Missing a link
I read about paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey’s claims for evolution in the May 28 BDN with skepticism and curiosity, but it was his comments on faith that truly dismayed me.
Leakey said, “… I see no reason why you shouldn’t go through your life thinking if you’re a good citizen, you’ll get a better future in the afterlife ….”
What? Good citizenship leads to a better afterlife? Seems like someone’s missing a link.
It was the second article in this paper in a week in which an individual confused personal goodness with redemption. The other was an article on faith in which the Rev. Steven Lewis of Bangor Theological Seminary said, “Salvation in the 21st century is being a good human being.”
Scripture emphasizes the importance of seeking justice, obeying God,and sharing His love with others, but nowhere does it say that I can ever earn salvation by doing this.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves. It is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast,” Ephesians 2:8-9.
Do I seek to live a “good” life? Absolutely! The benefits bless those around me and protect me from the catastrophic consequences of wrong choices. It has nothing to do with securing a Lazy Boy in the afterlife. It’s about imitating Christ who “went around doing good” Acts 10:38.
Any good in me is simply a reflection of Him. And the rest? That’s why I need Him.
Meadow Rue Merrill
Bath
Conservation response
While some have differing opinions about the merits of a land conservation bond (“Conservation Priorities Response” by Sandy George, 5/24 BDN), a careful look at the facts reveals that supporting voluntary land conservation remains one of the best investments Maine can make. A recent study ( cloud.tpl.org/pubs/local-maine-conseconomics-2012.pdf) shows a
11-to-1 return on investment for each dollar Maine invests in land conservation — keeping our forests and farms working, supporting our traditions of hunting, fishing and recreation, and protecting the special character of Maine. Maine’s productive and beautiful landscape is the calling card for our state as well as a significant ingredient of our economic well-being.
The combined efforts of landowners, land trusts and their many partners to protect our precious natural heritage benefit all Maine citizens. In fact it is these very citizens who are doing this important work at home in their own towns in every corner of the state. Voluntary land conservation keeps our water clean, our forests and farms in production, our working waterfronts available, and ensures public access to the land for present and future generations. Mainers know a good deal when they see one, and the Maine Legislature (by a recent vote of 136-39) is to be commended for allowing us the opportunity to show support for the Land for Maine’s Future Program once again this November.
Tim Glidden
Topsham
Bennett for U.S. Senate
As the primary election approaches on June 12, we have an opportunity to vote for candidates for the U.S. Senate. In my opinion, there is one clear choice in Republican Rick Bennett.
I have known Rick since I moved to Presque Isle in 1994 having worked closely with him while he was in the Maine Legislature as we worked to redevelop Loring. I am supporting Rick because I trust his judgment, integrity and his ability to reach solutions to complex problems. I also appreciate Rick’s ability to work with others and was very impressed with how he managed the Maine Senate as its president at a time when the Senate was evenly divided. During this time and throughout Rick’s political career, he demonstrated a unique and effective ability to work with all members of the elected chamber for the betterment of Maine people. In addition, Rick is the only candidate in this primary election that for decades has demonstrated a commitment to fiscal conservatism in both the public and private sectors, and the guts to stand up to those who don’t share the same need for financial accountability. Lastly, Rick’s private sector experience and accomplishments over the last 10 years have been quite impressive. Rick grew a start-up company into a nationally recognized and highly respected firm that has brought corporate governance and fiscal accountability to the forefront for shareholders.
Rick Bennett will represent us well in the U.S. Senate.
Brian N. Hamel
Presque Isle
Safe chemicals
I was lucky enough to be one of 25 women to hop on a bus from Maine to Washington, D.C., to attend a rally for chemical safety reform and meetings with my U.S. senators and representatives to ask them to support the Safe Chemicals Act.
There were many reasons I chose to attend; first and foremost, I’m a mom of three adult sons, Tyler, Corey and Kyle. My youngest, Kyle, is almost 20, and has multiple disabilities including severe autism. I don’t know what caused Kyle’s autism, but I do know that Kyle will always need one-on-one care, and will never drive a car, date, or go to college like other young men his age.
I also traveled to Washington because of my work with Maine Parent Federation, where I see firsthand the increase of autism in my community. 1 in 88 American children, and 1 in 54 boys, have autism — and the number is higher in Maine. With increasing evidence of environmental links to autism, we need the Safe Chemicals Act so that we can access safety information about chemicals exposed to us.
