Only the good kind.

Have you heard the typically evangelical question "Are you saved?"? Have you been asked that? What would you, as an orthodox answer them?

"What if he refuses, and says that it's right for him to keep the money?"

I would argue with him. Perhaps even calling the police if he keeps on. I would first ask him why he considers it a right thing, etc.

Have you heard the typically evangelical question "Are you saved?"? Have you been asked that? What would you, as an orthodox answer them? — Beebert

Nobody has ever asked me that. I would probably avoid the question and say that I'm a Christian.

Yes Jesus said so to the pharisees mainly to demonstrate a universal point: We have no right to condemn others because we are not morally perfect, etc

I would argue with him. Perhaps even calling the police if he keeps on. I would first ask him why he considers it a right thing, etc. — Beebert

So what if he tells you that he considers it a right thing because the young should have the money, since they need it, they have their whole lives ahead, while the old are almost dead, they have no more need of it?

We have no right to condemn others because we are not morally perfect, etc — Beebert

I'm not sure. That's what you read into the Bible due to your modern sensibilities. What Jesus actually meant was relating to the Old Testament Law. If you remember, in all other parables and encounters with the Pharisees, they Pharisees try to trick Jesus in order to show that he doesn't know the Law, while it is actually them who don't know the Law.

That is the typically American obsession. "When were you saved? Ser you saved?" Etc. Despicable questions often. Why would you avoid the question though?

That is the typically American obsession. "When were you saved? Ser you saved?" Etc. Despicable questions often. Why would you avoid the question though? — Beebert

Because a man cannot know if he will be in Heaven? :s And because by "are you saved?" they really mean to ask if I'm a Christian?

"I'm not sure. That's what you read into the Bible due to your modern sensibilities. What Jesus actually meant was relating to the Old Testament Law. If you remember, in all other parables and encounters with the Pharisees, they Pharisees try to trick Jesus in order to show that he doesn't know the Law, while it is actually them who don't know the Law."

That is part of it. But what was the meaning of the law is something you must take in to consideration here. Love towards God and neighbour right?

And actually this thief example is easier to deal with, because our culture supports you - so your friend cannot find much independent support for his actions. But if you take the sex case it would be nigh impossible to convince him otherwise, because our culture entirely supports his actions and beliefs.

That is part of it. But what was the meaning of the law is something you must take in to consideration here. Love towards God and neighbour right? — Beebert

Sure.

"Because a man cannot know if he will be in Heaven? :s And because by "are you saved?" they really mean to ask if I'm a Christian?"

I see. Agree. (If there even is a heaven)Though when I read St Paul, I find a man who seems so certain one can possibly be that he Will go to heaven and that he is saved etc.

That is my point. So, should the pharisees despise the woman because she was an adulterer?

That is nu point. So, should the pharisees despise the woman because she was an adulterer? — Beebert

Well we don't even know if she was an adulterer. It may be possible that she wasn't and the Pharisees just lied about it. But if she was, then no. But they should condemn her and the man caught in adultery, unless they repent.

I will soon reply to your last posts, but may I first say: You MUST read Simone Weil. She should be the number one priority on your list. And you should read all her books: First of all Waiting on God(a Collection of essays, allthogether perhaps 250 pages), On The Abolishment of All Political Parties (this one is Only 40 pages or so), The Need for Roots and Gravity and Grace.
I honestly cant come up with any western philosopher in history who is as moral, righteous and honest as her.

That is the typically American obsession. "When were you saved? Ser you saved?" Etc. Despicable questions often. Why would you avoid the question though? — Beebert

I agree, but as criteria used to determine whether one is a Christian or not, these questions appear rather late in the history of Christianity, being largely an invention of Lutheran Pietists in the 17th century. If you asked your average Joe peasant in the Middle Ages what makes him or anyone a Christian in the most basic sense, he would respond by saying that it depends on assent to the major creeds and dogmatic pronouncements of the Church Councils along with participation in the sacraments. Protestants raised the Bible above that of Church Tradition and either modified beyond recognition or outright rejected most of the sacraments of the Church. In their place and by necessity, they began stressing "having a personal relationship with Jesus," "knowing that you're saved," and other such phrases to determine Christian identity.

