Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 6:38:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 6:40:27 AM EDT by Dino]
this is an online version of one of Baen's books by Holly Lisle

I found it a good read and it describes a view of God I found intesting, especially in light of the thread on all religions being correct.

www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671877038/0671877038.htm

Its in the free library, you can even download the book as a zip if you would like.

I thought I would share the last chapter


God, once again in his Christian form, smiled at the scene on the monitor.

"You must be delighted to have been proven so right. This business of Hell on Earth isn't at all what I'd expected—and to have gotten another chance to redeem none less than Hell's second-in-command . . ." The recording angel leaned back from his keyboard and looked up at the Almighty.

"I'm happy for Agonostis and for Dayne. I always rejoice when my children find love, and when they triumph."

The angel chuckled. "I must say I was glad to see Jezerael get what she had coming." He looked up at God, expecting a smile, or some form of agreement. Instead, he was startled to see a tear roll down God's cheek and disappear into the luxuriant white beard. "You weren't amused?"

"No. I always hope, you see. . . . She did something good. I thought for a moment that the results of her actions might reach her—that she might feel once again the joy that comes from kindness. I always hope." The Almighty wiped at the tear, and the one that followed it. "Heaven is for you," God said gently, "and for them," as he pointed to the Earth spinning lazily below. "For me, there can be no Heaven until the last of my children is safely home."



Thats a concept of God even an atheist has to like...

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:24:12 AM EDT
www.hollylisle.com/author/bio1.html


Some of the mail I've received on Sympathy for the Devil has asked about my religion or encouraged me to explore someone else's. I don't discuss my beliefs, because I feel anyone's relationship with God is personal and private,...




Shok
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:35:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
www.hollylisle.com/author/bio1.html


Some of the mail I've received on Sympathy for the Devil has asked about my religion or encouraged me to explore someone else's. I don't discuss my beliefs, because I feel anyone's relationship with God is personal and private,...




Shok



Why the ?

He feels his relationship with god is a personal one, and shouldn't be made public. I have more respect for that viewpoint than for the TV Ministers, and any group (or groups, not going to single any of them out) who think coming door to door and asking me "have you found jesus" in the middle of my "night" (I work nights, so the doorbell ringing at 2pm is extremely annoying, yet those "have you found jesus" people can't seem to read the sign saying "day sleeper, do not ring bell" covering the doorbell).
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:39:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
www.hollylisle.com/author/bio1.html


Some of the mail I've received on Sympathy for the Devil has asked about my religion or encouraged me to explore someone else's. I don't discuss my beliefs, because I feel anyone's relationship with God is personal and private,...




Shok



A more enlightening area to quote would be:


Finally, a response to the people who---with the best of motives and the kindest of intentions---have offered to introduce me to their religion, my thanks for your offers, and for your caring. However, after a long and painful, often-angry struggle, I've made my private peace with God. I'm satisfied with that.

Thank you for understanding.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:21:29 AM EDT

Interesting read


Hardly.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:46:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Interesting read


Hardly.




you read the book in the short time since I've posted the link?

Impressive.

What did you think of the character development in Aganostis?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:54:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Interesting read


Hardly.




you read the book in the short time since I've posted the link?

Impressive.

What did you think of the character development in Aganostis?

\

No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Interesting read


Hardly.




you read the book in the short time since I've posted the link?

Impressive.

What did you think of the character development in Aganostis?

\

No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.



Actually its not anti-Christian at all. Furthermore, there is nothing anti-Christian in any of the posts in this thread. So far your the only person who has decided to show his ass. Bravo

If you want to read it and discuss it feel free, otherwise please don't troll this thread. Thanks.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:09:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 9:14:32 AM EDT by Mr-H]

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .


I guess it's not "anti-Christian" so long heresy isn't.

From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:16:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 9:21:15 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:25:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 9:29:18 AM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Interesting read


Hardly.




you read the book in the short time since I've posted the link?

Impressive.

What did you think of the character development in Aganostis?

\

No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.



___________________________________________

As a majority in this country and within this forum, why would you consider any idea beyond the realm of Christian ideology as anti-Christian?

