For your consideration

Don't worry - the posting of this thread and the last one is not a sign of some kind of renewed emphasis on religion on my part. In fact, I just happened to be fishing around on Youtube for things I might have missed and while I was watching that other video (in the other thread) I noticed a link to a Tony Campolo appearance in the sidebar, and thinking of tony reminded me of one of his good friends, and the guy who, in my humble opinion, is the best Christian teacher you will ever have the chance to be exposed to.

And it occurred to me that lest someone make the knee jerk assumption that I approve of the Fundamentalism of the family discussed in that other thread, it might do well to give you an insight into the sort of Christianity I DO believe in, just to serve as a counterweight to that assumption.

I have linked audio from this guys website before, but this is video and as far as I can tell it's relatively rare to find video of him on line.

If you are, like Black Dove, or Diacanu or Dan Leech: so throughly put off by ANY discussion of religion or the supernatural that you can only react with contempt...just make your snide remark and move on, there's nothing here that will interest you.

But if you have an open enough mind to hear a thoughtful, and throughly unorthodox, statement of what Christianity is all about from a believer who not only knows the truth but is willing to admit it, then give it a listen....if nothing else, you will find it a refreshing contrast to any preacher you have heard before.

I link here, two video clips....For those of you who have very little patience for these things, at least listen to part 2. but if you want to get that clip in in it's proper context, and have the patience to listen to the whole story, then listen to part 1 first, then part 2.

I would be fascinated to hear thoughtful reaction, even from those who are unconvinced. I suppose that, this being the Red Room, I will certainly get the derision of the hostile. Know that I will not respond to such derision, I don't put this here to argue about it, but just to see the reactions of thoughtful posters believers and non-believers alike. In fact, I have a dozen or so names in my head that I really look forward to seeing their reaction.

[yt=Steve Brown Part 1]RK1Nq88Letk[/yt]

[yt=Steve Brown Part 2]cRO05YrSrJA&[/yt]

I love the message. That's really what Christianity should be all about - acceptance.

What I don't love? His methods. It is not inspirational to me to go to a dying man's bed and push Jesus at him. It is not...a good demonstration of one's faith...to use a man's funeral to "spread the word," especially to, once again, manipulate those who are at an emotional weak point in their lives.

And that's what it is. Manipulation. Pushing one's belief just a little harder into someone while they're vulnerable. You might think you're saving them. You might even be right in thinking that. But you wouldn't be right in doing it.

I suppose it is telling that in some parts of America a message like that is considered "controversial." In fact, it is the message of a huge number of Evangelicals.

I grew up with the "God is angry at us for our sin" concept and learned, little by little, about God's love and acceptance. That was a necessary complement to the truncated "gospel" I had understood in my earlier years.

Nevertheless, there is more to the gospel than simply "God accepts you as you are." Sure he does; to this day, one of my very favorite hymns is "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me and that thou biddest me come to thee..." But one must also ask the question: Why does he accept us? To what end? What's the goal of this whole business?

Younger, I thought it was all about being forgiven so we could go to heaven (which is supposed to be a Really Good Place) instead of hell (which is of course a Really Bad Place). I no longer believe that. It's all about being saved from sin. Not "saved from punishment for sin," which is how Christians and non-Christians alike often view the Christian message, but saved from sin. IOW, the God who loves and accepts those who come to him does so in order that they may discover holiness, a life lived on the basis of love for others instead of selfishness.

I don't know if that is part of Steve Brown's message, but at the very least it was not part of this message.

Nothing I haven't heard a million times before.

Pompous git.

There's my snide remark.

Henry, you're an idiot.

Yes, I must embrace the imaginary man in the sky to earn your approval. I know.

Before I respond....did you watch both parts?

Read it in context henry....I'm saying a man who knows the truth ABOUT CHRISTIANITY (and Christians) and is willing to admit it.

Clearly, it's up to you (each one of us) to decide if the Christian God is truth or fiction....that's not what I meant by "knows the truth"

www.keylife.org

Tons of his teaching there in audio...streaming and podcasts and so forth.

