other third-world countries.

My thoughts on the topic...not to allude that Jeff hasn't been eloquent enough, but I just wanted to point this out.

That points ignores two very important facts from Scripture...

1. Jesus told us to go.  That settles the matter right there.

2. We are doing more than spreading the Gospel when we go.  We are agents in the expansion and break-in to the world of the Kingdom of God.  A careful study of Scripture confirms that this is to be true.  While the Kingdom's fullness will not be tasted until Jesus returns, its realness and beauty can be tasted now. 

What does that mean?  It means that the hungry should get fed, wrong relationships should begin to be made right, marriages that were meant for divorce will get healed, Christians get out into the world and truly become salt -- things that could only happen by divine intervention take place to the glory of God and for the good of others.  The crime is that most churches, especially in the US, are content to get you saved and sitting on a pew, when there is so much that should be done.  The church I have chosen (and this is a big reason why I chose it) has ministries to the poor, the AIDS victim, the single mom, the community as a whole, trusting that as people see God at work through these outlets, that the Kingdom will expand and the spiritual will take place alongside the physical.

A hidden fact, hidden because the media won't report it -- 25-35% of sub-Saharan Africa is now vibrantly Christian.  And the standard of living for those Christianized countries is on the rise.  HIstorically, peoples that accept Christ have a tendency to do better after that acceptance as God establishes his rule.  Africa is more Christian than the US now and in truth, though most US Christians are too proud to admit it, we are far less Christian a nation than many African nations, and the center of Christianity has left this country.  Had we just kept it away from those people, their lives now would be far worse.  There IS a material advantage to Christianity now.

My whole point was that if the statement that the naive can enter Heaven through "goodness" (however that's qualified) is true, then spreading the word of God would not be desirable.  Sure, their life may be improved here on earth, but if the ultimate goal is to enter Heaven since this life is but a preamble to eternity, then whatever helps them do that should be what we target.  In their case, it would be to not disrupt their ignorance in hopes that they never found out about Christ so they wouldn't be burdened with a choice that could affect them for eternity.  Instead, we would tell them how to be "good" to fulfill our purpose.

Anyway, I'm not saying these are what we should do, I'm just speaking hypothetically.  In reality, without Christ, none can enter the Kingdom of Heaven and it should be our duty to spread the Word, however that is done.  If your church wants to concentrate on helping people improve their lives as a testimony, that is great (assuming they offer invitations at some point).  If your church sends out missionaries to spread the gospel, great!  If your church offers a weekly invitation and tries to teach the congregation how to improve as Christians, how to grow after rebirth and has bible studies for fellowship, great!

To me, the most important thing has to be leading souls to Christ.  Now, if your church was just about helping marriages and AIDS victims without salvation as their ultimate goal, then it'd be a great way to improve lives here on earth, but if they're still unsaved, what have you really accomplished?  They've just become more comfortable for the next 40 years, but for eternity, maybe not so much.

[Jeff Mason]

Rerun, I have become convinced of something here in this culture -- people need to experience God.  Most people anymore won't be moved by mere preaching.  The world has changed and more than ever, people know what the alternatives are, and so they ask "What's so special about Christianity?" -- and we owe it to them to show them this and that takes more than pure reason.  So to tell people what Christianity says has value and is the right and biblical thing to do.  However, what people cannot argue away is an encounter with God Himself.  Our church believes that doing acts of service like that allows God an opportunity to show people His power in ways that rationalism can't explain, and their hearts soften.  THEN you give them the gospel message.  Which is more powerful to a man who's in major health crisis:  to merely preach at him, or to serve him and also pray for healing (which often happens), see God at work for real, THEN give him the gospel?

Once naturalism started engulfing the church, a false dichotomy split happened:  the liberals thought that the gospel was the social gospel and focused exclusively on saving the world through making it a better place.  They had no power from God and they were out of touch with the spiritual side of man and his depravity.  The conservatives overreacted to the social gospel and began to focus exclusively on the spiritual side, and evangelism.  This allowed people to meet God and be saved, but Christians abandoned the social work which had ALWAYS been part of the church for fear of being "tainted" with the social gospel.  But read the Bible clearly:  we have special responsibilities to the poor, and God is intimately concerned with people and their current needs as much as their future needs.  If life were just about being saved, why wouldn't we just go home immediately?

What I'm trying to say is this -- if you separate evangelism from social action, you have made a split foreign to the Bible.  We are to minister and preach WHILE ministering.  Too many people think that reading a tract and checking off a box is all that they need; occasionally someone reacts to my presentation, woo hoo!  But that's not God's heart for us.  We are to serve people NOW and be outlets for God's power NOW.  And if we are ready to link message with acitivity, the soulwinning will take place.  But if your church isn't ministering to the needy, you have a serious Scriptural imbalance that needs addressed.