My meetings with Sens. Collins and Snowe left me feeling hopeful. I am grateful to both senators for acknowledging that our current chemical safety system is broken. Sen. Snowe spent 50 minutes with our group showing that she was genuinely supportive of chemical safety reform and that a bipartisan solution could be possible. Now we need both senators to stand up and lead the way to this badly needed reform.
Robin Levesque
Oakfield
Our national symbol
I hope Bert Johnson ( BDN Letters to the Editor 5/31/2012) is not talking about flying American flags on telephone poles as they do in some communities in the Bangor area. Too many of these national symbols are in tatters, hanging off their display poles, and/or hung up in trees. I consider it disgraceful that the flag should be displayed where it cannot be properly and respectfully maintained.
Mark J Gibson
Bangor
I agree, Mr. Gibson. I see tattered flags all the time and it’s a shame.
We live on the coast. It’s windy. Plus, these things come from China. They’re cheap. We’re Americans. We like cheap. We have the same problem in Stockton Springs. When I see it, I pull my Jeep over, climb on top of it and fix the freaking thing. It takes me about the same about of time as it took Mr. Gibson to write his letter. Tattered flags are not shameful. Driving by them and whining about it is.
Holy cow, what a disproportionate response. Somebody’s cranky this morning! Making a comment and complaint about the way the town is taking care of the flags is not whining, it’s making a comment and complaint. One could say YOU are whining about people who whine.
That’s great that you take that time to fix the flag, but untangling a flag is one thing. You can’t untangle a tattered, ripped or frayed flag. How do you fix those?
And it’s unreasonable to expect people to stop and climb on top of their care or up the light pole to “fix the freaking things.” Do you know Mr. Gibson or me? Do you know whether we are able to be Macgyver like you? The towns put them up and the towns have the equipment to tend to them.
I think it’s time for the morning coffee.
I’ve already had my coffee, thank you. And I am not in the least bit cranky. I simply suggested getting involved through action as opposed to letter writing. And one need not be a fictional TV character to untangle a flag; or even repair one. You fix things at your house, don’t ya? There’s a lot of people up there. Divide it up. Take a ladder. Call it a cause and get some t-shirts. Just a suggestion. Don’t take it so personal.
I think letting our flags fly in a tangled mess is shameful too, When I lived in Dexter, the flags Grove Street where a mess, and stayed that way all summer. I called the town office, as did others, I’m not able to climb the pole, and I shouldn’t have to. We pay taxes for our towns, to have public works dept, they get paid to do the job.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, never mind. Continue commenting and complaining. See if that does anything. Pretend I wasn’t here. Comment away.
It’s sad, that you think nobody, has the right to be offended by towns, not caring for the flag. It shouldn’t matter where they came from, or how much they cost, it’s still our countries flag, and should be flown with respect!
I trust WABI-TV5 will be giving its advertisers a large discount since they are losing many viewers who previously watch it on Directv. I will be unable to watch so advertisers will lose their ability to advertise to me. If WABI doesn’t give a discount it is stealing their advertisers money by inflating their viewing numbers.
Easy solution, switch to Dish. I used to have Direct but if the humity rose beyond 50% the reception would be iffy at times.
I have not had that kind of problem with Dish.
I agree with patom1 switch to Dish network. I had directv and the customer service was horrible so I changed to dish and the customer service has been terrific any time I have called.
The issue is probably greed by WABI since they are asking Directv to pay for airing WABI. I thought it is advertisers who pay and viewers get the signal for FREE! Why should Dirctv have to pay when they are offering WABI more viewers for advertisers?
Maybe I have this backward and Directv is asking WABI to pay THEM. That would be ridiculous since the satellite subscribers pay for that service!
Meadow Rue Merrill – Very good letter. It doesn’t make any difference how good you are, how much good you do, or how many of your neighbors you love. If you don’t have Christ, then all is for naught.
What a sad attitude that is. Now I understand much more about you.
There is nothing sad about the Truth. And the truth is that the only way to an eternal life in Heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.
I want nothing of your distorted truth. To say that a bad man who believes in Jesus is better than a good man that doesn’t repulses me.