You get a fuller idea of his views there.

Yep. And, since it looks like you disagree, I went through and listened again, just to make sure my analysis wasn't due simply to the late hour.

The thing I missed before, I think, is that Tom willingly went to church. But it wasn't for church. It was to hear his friend one last time. And then his friend, who cared for him deeply, who truly believed it was the right thing to do, proceeded to start a conversion.

That isn't the part I had the biggest problem with. It was unintentionally, unconsciously, manipulative, but it was done out of love. I just don't find it that inspirational. Atheists in foxholes and all.

No, the part I had a problem with was in the second video. This, to my mind, was consciously manipulative. He goes to the celebration of Tom's life, and says he's in heaven. That's fine, that's great even. But then he goes on to say "But you're only going to see him again if you believe what I do." Not only is that totally inappropriate, but it's putting that little sliver of doubt in every single person's mind there - now, every time they think of Tom, they're going to think of Brown, and his message, and maybe if they're just vulnerable enough, they'll throw aside what they genuinely believe in a hope to see their friend again.

And, upon listening to it again, I'm really kind of wishy-washy on my previous statement of "Loving the message." Because while that message of acceptance was there, throughout the story, it was always tempered with this sort of "But you have to believe" sort of sentiment. And I don't think any just God would be that petty.

I don't think any loving God would ignore how great of a friend Tom was, how great of a grandfather he was, and, really, how great of a person he was, just because he didn't believe. That, in the end, is not accepting. Real acceptance doesn't have conditions.

And frankly, I wouldn't want to be in a Heaven where my friends aren't there solely because they didn't believe. It's not fair to them, and frankly, it isn't fair to me either.

I know I probably wasn't one of the fifteen or so people you had in mind when making this thread, but I hope that I didn't disappoint all the same.

It wasn't the disagreement that made me ask, it was just seeing if you had the whole context before i wasted a post telling you that you needed context.

Well, cynically speaking...if one is converting from unbelief to belief in SOMETHING at that late hour...it really does no harm does it?

I would have a problem myself if the guy had been, shall we say, Jewish, and got "sold" in his final days...at least, from your perspective.

I would not suggest that tom's conversion, in a vacuum, is supposed to be inspirational. It certainly wasn't the bit that provoked me to link it.

Perhaps, but it's a very LOW standard of belief (one a lot of Christians would object to, if I may say)

No "believe what I do AND..."

go to my church
get baptized
tithe
quit drinking
etc
etc
etc

Just....believe.

Honestly Kyle, do you think any of those folks had spent any real time thrashing through their philosophical beliefs, wresteling with whether God exists and if so, what his expectations were?

If they had, they would not be swayed- any more than you were - by a sentimental fondness for the notion that they could see Tom again.

they would KNOW, as you do, that Tom was not going to be see anywhere in any context again and be at intellectual peace with that. Anything less than that and they are not so certain of their beliefs as they profess.

And, might I add, what good is an unchallanged and untested faith system? Is Atheism so weak that one old preacher saying "you might see your friend again" a threat to it? Is it so needy it should be shielded from that question? is the matter so unimportant that the people on that boat should never face the question of eternity?

On the other hand, if the audience had NOT wrestled with these concepts, as you and I have, do you not think they SHOULD? Is it better to be an atheist by default? Or as a result of rational inquiry?

Should we all not face the question?

And, again, if this was a vulnerable moment - if they were being "played" in a moment of weakness to believe, then what is the worst possible outcome?

That they will live their life believing they will see their deceased friends again and enjoying that hope, then die and....cease to exist. no dissapointment, no "i've been lied to" moment...just...nothing.

Where is the downside in giving people a false comfort which costs them nothing and which they will never be dissapointed in?

Besides that, in point of fact, a shallow conversion made on the basis of so flimsy a plea would not hold anyway. In a month or two the feeling will fade and they will go back to practical atheism. Again, no harm done.

So assuming the very worst here - that a cynical man speaks to people in a moment of emotional vulnerability and weakness and manages to convince some of them that there is a hope for life beyond this one - how has he mateirally or emotionally harmed them?