[Rerun]

Rerun, I have become convinced of something here in this culture -- people need to experience God.  Most people anymore won't be moved by mere preaching.  The world has changed and more than ever, people know what the alternatives are, and so they ask "What's so special about Christianity?" -- and we owe it to them to show them this and that takes more than pure reason.  So to tell people what Christianity says has value and is the right and biblical thing to do.  However, what people cannot argue away is an encounter with God Himself.  Our church believes that doing acts of service like that allows God an opportunity to show people His power in ways that rationalism can't explain, and their hearts soften.  THEN you give them the gospel message.  Which is more powerful to a man who's in major health crisis:  to merely preach at him, or to serve him and also pray for healing (which often happens), see God at work for real, THEN give him the gospel?

Once naturalism started engulfing the church, a false dichotomy split happened:  the liberals thought that the gospel was the social gospel and focused exclusively on saving the world through making it a better place.  They had no power from God and they were out of touch with the spiritual side of man and his depravity.  The conservatives overreacted to the social gospel and began to focus exclusively on the spiritual side, and evangelism.  This allowed people to meet God and be saved, but Christians abandoned the social work which had ALWAYS been part of the church for fear of being "tainted" with the social gospel.  But read the Bible clearly:  we have special responsibilities to the poor, and God is intimately concerned with people and their current needs as much as their future needs.  If life were just about being saved, why wouldn't we just go home immediately?

What I'm trying to say is this -- if you separate evangelism from social action, you have made a split foreign to the Bible.  We are to minister and preach WHILE ministering.  Too many people think that reading a tract and checking off a box is all that they need; occasionally someone reacts to my presentation, woo hoo!  But that's not God's heart for us.  We are to serve people NOW and be outlets for God's power NOW.  And if we are ready to link message with acitivity, the soulwinning will take place.  But if your church isn't ministering to the needy, you have a serious Scriptural imbalance that needs addressed.

I agree with all that.  I also believe that if the church did just the job you describe, we wouldn't need to depend on a largely unaccountable government to try and do it for them through social programs extablished with our tax dollars.

Ok, I'll let you and H&V continue.

[Jeff Mason]

I agree with all that.  I also believe that if the church did just the job you describe, we wouldn't need to depend on a largely unaccountable government to try and do it for them through social programs extablished with our tax dollars.

That fact alone colors how I view politics.  Many things that Christians look at in political terms are spiritual issues for me.

[donald]

No commentary from me on the topic in general, but I have some back ground on those sets of three crosses seen on many mountainsides across West Virginia and neighboring states.

Word is, a man with a lot of money had a near death experience during surgery or something along those lines.  He had a sort of vision, a dream, that he would erect these in as many places as possible to reach as many people as possible with a reminder of the fact that Jesus died for our salvation.

He paid for the manufacture and construction of the crosses and got permission from landowners to place the crosses on their land.

So it wasn't done by towns or by various indivviduals, but was actually the act of will of one individual. 

This makes for a more interesting story, no?

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

That's fascinating, yes.

I have MUCH more respect now for those things that I saw throughout those states. I've read up on many NDE's and find them to be a somewhat legit and verifiable thing -- with the scientific proof in attempts to dismiss the spiritual meanings lacking. At first seeing those crosses I thought it was just the product of a very faith driven area. But I also thought it rude to impose the belief on the roads for people from out of state to see. Now that I've learnt it was one person, so inspired from his singular experience, it makes much more sense and is quite a nice thing.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

On second thought, never mind.

[Jason]

I want the 15 minutes it took me to read this thread back.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

That was quite witty.

[SG7]

Steve, it sounds like you need a real job. This whole thread is probably the reason why we kicked you off the road trip 

[Jason]

Steve, it sounds like you need a real job. This whole thread is probably the reason why we kicked you off the road trip 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, PWNED!

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

Steve, it sounds like you need a real job. This whole thread is probably the reason why we kicked you off the road trip 

Huh?

A 'real job' will not quiet the searching in me. While a 'real job' may provide distraction and meaning for others, it offers nothing for me except the measly pay and an aching back. You should all quit your 'real jobs' and join in on the real purpose to our lives; humans have such a high intellect but it is at most wasted by many including myself. I'm sorry for appearing so hostile here but it annoys me so much when people offer the solution to my worries to be work.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

Could someone please teach me the purpose of the Book of Ecclesiastes?

Reading it is like filtering through my daily thoughts about life. I don't quite understand the message to be gathered from the writings in it. It comes to no conclusive hope except for one to fear God. It also maintains that a fools death and a wise man's death yield the same results. In the context it means simply, death, with no mention to the afterlife.

Again, any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.