I didn’t say that. Regardless, it’s a matter of believing ON Jesus, not IN Jesus. There’s a big difference in the meaning those two little two-letter words.
But, it seems you’ve made your choice to reject Christ. That’s your right. Just remember, He’ll always be there for you if you change your mind.
Believe “on” Jesus? Doesn’t that kinda fly in the face of John 11:26?
Not really. But, thanks for bringing that up. After researching different versions of the Bible, I found that most of the references in the King James that used “believe on” have been translated as “believe in”. On that point, this is what I have been taught:
Believing in something is simply the willingness to believe something that exists. For instance, there are historical documents and texts that prove that Jesus was an actual living, breathing man, and that he was crucified. Based on that alone, most everyone will agree that Christ was real, therefore they believe in his existence.
Believing on something or someone is quite different in that it requires one to accept that Christ is the Son of God, sent to earth to die for the sins of the world, and that He was raised from the grave and is alive in Heaven seated at the right hand of God.
O goody: a theological discourse defining “on” and “in” from a book that has been translated over and over and over by powerful men who manipulate the religious life of the population for their amusement and economic gain.
Hey, ms, where you been? I’ve really missed your uplifting and positive comments.
It’s true though. The Bible has been translated how many times?
The King James was converted into English from the original texts. That makes one.
And, as a note, the original texts were found to be without error, overwrite, or any evidence of changes at all. I would say that indicates a higher being was guiding the hands of those that were selected to write them.
“Found to be” by who? I don’t take what you “would say” to have much worth, to be honest. Also, do you really think that there were no motivations or biases included in the translation? You’re going to pretend that words and phrases mean exactly what they did then and now?
I speak two languages and many times it is simply impossible to translate exactly and evoke the same exact meaning. So for you to hinge on “on” vs “in” is a little silly, to be honest.
Found to be without error? You mean they’ve been declared to be without error?
See also “of” and “from.”
That’s what you said and that’s what the letter says. You constantly makes this lofty remarks and then when pressed you try and step back.
You have completely lost me. I don’t understand the bad man reference. I was commenting on Meadow’s letter.
“”It doesn’t make any difference how good you are, how much good you do, or how many of your neighbors you love. If you don’t have Christ, then all is for naught.” You
“Scripture emphasizes the importance of seeking justice, obeying God,and sharing His love with others, but nowhere does it say that I can ever earn salvation by doing this.” Merrill
That sounds a lot like it means a saved bad man is better than an unsaved good man.
No, it simply means that good works alone will not get one into Heaven. Just as being born into a Christian family won’t get you in. Or joining a church won’t get you in. Etc. Without Christ as Savior, nothing else will count.
Exactly. So a terrible saved man is better than a good unsaved man.
Luk 18:9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
Luk 18:10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
Luk 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luk 18:12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’
Luk 18:13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be [fn]merciful to me, the sinner!’
Luk 18:14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
your record is stuck….
LOL
It’s disappointing that you are telling us that the only way to Heaven is to believe in the way that YOU believe. There is not room for any other way, only the way that you say it the right way. And, I’m sure you’ll say that your way is not really your way, but His way. Oy vey. Why should I believe that when what I learn at my church is something different?
Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [fn]by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
Gal 1:7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel [fn]contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be [fn]accursed!
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel [fn]contrary to what you received, he is to be [fn]accursed!
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
If what your church teaches does not line up with Scripture it is false teaching. If it promotes SSM it is clearly going against the Gospel and is false teaching. You seem like a decent person Joe, but as the letter writer stated so well, being a decent person has nothing to do with ones salvation. It is a gift from God, a gracious gift available to all who will confess they are a sinner, be willing to repent of their sins and call on the name of Jesus Christ to save them from their sins and make Him Lord and Master of their lives.
Your proof is inadequate though. Ultimately the scripture is being interpreted by someone. So even though it says things like “distort the gospel of Christ”, what’s to say that your interpretating of it is more valid than another? I’m not seeing any proof as to why your thoughts on the matter trump anyone elses.
Either way, I’d rather live in a world of decent atheists than a world of awful poor behaving Christians claiming they know the “truth”. Some how I believe good deeds matter most above all and I’m a Catholic.