On the other hand, on the off chance that the teacher is right and there IS an opportunity to see Tom again, would he not have been much more the villian to have NOT told them such a possibility exists?

And what is it, do you suppose, that they "genuinely believe"?

In the general population, what precentage of folks do you think have actually fought throu the issue and said "I firmly believe there is no God"?

As opposed to just the practical atheism of benign neglect of the issue.

And of those who HAVE reached that conclusion rationally....how many of them were threatened by his assertion to the contrary of what they believe.

I tell you this - I believe in the Christian god (thought not always in the Christian religion) and it bothers me NOT AT ALL to be told by Dan or Dicky or BD that he doesn't exist. I spare with them over the derision of believers, but not over the claim god doesn't exist.

The contradiction of my view does not threaten me. I have buried two beloved grandparents in the last 18 months and at no time did i dead a profession of atheistic views and say to myself "Oh my! what if he's right?!"

Contrawise, I sincerely doubt a non-believer feels threatened by the presentation of the claims of Christ in his presence - if he does, he is not as secure in his beliefs as he claims and has bigger issues than being in the presence of a preacher.

You REALLY think it's pety to set the bar so very low?

So, think about this. Would you really rather there be a god who has an arbitrary standard of what you DO to EARN your way into his favor rather than just accept that your payment has already been made?

sure, you might say "what about the death row conversion" or whatever....but the counter argument is this....what if there is some arbitrary set of scales out there, some line in the sand, and you tell ONE too many lies to qualify, you make ONE too many cutting remarks to a person who needs your sympathy, you steal ONE extra newspaper out of the rack....and because of that ONE TINY offense, you fail?

Or at the other extreme, what if it's not good enough to love your kids and give to charity, and be a "great person? what if you have to sacrifice a goat once a month and wear magic underwear and cut shave your head wear platform shoes and sit naked in the snow in the swiss alps overnight once a year?

Arbitrary? heck yeah. Just as arbitrary as "be good to your kids and give to charity.

ANY set of "do this and don't do that" is arbitrary.

And yet...and yet you feel it's "petty" that he sets the bar on the VERY LOWEST notch (short of saying "fuck it, everyone gets in") and says "all I ask is that you believe that I am who I say i am"?

That is many things, my friend....it is fantastically unbelievable, perhaps, or it is unrealistically generous, or it is the wishful thinking of a guy who doesn't WANT to be good....call it what you will -

But the LAST thing it is, is "petty"

Please understand, I am not arguing with you...just trying to provide a respectful counterpoint.

how is it profitable to either:

a. not exist at all; or
b. exist in a place apart from yur loved ones for eternity

than it is to exist in a place where they are and where you got in based on a principle you philosophically disagree with?

People toss around the line "Any heaven that is thus and so i don't want to go to" without, I think, really thinking through what they are saying.

The only way that's a logical claim is if the alternatives postulated by the possibility of that heaven are preferable.*

Within the context of the claims for the Christian god, the best possible alternative is non-existence/non-awareness....or an existence in some other place than the one your belief would have attained.

I would submit that within that context, it would be you who is being petty if you deny yourself and your loved ones the opportunity of reunion because you reject even the lowest standard for entrance.

Not at all, this is EXACTLY the sort of response I hoped for. I don't needto change any minds, I just hoped that someone would actually THINK about what was said.

Kudos.




*[which is to say that, OF COURSE we could all say "I want to go to a heaven that is exactly like I want it and on my own terms"....but I'm saying, if we postulate the choice as deriving from the premise that the Christian God exists and heaven is attained on his terms, then to reject that is to say that you prefer the alternatives that exists within that premise]

Excellent question. Would you see a downside in a physiologically completely harmless drug that makes people feel a bit more comfortable in their life, and lets them accept things that bothered them previously?

I certainly do see a downside. There is an obvious downside to telling an alocholic that "quit drinking" isn't part of the equation, that everything will be fine as long as he dies a believer.