To discuss in terms of co-religionist dialogue scriptural references is not a slam.

To be portrayed as horribly hurt and mal-treated by other views outside your ken is a sad commentary upon yourself.

We can live together and learn.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:37:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.




The part in red, my friend, is patently anti-Christian.

There is ONE path to salvation. His name is Jesus Christ.

As far as being surprised at the number of self-confessed Christians who have heretical beliefs, no, that doesn't surprise me at all. It disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:39:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


As a majority in this country and within this forum, why would you consider any idea beyond the realm of Christian ideology as anti-Christian?



If you understood Christianity, you would know the answer.

Christianity really is 'Jesus's way, or Hell'. It really is that simple.

You're either for it, or you're against it.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 9:43:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.




The part in red, my friend, is patently anti-Christian.

There is ONE path to salvation. His name is Jesus Christ.

As far as being surprised at the number of self-confessed Christians who have heretical beliefs, no, that doesn't surprise me at all. It disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.



If I say I am not a homosexual does that make me anti-homosexual.

Anyone who is not a Christian probably doesn't agree 100% with Christian Dogma. That doesn't make them anti-Christian. It makes them non-Christian.

Its not anti-Christian to state beliefs (either personal or the acknowledge beliefs of any religion)

I will agree it is heresy, but it isn't anti-Christian.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:41:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 2:50:12 PM EDT by Mr-H]

Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .


Mr-H: From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."





Dino: How is that derogatory to Christianity?

Read the implications of the underlined words below.


I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

Now, to a Christian with even basic knowledge, that boldly implies that Christianity is utterly false. It says the God of the Bible is a liar and that Christ's death wasn't so much an atonement after all.


That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


It's true that the idea is precedented, but that doesn't mean it's valid. As someone who believes in the laws of logic, and that truth is real and knowable, I see the concept as being preposterous.


ETA: you edited after I posted.

Yeah. Figured I'd try and be a little less ambiguous.


Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity.

That's my point.


You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

Actually, I wouldn't. We have quite a dilemma these days. Many Christians can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, hardly know a fraction of the Scriptures, and aren't really at all concerned about things of theology, philosophy, or sound doctrine. At first, the life of the mind was considered of prime importance and the Church could out-think her critics; but for some reason the Church has just sort of backed off from intellectual pursuits for the past 150-200 years or so. It retreated into Bible colleges and small groups instead of fighting in the halls of academia where our future leaders are trained. Many chose to disregard the intellect and rely on emotions (which cannot be easily falsified, but can be easily manipulated). This led to a preference for "heart experiences" over a true change of mind (which is what "repentance" literally means). Discipleship was replaced by "revival. " Careful study was replaced by "feeling led." Spirituality became private and had little to do with scholarship.

Heck, even atheists and non-Christians (who like to argue against Christianity) are really slacking these days. It's hard to even get into a debate without having to explain Theology 101 to your "opponent" along the way. It's almost like being challenged to a race by a guy, and then having to tie his shoes before the race! Logical fallacies in every statement are generally the norm, and there is almost a fire hazard created from all the dead straw men laying around. Even professional atheist philosophers seem to be in a slump. Their modern arguments and rebuttals are largely emotion or ignorance-based (just as the aforementioned modern Church practices) and are rather unsophisticated (I guess the best one they've got now is from the problem of evil, but even it is quite solvable). But I guess I shouldn't complain about their problems.




I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian.

That's actually a very good point. Heresy can be either an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth, to generally accepted beliefs or standards, or both. Unlike the two examples below, the heresy in question is not just a dissent from some minor secondary doctrine--it's actually calling the God off the Bible a liar and, ultimately, nullifies Christ's purpose for dying on the cross.


It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.


ETA: Sorry 'bout the mini rant.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:47:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 2:51:24 PM EDT by Mr-H]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.




The part in red, my friend, is patently anti-Christian.

There is ONE path to salvation. His name is Jesus Christ.

As far as being surprised at the number of self-confessed Christians who have heretical beliefs, no, that doesn't surprise me at all. It disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.