Read John chapter three. Jesus is talking about being born again. When it happens to someone, it’s undeniable.. It’s a supernatural miraculous event that can’t be proved. It is not an option, it must happen. Jesus stands at the door and knocks. It’s available to all no matter your lot in life. If you want to claim your good works will save you, you are free to believe that. Just remember its self righteousness and is the very thing Jesus condemned talking to the
Pharisee.
It doesn’t matter how many parts of the Bible you point to, you can’t get around the fact that it’s merely an interpretation. I’m sure you’re satisfied with your interpretation, but it’s kind of silly to act like your opinion trumps another simply because you say so.
See: self-delusion.
I’m a Catholic too. I think however when you say “good deeds matter most” you are in danger of being accused of saying what one does matters more than what Christ does. Like St. Francis of Assisi, I see every good thing as a gift from God, even my own willingness to obey Him and do good deeds. For I cannot give my assent to Him or do any good deeds without the ability and the motivation to do so, both of which come to me (and everyone) as gifts from God.
That’s not the issue that was raised though. It was that without Jesus, good deeds are in vain and I don’t think that is true, not one bit.
Sometimes we Christians have different ways of expressing truth. In a sense, without Jesus and his redemptive act there is no salvation. If there is no salvation, then all is vanity, including “good deeds”.
In another other sense, if by the phrase “without Jesus” ones refers to someone, say, a devout Jew without an intellectual assent to Jesus, then you are right in saying that that person’s good deeds are not necessarily in vain. For without full awareness he may know (love) Jesus in his heart as he knows (love) the Father who he worships and glorifies. Keep in mind what Jesus said: The Father and I are one. Jn 10:30
You guys are saying very different things. There isn’t a way around that.
Would it not be more honest to put the words ‘we believe’ or ‘I believe’ before stating your beliefs ?
Your pronouncements are just that, your own beliefs, no matter how you attempt to spin them as eternal truth. Some humility, please.
Too bad that you, Parsons and others who have posted on this topic see it as a ‘pissing contest’.
Too bad that your religion has the need to sell itself. Why not welcome any who wish to join you with grace and not embarrass yourselves with your incessant pushy bullying. As I recall,
Jesus was not self important .
I take one exception to your comment, that is, the part where you say ” being a decent person has nothing to do with ones salvation.” While salvation is a gift offering from God, it nonetheless requires assent by those to whom it is offered. This assent is not merely an intellectual exercise. It requires, among others things, to follow His commands – in other words, to be decent.
I stand by my comment in regards to salvation. It is a free GIFT from God. Do not confuse justification with sanctification. You are 100% justified through the cross of Christ while sanctification is a ongoing process that never ends this side of heaven. My works are a result of my gratefulness for what God has done for me. Obedience to Christ is certainly required of a Christian but has nothing to do with salvation.
I think we might agree on content but not in the use of terms. While justification and sanctification are different, the combination of both brings about salvation, so in this sense obedience is certainly part of salvation. It appears however that justification to you equals salvation. Am I not right? If so then we are using the term “salvation” with a different meaning in mind.
No, actually we disagree on content. There is no combination of anything that leads to salvation. Jesus death on the cross was and is a completed work…period. There is nothing, absolutely nothing I could ever do to earn it. Nothing.
Paul says there are sins that are deadly, that is, sins that will cut a person off from Christ. How do you suppose such a person who was baptized will enter in heaven without being repentant?
Paul does not say that. The catholic church does. There is one unforgivable sin mentioned and that is the sin of dying without ever accepting Christ while alive. There is no turning back once you die. There is no purgatory, also unbiblical.
PS; Yes, I think you may be right about our disagreement on content. After reading one of your posts concerning baptism I now realize I was talking to a fundamentalist baptist (no putdown is intended here). For certain, on the subject of baptism we do disagree on nearly the entire topic.
Actually I am not a Baptist. Evangelical Christian. Surprised?
A greater argument for atheism, I cannot imagine.
The biblical teaching on salvation has it that Christ’s suffering and death on the cross was necessary for our redemption. What some Christians seem to ignore is Christ’s own words: “Whoever sees the Father sees me”. There are certainly many “God-fearing” people of non-Christians faiths who “see” the Father and, by extension, Christ Himself, even though their refusal to believe in Him intellectually is not necessarily a rejection of Him. After all, isn’t it Scripture that says Christ died for all? This to me means that everyone who responds to God calling as a son or daughter is indeed saved through Christ’s act of redemption.