Of course, most Christians I've met wouldn't support this quite radical exclusion of morals; they'd say that their religion helps people to stop drinking and generally lead a better life, rather than stop caring about improving their life. At that point, we get into the question of what life exactly is defined as "better" by the false comfort you suggest. (I'll continue to call it false for this exercise, since that's the theoretical question you asked.)

For any given change in lifestyle, either there is a reason to undergo that change without said false comfort, in which case it shouldn't be needed for adults; but admittedly perhaps it can help by adding a (false) motivation to do the right thing. Or else there is no other reason for that lifestyle choice other than for its role in the false comfort worldview, in which case it introduces bad priorities into people's life, much like belief in a false comfort over recovery from alcoholism is already a bad priority.

If the false comfort supports action on top of belief in the false comfort, but only supports actions that already make a lot of sense without belief in the false comfort, then I suppose the only damage it does is to truth, and opinions admittedly vary whether that is a value in and of itself. I believe it's very valuable, but that might be part of my own false comfort.

what does that have to do with the existance, or lack thereof, of an afterlife in which you will see your loved ones again?

the message communicated here (in the video) has a specific application and has nothing to do with your well-being before death. That's not to say the overall Christian message has nothing to say on the subject...merely that it is not within the context of this particular presentation.

Of course.

Again, that is tangential to the question at hand. The man is not saying (nor am I) "accept Christ and then sin with a passion". Rather, the message is - "acceptance is ENOUGH....it's not acceptance plus X"

If "X" is required, whatever X might be, then there is (apart from the theological implications) the guilt and shame that accompanies the failure to accomplish X.

That in no way precludes the potential for improving your life because of, or in parallel with, the effects of your faith.

I'll answer, but your consideration of what happens between belief and death is wholly beside the point of "false comfort"

the postulate is that IF you are led to have a false belief you will see your loved ones after death, how are you harmed by THAT belief. One can OF COURSE argue that that belief might motivate one to live better in the mean time...that's beside the point.

The question involves HARM: to wit, how is the person WORSE off for entertaining a (presumed) false hope?

Again, the postulate has nothing to do with how you live from belief to death, BUT
Suppose I lose weight in the false hope that a hot co-worker will find me attractive....and having lost the weight, I find she is not: How was I materially harmed by entertaining the notion I had a shot?

AGAIN, this argument only applies if I had said "What is the harm in a false hope that motivates you to change your life for the better?"

But I DID NOT ask that question.

In fact, I was very specific in saying that I postulated that the folks would not have ANY other reaction to the news other than simple belief (in a theoretically "false" hope)

I'm not sure what you mean by "bad priorities or the staement which follows that phrase"

I'm not sure how you managed to divert so deeply into a discussion of resulting ACTIONS based on a post that postulated no actions were necessary or implied.

Bottom line:
Kyle said it was inappropriate to give people what would be in his view a false hope about seeing their friend again in a moment of emotional vulnerability.

My reply was that, assuming for the sake of argument that the hope was false, and assuming anyone there was indeed vulnerable enough to buy into that, how would that singular false hope - that belief in Christ would provide the opportunity to be reunited with loved ones in the afterlife - cause them material or emotional harm?

what they chose to do, or not do, the rest of their life as a result of believing is irrelevant to that question because the premise presented to them by Steve neither asks for, implies, or directs any such action.

(i.e. Mr. A believes and feels compelled to take a vow of poverty and give away all his worldly possessions and thus becomes homeless - one cannot argue he was harmed by the message because the message did not imply in any way that he should make that choice)

That is not to say, of course, that there are not a multitude of beneficial (and harmful) actions one might choose as a result of belief....but these choice are inspired from other sources than the simple declaration "you can see Tom again"

Thus, your discussion of actions taken, while intellectually stimulating (and yes, in line with what most Christians would affirm....though along a spectrum of whether one is obliged to "strive" for such changes or will simply do so as a natural result of belief) really is not at all relevant to the point Kyle was making.

I actually almost, almost said that. And that's why I don't really have a problem with it.

Yes, that would be a pretty shitty thing to do. If they've already got a faith, it is, in my opinion, a dick move to try to convince them out of it, especially in an emotionally vulnerable time.