If I say I am not a homosexual does that make me anti-homosexual.

Anyone who is not a Christian probably doesn't agree 100% with Christian Dogma. That doesn't make them anti-Christian. It makes them non-Christian.

Its not anti-Christian to state beliefs (either personal or the acknowledge beliefs of any religion)

I will agree it is heresy, but it isn't anti-Christian.



No, but if you say the Homosexual lifestyle is not a valid one, then that could easily be conceived as "ant-homosexual". And this isn't about what people agreeing with Christianity -- it's about propositions. I actually agree that it is not anti-Christian per se, but it does imply that Christianity is a lie.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 5:51:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.




The part in red, my friend, is patently anti-Christian.

There is ONE path to salvation. His name is Jesus Christ.

As far as being surprised at the number of self-confessed Christians who have heretical beliefs, no, that doesn't surprise me at all. It disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.



If I say I am not a homosexual does that make me anti-homosexual.

Anyone who is not a Christian probably doesn't agree 100% with Christian Dogma. That doesn't make them anti-Christian. It makes them non-Christian.

Its not anti-Christian to state beliefs (either personal or the acknowledge beliefs of any religion)

I will agree it is heresy, but it isn't anti-Christian.



No, but if you say the Homosexual lifestyle is not a valid one, then that could easily be conceived as "ant-homosexual". And this isn't about what people agreeing with Christianity -- it's about propositions. I actually agree that it is not anti-Christian per se, but it does imply that Christianity is a lie.



Its easy to cross a line and be offensive in stating an honest opinion. I am not a Christian so to expect me to espouse Christian views 100% is foolish. In the same way, for me to expect you to agree with my religious views is foolish.

It requires the person stating the opinion to offer it with good intentions and the person listening to the opinion to not carry a chip on his shoulder.

One way to do this is to concentrate on the things we do agree on and let God worry about the things we don't agree on that don't directly affect one another.


Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:49:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 10:51:24 PM EDT by Mr-H]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Mr-H:

arowneragain: No, I read your quote, and immediately noticed that you had once again posted some found-on-the-internet anti-Christian drivel to post, and, as such, it would be a complete waste of my time to read it.


Even worse, it was a complete waste of YOUR time to read it.




Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .



From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."




How is that derogatory to Christianity?

I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.

That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.


ETA: you edited after I posted. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.

I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.




The part in red, my friend, is patently anti-Christian.

There is ONE path to salvation. His name is Jesus Christ.

As far as being surprised at the number of self-confessed Christians who have heretical beliefs, no, that doesn't surprise me at all. It disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.



If I say I am not a homosexual does that make me anti-homosexual.

Anyone who is not a Christian probably doesn't agree 100% with Christian Dogma. That doesn't make them anti-Christian. It makes them non-Christian.

Its not anti-Christian to state beliefs (either personal or the acknowledge beliefs of any religion)

I will agree it is heresy, but it isn't anti-Christian.



No, but if you say the Homosexual lifestyle is not a valid one, then that could easily be conceived as "ant-homosexual". And this isn't about what people agreeing with Christianity -- it's about propositions. I actually agree that it is not anti-Christian per se, but it does imply that Christianity is a lie.



Its easy to cross a line and be offensive in stating an honest opinion. I am not a Christian so to expect me to espouse Christian views 100% is foolish. In the same way, for me to expect you to agree with my religious views is foolish.

It requires the person stating the opinion to offer it with good intentions and the person listening to the opinion to not carry a chip on his shoulder.

One way to do this is to concentrate on the things we do agree on and let God worry about the things we don't agree on that don't directly affect one another.





Fair enough, I guess. Also, I don't expect you to espouse Christian beliefs at all. I don't think I said or implied that anywhere. If I did, I didn't mean to. And don't worry, I wasn't offended by anything you said. When I suppressed belief in God I used to hang around in mostly Christian forums, and when I converted I hung around atheist/agnostic forums-- so I've developed some pretty thick skin. Just don't say anything about my mom . . .

Take care.
Top Top