Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Ekul]

As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...

Frankly, I don't see how you can be selective about what you believe in the Bible.  It's either a take it or leave it thing.  A man dying on the cross, travelling to hell, rising from the dead three days later, and then pushing aside a  five ton stone is no less preposterous than the universe being created in 6 days.  In fact, if one thing is an outright fallacy in the book on which you base your entire life's philosophy, how can you be so sure that the rest isn't eqaully flawed? 

Also, I would love to believe that I will never grow old;  It makes my heart, or "spirit",  feel warm and fuzzy to believe that,  yet I know that this is obviously false, therefore discouncounting your spiritual-radar theory.   

[rabidfurby]

I found this article which puts the argument for "Universal Salvation" on the table.  This is what I believe and thought I would post it here for discussion.  Any takers ??

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Bibleproofs2.html

Honestly, I don't see the purpose in trying to use reason to persuade Christians about universal salvation - or anything else for that matter. Christianity, as well as all other religions, are purely based on faith. So why try to use reason, when any faith-based beliefs override reason?

[ChristianAnarchist]

As to the Bible that I use, I take much of it with a grain of salt.  My primary belief is based on what my heart tells me and the "testimony" I see in the creation.  I use the Bible as a historic document that is "inspired" by God but not "written" by Him.  There are many translations and all have some problems, I think.  To get the real meaning of what the writers had to say you would have to find an original language version that had not been tampered with (doesn't exist) and then learn that language as if it were your birth language.  I don't know of any way to do this...

Frankly, I don't see how you can be selective about what you believe in the Bible.  It's either a take it or leave it thing.  A man dying on the cross, travelling to hell, rising from the dead three days later, and then pushing aside a  five ton stone is no less preposterous than the universe being created in 6 days.  In fact, if one thing is an outright fallacy in the book on which you base your entire life's philosophy, how can you be so sure that the rest isn't eqaully flawed? 

Also, I would love to believe that I will never grow old;  It makes my heart, or "spirit",  feel warm and fuzzy to believe that,  yet I know that this is obviously false, therefore discouncounting your spiritual-radar theory.   

Absoultely everyone is selective about what they believe about everything.  Some see lights in the sky and conclude that there are aliens.  They back it up by doing research that tends to support their conclusion.  They disbelieve any results that would show them wrong.  The same can be said about evolution, paranormal, big bang, cuibicism, and religion.  Some believe in a fiction called "government" with enough zeal that they donate their children to die on foreign soil and run colored cloth up a pole in their front yard and sing songs in priase of same...

[Bill Brasky]

Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

[Tommy]

Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

They way i see it, the biggest "crazies" are the ones trying to "prove" evolution when they know there is no way to "prove" something that is supposed to occur over eons.  Those trying to "prove" paranormal existance are not quite as "crazy".

[ChristianAnarchist]

Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".

[rabidfurby]

Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".

This falls under the same category of "Darwin recanted evolution and/or converted to Christianity on his deathbed." (which even Christians recognize as untrue). Even if it was true, though, why would it matter? Scientific ideas stand on their own. If Isaac Newton went crazy from lead poisoning and went around telling everyone he just made the theory of gravity up, it would not affect whether or not that theory is useful for modeling the universe one bit.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Please don't lump evolution, the big bang, and paranormal into those other crazies.  There are legitimate scientists trying to prove those theories. 

The "Big Bang" was originally proposed by Steven Hawkings.  After he had nearly all of the scientific community following that view, he changed his mind and proposed that there never was a "Big Bang".

This falls under the same category of "Darwin recanted evolution and/or converted to Christianity on his deathbed." (which even Christians recognize as untrue). Even if it was true, though, why would it matter? Scientific ideas stand on their own. If Isaac Newton went crazy from lead poisoning and went around telling everyone he just made the theory of gravity up, it would not affect whether or not that theory is useful for modeling the universe one bit.

It is presented to show that top men in their field have opposing views on the interpretation of data (in this case, he opposed himself).  This is not meant to be any kind of dig against Hawkings as I have read his stuff and like it.  I think he is a true genius (unlike some on this board who just imagine themselves to be so).