And there are a lot (I'd really argue the majority, but let's just go with a large number) of Christians who would say that you don't really follow Jesus if you don't do a nice long list of things like that. That's another reason that "Just believe" statements make me a little nervous - they tend to come with unspoken caveats. If Brown truly meant that all that was necessary was to believe in Jesus, then right on. Too many have taken that message and added a bunch of disclaimers for me to assume that, though.

To hear Brown talk, they certainly had.

The reason I tend to think that is that it's something I've wrestled with a good deal myself. I believe in God, and, when asked to check a religion, tick the little Christian box. But I don't think a single person I know would call me a Christian. The Christians most especially.

Why do I put myself in that category? I think the Bible teaches a lot of good lessons about ways to be good to other people. Thing is, I don't buy into much more of it than that.

And that's where my dilemma comes in. There have been a lot of times in the last few years where I felt like absolute shit. Felt lonely, miserable, like I couldn't do anything right. Hell, feeling that way right now, to be quite honest. And in so many of those moments, I've thought, "Maybe now's the time to check that Christian box with a bolder ink." Not because I really believed what they believed. But because I thought it would somehow make me happier. It's selfish, and it's the wrong reason to do it.

Is marriage so weak that a couple gay men getting hitched is a threat to it? Is it so needy it should be shielded from that?

Fact is, people firmly in the atheist camp aren't going to be swayed - I know that much. But for those people on the fence, people like me, it's kind of a sucker punch to pull at a funeral.

Oh, people should definitely be able to defend why they believe what they do. And not by quoting the Bible or Dawkins, but with elements from their own personal life.

That, incidentally, is why I am all for courses on religion and spirituality (and the lack theirof!) in public schools, but not courses on a religion.

Well, let's consider for a second that most religions believe that they are the only "right" one and that everyone else is fucked in one way or another - in that case, you could easily send someone down the "wrong" path, even with the best of intentions.

If atheism's right, then yep, no worries at all. But it's kind of like diverting a river in the first place. The reasons behind it are typically good. But it changes that river, and the area around it, and it can be really hard to change it back. And if you don't know where that river goes, you can't know whether the change will be beneficial or harmful to those down the line, let alone the river itself. Yet when rivers pick their own courses, barring disaster, they usually work out well for just about everyone along their banks.

Ah, but what about with someone like me? I've seen more than a few convert, and then slowly start to believe that because their problems were fixed by whatever faith they ended up being a part of, that must mean it's right, and what they believed was wrong.

And that's exactly why I have a problem with the "You've got to believe!" sentiment. Why should anyone be made a villian simply because God is apparently needy?

But, with all respect to your grandparents, Shep, I doubt anyone showed up at their funeral and said "Well, they're fertilizer now. Good thing I'm not wasting my time with religion like they did."

I can think of so many ways that someone religious could honor someone who is an atheist at a funeral. Like "While I know he didn't believe in God, I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing him in Heaven all the same." Or "We might have had theological disagreements, but he was always my friend."

There's no need to even try to convert someone at a funeral. Ignoring that people are vulnerable at those times (and it is certainly a sign of your character that you held your faith during those difficult times, Shep), it's just crass.

Depends on the presentation. I've seen many a proclamation of Christianity, and of atheism, that runs a shiver down my spine. Nothing to do with security - it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

It's pretty low. And it's far lower than what most Christians would put it at, and I'd much rather people think of it in terms of sheer beleif, rather than belief with caveats. To my mind, it is a fine start. But it's enough to, say, knock out the Buddhists. The Muslims. The Pagans. The, of course, atheists. And while all of those groups have some pretty terrible human beings, the vast majority of them are really pretty OK people - they deserve to go to Hell, despite being good, honest people, simply because they ticked the wrong box? That's petty, at least to my mind.

What's the old adage..."Don't sweat the small stuff."

We come from a society of laws that are really, really good at black and white sort of affairs. You killed someone, you didn't. You stole a newspaper, you didn't. But hell, all it takes is one look at your other thread regarding that oh-so-lovely custody dispute to know that once you start getting into what people are - good and bad - it gets pretty messy pretty quickly.