Regarding C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesteron and their views on hell? I grew up in a very dogmatic fundamentalist church... I heard many a sermon about hell and damnation...

I've read many of Chesterton's and Lewis' books. I don't see those same attitudes in Lewis and Chesterton, at all. I like their view of Christianity. I like the God they talk about. He's kind, and just, and even has a sense of humor.

After growing up in the church I did, I found their views of God and Christianity to be refreshingly gentle.

I don't think I share Chesterton's views on birth control and homosexuality. or Lewis' views on homosexuality.

Well, Chesterton is another one (I expect objection here from Agustino) who not only hoped for universal salvation, but thought it to perhaps even be inevitable. “To hope for all souls is imperative, and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable.” - Chesterton

"I like the God they talk about. He's kind, and just, and even has a sense of humor."

Well if God had no sense of humor things would be quite sad

Yes, I know. I find it troubling... I understand Luther's reaction against the Church in his times. I also understand how one can criticize the idea of Only trusting a Church and its Sacraments as if that was ALL to it. But still, when observing the different branches of christianity today that call themselves orthodox, I find protestantism in general (especially calvinism, evangelicalism etc) to be the most troubling and false and spiritless one... I despise the protestant distortion of things that seems to have led to a very selfish obsession with individual salvation, as if the rest of the world didnt matter, combined with a deluded idea that one is supposed to be saved FROM the world. As if it is salvation FROM the world rather than salvation OF the world that is important.

Well said. I haven't been following your debates with Agustino that closely, but I'm curious to know where you stand with respect to Christianity now. Are you open to conversion, and if so, what branch of Christianity attracts you the most?

As if it is salvation FROM the world rather than salvation OF the world that is important. — Beebert

A very pithy summation. It also strikes me as constituting the fundamental difference between Christianity and Indian religions, the former seeking salvation of the world and the latter seeking salvation from the world (escape from samsara).

Regarding getting saved, and having a personal relationship w/ Jesus? Yep. That's how I was raised. The people I knew all told detailed stories about the specifics of their conversion.

I find a Christianity of Universal Salvation to be appealing. What could anyone have against a God and/or religion whose plan included Universal Salvation ?

I dont remember if you have answered to this before but: Are you Christian? Then you wouldnt like much of my conversations with Agustino, since I have mostly criticized Christianity in our conversations. I am not ready to convert yet, because I find so many problems with Christian traditions that are hard for me to yet accept; I dont like protestantism for the reason I just said(and other reasons) and I find it hard to join the catholic Church for its authority claims that has at many times in history been devastating to human beings. The Eastern Orthodox Church is probably the one I would feel is the best one, but even that one has its problems that I find hard to accept... And I am supicious of priests etc and find it hard to not fear to be controlled by them. I still Believe that christianity has in history missed something VERY important in Christ's teachings. They first of all havent found his teachings to be as important as his crucifixion, but Most of all: Jesus said man should become like a Child again... Remember how a child is? Curious, loving, innocent, spontaneous, etc... But you are right regarding the difference between christianity and the indian religions. But I believe that christianity has more often than not betrayed "salvation of the world" for either "damnation and condemnation of the world" and "salvation from the world"...

Now that I see Christianity as the culmination of Greek and Roman philosophy (thank you, Pierre Hadot), it has a different feel to it.

Who is Pierre Hadot?

A French philosopher who died in 2010. Check out Philosophy as a Way of Life. (I hear What is Ancient Philosophy is good too, but I haven't read it, yet).

Thanks I Will take a look!

The imperfection of Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates in their kind — Noble Dust

What would you say were Socrates' issues?

We only know Socrates from a text. The rest we can only fantasize about. But for some thoughts and opinions about what might have been some of Socrates "defects", you can Perhaps read someone like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche. If I agree with them personally here Though is Another thing. But surely they knew more about Socrates than I do.

like Kierkegaard — Beebert

Wrong. Kierkegaard admired Socrates and sought to imitate him. He thought of himself, much like Socrates, a gadfly.

Nietzache — Beebert

Correct, although Nietzsche likes to strawman :P

You MUST read Simone Weil — Beebert

*grabs gravity and grace from behind* ok.

I honestly cant come up with any western philosopher in history who is as moral, righteous and honest as her. — Beebert

I'm not sure about that, why do you say so?