[Ekul]

Absoultely everyone is selective about what they believe about everything.  Some see lights in the sky and conclude that there are aliens.  They back it up by doing research that tends to support their conclusion.  They disbelieve any results that would show them wrong.  The same can be said about evolution, paranormal, big bang, cuibicism, and religion.  Some believe in a fiction called "government" with enough zeal that they donate their children to die on foreign soil and run colored cloth up a pole in their front yard and sing songs in priase of same...

There is a large distinction between blind faith in the paranormal and acknowledgement of a theory made credible by falsifiable, empirical evidence.  Whereas you derive your core views on the world from a book filled with unverifiable stories that often violate common sense and basic observation, and which explicitly forbids you from questioning its legitimacy, I base mine on theories created using from objective observations  which I can test for myself.  Aside from the false sense of security and stability that one gets from religion, much like the feeling one gets when they when believe that a nonexistant government is protecting them, I see no advantage or benefit of holding a religious belief. 

I will admit that scientists can sometimes be unscrupulous and biased,  though the scientific community is usually quick to thwart these hoaxes even when it results in drastic cuts in funding, such as in the case of the Hwang Woo-Suk stem cell controversy. 

[Flatty]

So....Muslim anarchy is being demonstrated throughout the world

[ChristianAnarchist]

I base mine on theories created using from objective observations  which I can test for myself.

Well I've worked with the "scientific community" and I wonder just how many of these "objective observations" you have "tested" for yourself??  The work we did was in the observation of plasma generated by the largest "Z-pinch" machine operated by any university in the US (fiction) as well as magnetic field generation.  Lots of scientist working on the same data and guess what?  They had disagreements as to what they were observing.  The data was in itself variable between experiments so only an approximation could be used.  There is always discrepancy in results so the "theories" derived from data can be only a few percentage points from requiring a completely different conclusion. 

Now I don't try to pass myself off as some genius scientist because I'm not.  I was a grunt building the hardware and setting up diagnostics.  My "observations" are this:  Scientists, although well meaning in most cases, are people who (sometimes) stretch the truth, (sometimes) falsify data (it happened were I worked), and sometimes just misinterpret the data.  More often than not, they are puzzled by the data as it wasn't what they expected (therefore not according to their "theory").  Granted this is part of the "learning" curve, but they never stop "learning" and they constantly "revise" what they claim is the "truth".  Now after having a close relationship to some of these guys who are really smart guys (and I mean that), I have come to the conclusion that my faith is better placed in God...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Lets see... this topic was started 236 days ago and presently there have been 795 posts and 5002 views for what has to be the most popular topic on this board.  That's 3.36 posts per day and 21.19 views per day. 

I have to say that I'm pleased to see that there is so much interest in this topic.  I hope the discussion has benefited some (although I know it has irked others - too bad).  I don't claim to have all wisdom or vision, but I do like sharing my views with this group.

[ChristianAnarchist]

From http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Bibleproofs2.html#CF

GOD'S LOVE UNLIMITED.

He desires to save all.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3: 16. But God commends his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us Rom 5: 8. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace you are saved.) Eph. 2: 4,5. The Lord is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works. Ps. 145: 9.

It matters not which view we take. No theory of the loss of a single soul can be adopted that does not drag to ruin one or more or the attributes of God. Does he not desire the welfare of that soul? Then he is deficient in goodness. Can he not plan its welfare? Then he is not infinitely wise. Can he not execute the plan he desires? His power is limited. To be infinite in all his attributes he must be so good as to desire, so wise as to plan, and so powerful as to execute the good of all. The God of Calvinism is strong but bad; the God of Arminianism is good but weak. The Christian God has the faults of neither and the merits of both.

If, therefore, we say that God will not and cannot, or can but will not, or will but cannot, save every human soul, we limit him in some direction, but if he will and can, then the result contemplated by the Universalist faith must be accomplished.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Jesus the ultimate medicine.

God saw that His beloved creation man had been "infected" with a sickness.  This sickness was fatal and caused great misery.  Of course, this sickness is "sin".  There was only one way for God to help his beloved and that was to take this sickness on himself so that His beloved could be whole again.  Jesus was God in human form sent into this world (dimension) for that purpose.  He took all man's sins upon himself and shed his blood to gain victory over those sins.  He did not take some sins, He took them all.  All is forgiven.  The price has been paid.  The Medicine has defeated the sickness.  "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on Him shall be saved". 

[Tommy]

I guess you could see it that way.  I never thought of it like that, but it could be the medicine for everyone.