When determining if someone is good or bad, I tend to think of it as a "Black or white with a fuzzy separation" sort of situation. We can always find people solely in either camp - Ghandi was a great guy, Hitler was an asshole. But when it comes to those people in that fuzzy area, the line, much like the sand it's drawn in, shift a little. We, as imperfect humans, are pretty shit at dealing with that. God, on the other hand, has got the perfection thing down, and if anyone behind those pearly gates questioned why someone made it, or didn't make it, I think he could make a perfectly persuasive case.

I'd argue that is how many an atheist sees the "requirements" of most Christian denominations. You can't really itemize what it takes to be "good" or "bad." Chances are good though that if you treat others well, how you'd hope to be treated, or at least as well as you can under your circumstances, you'd probably fall into the "good" category, even with all some imperfect, "bad" moments.

I'd say the very lowest notch would be the good/bad sort of determination. It's fuzzy and messy and not at all comforting. But it's much more fair than "Hope you picked the right faith!"

Think about it this way. Say you had a good friend that was an atheist. Pretty good guy - makes some mistakes along the way, but he's trying his best to be a good human being. But man, he's convinced there is no God.

Which do you think he'd rather have happen - end up in Hell simply because he didn't believe, even though he was a pretty alright guy, or just admit he was wrong and spend the rest of forever with his friends and loved ones? Hell, I think we've had many a thread here about topics very similar to that.

Man, I bet you said something really deep here. But man, when we start hitting cut-and-dried "logic" and "postulations," uhg. This ain't a discrete math course, this is a theological discussion On The Internet.

At least we're staying away from talk of "fallacies." Talk about things that make me sleepy.

If that is truly the lowest bar - something I really do disagree with - then yes, it would be me being petty. But I truly don't think it is. Were it, then faith is really more like a game of Russian Roulette when it comes to eternity, and all but one of hundreds of chambers have a bullet.

I don't think there is such a thing as a belief that is not tied into any action. Any belief is a determinant of behaviour, and in fact only a determinant of behaviour. The very minimum is repeating that belief when asked about it; your example goes beyond that into a general change of attitude, as you're saying the belief is comforting. And of course, what comfort does is lessen the pressure to change things. That's how your line about it being about believing rather than things like "stop drinking" got into your own post, I think.

Of course, if you do believe, contrary to my beliefs, that there can be a belief that does not tie into action, then the only yardstick I can imagine for such a belief is whether it is true or not. And a false comfort, by being false, would fail that standard.

While there might be isolated cases in which the only effect of false comfort is to encourage otherwise reasonable behavior, you can't really examine cases in isolation when judging whether the attempt to give false comfort is morally acceptable.

Cherry picking seemingly good results is never a way to judge whether the action leading to those results is appropriate. Attempts to give false comfort to the very ill and dying routinely lead them to eschew real treatments, to turn their backs on friends and family, upsets the ill and adds to their pain, and, in the worst and far too common cases, are very effective tools for a swindle. None of which is to mention that real comfort is always possible so long as the back hasn't been turned on those friends and family. You're going far too easy on the concept of false comfort here.

Has it occured to you that some of us poor, deluded souls don't really need or want your approval, or even your respect, but we just want you to get off our backs about our beliefs? We know you have no faith in god, the Force, whatever, we got it the first million times, so why keep at it? Does it give you some sense of superiority to be able to look down on me because I do? Do you sleep better at night because you think I'm some idiot clinging to supernatural imaginary people while you are above all that?

Why do you continue to discuss religion with people so obviously beneath your contempt? You're not going to convince me to change my views any more than I'm going to convince you to change yours, so why belittle me? Can't you just go one way and I go another and never cross paths again on this subject?

You shouldn't post on Wordforge if you don't want your beliefs challenged.

You're not challenging anything. You're not presenting evidence contrary to my beleifs and asking to think about them logically to draw a conclusion. You're just popping in to religious threads, saying "God is dead" and then calling it a day. You're acting like a condescending asshole and mistakingly (I hope) calling that condescension debate.