Let me go one step further. What becomes of those, including infants, who are not baptized into the Christian faith at the moment of death? Are they saved? There again, my response is this: It seems to me it’s meaningless to say Christ died for all while believing the unbaptized are cut off from His redemptive act. That would be akin to believing Christ act of redemption was not purposeful on behalf of each and every person, baptized or not. Of course most of us Christians believe every single act of God is purposeful. This being the case, God must have a separate plan of salvation for all the unbaptized.
Then cp444, Merrill and EJP disagree with you quite strongly.
..
Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Baptism and communion are acts of obedience.
And until a person has the ability to reason, they don’t need salvation to enter Heaven.
Are you saying only those who can reason need salvation to enter Heaven? I thought Christ died for all because all have sinned. It appears to me all are indeed in need of salvation, not just those who have acquired the ability to reason.
As to Baptism, its root meaning is to cleanse. To cleanse of what? Sin. Through baptism we are made a part of the body of Christ, the church, the means by which Christ’s act of salvation on the cross and subsequent resurrection is transmitted to us who are sinners. Apart from the Church we are cut off from the body, as a branch is cut off from the living tree. Hence, no Church, no salvation through which it occurs. Yes, baptism is needed to enter heaven, that is, to gain salvation.
The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized, and he got into Heaven. And children that die go to Heaven. So to the mentally handicapped.
Baptism is an act of obedience, not a requirement. The Bible is quite clear about that.
And neither was anyone then. God presumably had a different plan of salvation for the repentant thief and others who were not baptized. This doesn’t mean however that baptism is not a requirement for those who come to believe in Christ. Paul talks about baptism and what it does for the believer who is baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. What Paul is saying is that the baptized become one with Christ by participating in His passion and resurrection. Thus when the Father gazes at his Son He can’t help but see us favorably if we remain united with the Son through baptism and repentance.
Others, who are not baptized per se, receive a baptism of desire. Either way, baptism is needed in order to be part of Christ’s redemption. For that reason, baptism for the Christian in more than an act of obedience. It is necessary for salvation.
EJParson is exactly right. Baptism is an act of obedience where you publicly display your commitment to Christ. It is not a requirement of salvation. You as a catholic just contradicted yourself where you stated it is a requirement for those who come to believe in Christ. An infant merely a couple of weeks old has no way of making a decision for Christ yet catholics insist on infant baptism. I was brought up catholic and know first hand much of it is completely unbiblical.
I believe we are using the term “salvation” to mean something different. I know to some believers “salvation” mean “justification” only. To others, it means “justification and sanctification”, both requirements for the attainment of eternal bliss.
As to infants, Catholics insist on baptizing infants to make them part of the body of Christ. While the bible alone is unclear as to whether the ability to consent is necessary, the early Church practiced infant baptism. They had their older children baptized as well.
The Bible is very clear on infant baptism. It does not exist, not anywhere, not ever mentioned, not once. It never came on the scene for about three hundred years after the start of Christ’s church began. There are only two commands required of us, baptism and the lords supper. We are miles apart on both.
Yes, we disagree on some things, but to say we are miles apart is an exaggeration. I know this from experience after talking to Christians of various denominations.
As to baptism, it’s obvious from the current discussion it is a complex subject. Rather than personally argue the point about infant baptism, I invite you to check out the following discussion from Catholic Answers if you wish to take the time to read it:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
Whawell you seem like such a kind and gentle person. I was educated and raised catholic. I know what they believe. I never knew Jesus as my Lord while I was a catholic. I do now. I’m not into “religion” which is what the catholic church is. I’m into a “relationship” with Jesus Christ. There is a huge difference. Coming out of that (Catholicism) was incredibly difficult but I can tell you without reservation that it wasn’t until I did that my eyes were finally opened spiritually. I feel sorry that there are so many stuck in life believing that they can somehow earn their way to heaven. It’s just not true.
” Baptism is not a requirement”??????
Have you checked that out with the Southern Baptist Synod?
You’re going to heaven?????????!!!!!!!!!!! That settles it. I’m definitely looking for some other place to spend eternity.
Great response !!!!!
One day your skewed sense of humor may come back to haunt you.