I didn't say it was "debate". In the case above, you'll note that I was responding in kind directly to an insult from Beck. Sorry if you don't like it.

And if it were this one thread, that's be one thing, but every single religious threat we have the same people popping in to remind all us simpleminded fools that we're stupid for believing in Something. You're one of those people and it gets old. Why keep saying the same thing over and over in every thread about religion? We get your point already.

He really, really does.

So do I.

I think that is only true if you assume all the possible explanations are equally plausable.

I don't think that's the case.

In fact, I think that postulate "only believe" is the very thing that sets the truth apart from the vast number of pretenders which say "believe and..."

To me, the whole thing can be divided into three categories:

1. There is no afterlife, no judgment, none of this patters

2. There is a God, and all that he asks is that you believe he is who he says he is - your works are not required.

3. there is a God and you must do something to earn his favor.

If #3 is true, we are hopeless to decipher which set of works is actually god's and which is man made imitation. It's a crap shoot in which very many will lose, and i don't blame anyone for not playing.

If #1 is correct, then none of it matters anyway...believe whatever keeps you happiest.

Neither of those appeal to me, either emotionally or intellectually.

YMMV.

Sure a belief leads to action - I believe men can't fly, I don't step out of windows.

But a belief which implicitly leads to action is not the same as the person who led you to that belief detailing for you what actions are no REQUIRED.

For the most obvious example, some believers think to believe leads th to abstain from all alcohol, for other, it does not.

Neither choice is a REQUIREMENT of the belief, both can believe in the same God and the same bible and choose a different action.

On the contrary, the NATURE of the hope being offered - postulated as false for the sake of responding to Kyle but non conceded - is altogether relevant to the situation.

saying "false hope is bad" because you can point to a televangelist who says "buy my prayer cloth and your cancer will be healed" proves nothing but that that PARTICULAR false hope is bad.

Agreed, but this is just as true of cherry-picking bad examples....again, the controling question is: "what is the nature of the hope being offered?"

How are you not cherry picking bad examples here for a counter point?

how are any of these selected negative results a logical outcome of the situation described in this thread?

I did not say "False hope is always harmless" nor do I believe that.

You are, counciously or not, clouding the point.

In your last sentence, you're detailing for me what actions are required according to your belief. Specifically, you're saying NO such actions. Which means that the false comfort we're debating tells people they will eventually be okay without any actions, as long as they believe. So what reason remains not to wreck their life?

He seems like a good speaker with a bad message. I have qualms with any system that's more concerned with what you believe rather than what you do.

It's also undeniable the huge amount of ego that goes with this kind of missionary work. They like to talk about their conversions the same way the guy at the end of the bar likes to talk about all the women he's slept with.

Whether or not I would agree with that depends on what you mean by "believe in Jesus."

Believe he existed? Nah, that won't save anyone.

Believe he was the Son of God and that he died for our sins? Still don't agree. I believed all that for years before I discovered true life in God.

Believe that he makes it possible for us to be delivered from sin (and not just from the punishment for sin) and trust him to do so because that is what we want? Okay, that would do it for me.

But I would normally refrain from expressing that simply as "believing in Jesus" because too many people would think all that means is one of the first two forumulations.

Here, for me, is a summary of the important points of the Gospel message:

Salvation means being delivered from sin, the self-centeredness that characterizes human attitudes. Only God can do that for us, because of the grace made possible by the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If we want to be delivered from sin and thus want God to truly be God in our lives, he will do all the rest without regard to our merit or the enormity of our past sin.

Unfortunately, I find that much of that is often lacking from the common formulations of the Gospel message among Christians. "Belief" is often reduced to intellectual agreement with certain statements. "Salvation" is often reduced to forgiveness, and the deliverance from the uncomfortable consequences of sin. God is often reduced to someone who does good things for us, instead of the Lord of the universe.

I agree with Ryan on something having to do with religion!

(I also note that Jesus had much more to say about what people do than about what they believe.)

They've got the cure for the disease they're selling.