Not to worry EJ. Your bible encourages me in all my ways. LOL
Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.—–John 14:27 (New International Version)
A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but (the sanctimonious heart) crushes the spirit.—–Proverbs 15:13 (New International Version)
All the days of the oppressed are wretched, but the cheerful heart has a continual feast.—–Proverbs 15:15 (New International Version)
A cheefrul look brings joy to the heart.—–Proverbs 15:30 (New International Version)
does it say anything about ’empty suits’ …..
Romans 3:10 (KJV)As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Romans 3:23 (KJV)For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; **Next, you must know that because of sin there must be a price paid:
Romans 6:23 (KJV)For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. **This price can be paid by you with an eternity in Hell, or you can accept the price that Jesus paid for your sin:Romans 5:8 (KJV)But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 10:9-13 (KJV)That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [11] For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
1 John 5:13 (KJV)These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Sorry, EJ, it just doesn’t apply to me since I’m not at all interested in ‘eternal life’.
According to the Bible, we all have eternal life in one place or the other. Eternity applies to all.
It still doesn’t apply to me, even when you say it does. LOL
It’s odd to me that you would think such a vain god exists, and that you actually worship it.
There is nothing vain about Jesus Christ.
So the majority of humans on this planet (the majority being non-christian) are doomed forever to your version of damnation. Children that are born and raised in a different faith, with no knowledge of christianity are likewise doomed thru their ignorance to the same everlasting suffering?
You truly believe in a hateful deity, I hope the few of you who count yourselves as the chosed ones can live with the fact that you are condemming the majority of people on the planet.
God created us and everything around us. He cares about us and wants to bless us with eternal life. All we have to do is believe in out Creator and we can have an eternity of love and fellowship with Him and our loved ones.
God gave up His Son to make it easier for us to gain eternal life. He also gave us the power to choose Him or reject Him. So, it’s all on us. We only have ourselves to blame if we make the wrong choice.
Don’t see any hate in that formula. And, by the way, I am condemning no one. I’m just expressing what I believe. It’s up to you what you do with it.
“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” Stephen Hawkins: Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)
What utter nonsense. Ethical behavior most certainly does make a difference. Only the most primitive and immature religions promote “belief only”.
In fact, the behavior Christ spoke against is the very behavior you “belief only” idolators use to justify social and economic immorality.
Please back up your assertions about Christ with Scripture. And, please, don’t take it out of context.
Crazy how what you get out of the Bible, its ultimate message, is that you’re fine if you accept and believe in Jesus, do whatever you want on earth, but if you don’t believe? Well to hell with you.
It’s crazy how you twist what I say. So far, I haven’t said anything about doing whatever you wanted on earth, and I haven’t mentioned hell.
Yeah, sure, whatever. I’m not twisting things. You’re simply trying to twist and distort reality. You said what you said and it’s all here in black and white.
Why?
Leakey’s comment is perfectly appropriate I feel, although certain religions and sects may differ on the interpretation within a particular context.
So many of the reactions appear based solely on a particular Christian viewpoint. Leakey did not constrain his remarks solely to a Christian context, he said ‘afterlife’ he did not specify Christian dogma or its concept of Heaven, salvation, or grace.
From a Buddhist viewpoint, Leakey’s remarks were certainly quite valid. We do believe that kindness to our neighbors, positive and meritorious acts, and behaving well as a citizen are all things which will contribute significantly to spiritual growth and positive outcomes in the afterlife…whether that be our next incarnation for those who accept reincarnation, or simply the accumulation of spiritual merit for the whole for those who do not believe in it. Even Buddhist sects have somewhat different viewpoints on the afterlife, but what is generally agreed is that the present moment and being as positive as possible within the lives we lead is of great importance. This is immediately within our ability to control as mortal beings and a responsibility of life.
While I understand that Leakey’s remark might have run counter to the religious dogma some may accept in their lives, I would urge that the intention of the remark become the focus…that behaving properly as a citizen and gently to our neighbors is a meritorious thing both for ourselves and for those around us.
Seek for the intention that unites us all in a positive way, while respecting the differences among us.
Surely being good to those around us is something we can all agree would be beneficial?
I have read that Christians are urged to love their neighbors as themselves? From that standpoint perhaps Leakey has something in common with the Christian view too, despite the difference in the point of dogma that seems troubling to so many here?