"First off, you stated that there is a requirement that one must "believe" to be saved. That significantly complicates the "Good News", because many people -- most people, very probably -- do not believe. Nor do they understand why they should believe."
Your point was that the Good News was an atypical response to the Bible. It's not. My point was that whole denominations form their faith base around this exact premise, and it's hardly atypical, nor does it "complicate" the message of The Good News. If one does not believe in God's son as the Savior of Mankind, then there is no "not exactly Good News," there is no Good News. It's not complicated at all.
"Some of Jesus' parables -- "Many are called, few are chosen" -- suggests that it's not exactly Good News for most."
No. It IS good News to all, but "Many are called," means God wants everyone to enter His Kingdom. That doesn't mean they will. That's why Jesus says to be "disciples to all the nations." "Tell the Good News so people will believe," is the message here.
"Moreover, Jesus (although not so much Paul) suggests that the consequences of non-compliance will involve great suffering and despair. That's why I think it's a nightmare."
Why? You've stated you aren't a Christian or a believer, so why should it trouble you in the least?
"As far as I am concerned, if any single individual suffers and despairs, it is a tragedy. For billions to suffer and despair is horrible. To call this "Good News" is, to me, pretty inaccurate. To worship a God who wills this is, to me, a bit difficult to condone."
So for believers, telling people about the love of Christ, and to live like him is what relieves this.
"On to belief. Very few denominations of Protestantism completely disregard the importance of human actions, or "works," at least in practice."
Really? Which ones?
As I understand it, many Arminian-influenced churches have some version of the concept of "backsliding.”
You'll need to address this more; you didn't follow this up with anything.
"A Calvinist might suggest that certain categories of sin indicate the sinner was never saved in the first place."
Why would he do that?
The Baptist idea of "once saved, always saved," which I think you are endorsing, is a huge object of controversy within evangelical Protestantism, and to my mind has pretty sketchy scriptural support."
What controversy are you talking about, and why would scriptural support such a belief by "sketchy?"
"This obviously doesn’t cover all the denominational bases, of course, but I think that most churches would disagree that no obligations fall on the believer."
I never stated there are denominations which believe there are "no obligations to the believer."
"Paul seems to address this point when he enumerates the many people who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, a word often translated as "homosexuals", thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. So what happens if a Christian gets drunk, or realizes he is gay? What if he "reviles" someone? Was he never saved in the first place? Has he backslid?"
Paul was an end-of-days believer. With him, one had to lead the best life they could, really hard, and really fast- but I still don't know what you mean by "was he never saved? Did he backslide?"
"Also, how do you know that you "believe"? Some of the most admirable Christians, who really lived like they believed, confessed that they had difficulty believing. Wesley, I believe, wrote that he considered himself simply an "honest heathen." You may call this "wrestling" with your faith. I say it suggests that the faith was not really all that strong in the first place."
Everyone has difficulty believing, and wrestles with their faith -but I don't know where you're talking this, or what it has to do with the fact that like adhering to any belief system, thought, or attitude- people wavy and change what they hold to be true. When you state, "Frankly, I suspect that most Christians harbor some doubts -- quite a bit of doubt. They may convince themselves that they believe, but they hardly live their lives in accordance with the New Testament," it is no different than any other person living by any other tenant or set of beliefs. Whether or not someone may have doubt doesn't mean they are less Christian. We all "fall short," Christian, Muslim, Atheist, all of us.
This strikes me as a bit of hedging of one's bets -- they claim to have a faith which shows itself in works, yet their "works" -- their activity in this world -- is not qualitatively different than that of anyone else."
"Works" is meant to include the activities shown as a road to salvation. This was made in direct opposition to Catholicism, which asked for works in conjunction with forgiveness for a misdeed. Luther espoused a direct link between Man and God. The act of work in conjunction with forgivness, however, has many merits. Many therapists and counselors teach that in showing an act of forgiving to others, namely, loved ones like a spouse, of misdeeds, involve altruistic acts of kindness. While you "pay off," for lack of a better phrase, the debt, you are reminded of the misdeed and make you appreciate the work you did to reconcile the wrong act. This doesn't mean those faiths who preach a more saved by grace approach espouse that you are somehow already forgiven for a wrong act, since you're already saved by grace. That's not what this is about.
" **So the variance you've pretty much described here shows the abundance of thought, belief, and transposition to daily living that I'm talking about."
"Of course there is an "abundance" of thought. You say this as if it's a good thing."
It is a good thing. We are not the same. Break down any organization, any at all- and you'll find differing views, thoughts, beliefs, personal attitudes, and major social structures. Why is it bad that this is no different?
"However, quite a few churches would hold that any church who does not draw the same conclusions as them are not actually "saved." Intellectual diversity is great in most things, but frankly, the image of people going around and greeting and smiling and being polite with people who they believe are on the road to Hell is, to me, rather repugnant."
Except your premise for this is faulty. What, you would rather them go around hating and yelling at those other people? It would fit your belief about Christians, but this isn't politics. Going around with a smile on your face while out to get the next guy and throw him under the bus as sneakily as you can is not the same thing you're talking about. Because someone's belief system is not the same as yours doesn't mean you hate them, or even internally hate them while projecting a friendly demeanor. Once again you take negative and very antiquated traits of the faith ("hate and destroy all who are in opposition to you), and apply it evenly to everyone in that group. Stop doing that. One thing every Christian agrees upon is at the end of the day, it's up to God to decide who greets Him in Heaven.
Here's one aspect of Christianity that is pretty bizarre to me -- you're expected to believe something, and then when you investigate the different denominations and currents within those nominations, you find that there's absolutely no consensus about what you're supposed to believe. There's no security, there."
Once again, you seem to be projecting your insecurity onto others by way of doubt in your own consensus on the faith. What is this "security" are you talking about? Going to bed at night thinking that other Christians don't believe exactly the same thing you do? C'mon. No one does that with any belief- why should Christianity be any different?
"You said that many Christians do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian. As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider other Christians to be part of a valid church. And yet everyone's using the same Bibles, more or less."
"More or Less" is the key phrase. The reasons for not noting JW's as Christian, as I have come to understand them, include their beliefs that Jesus is subservient to the Jehovah God, the denouncement of the trinity, and their views on blood transfusions. They would fit into your own views of paradoxical Christian, however, because one to two versus dictate their entire views on life. They are not open to other faith's beliefs, nor do they wish to learn about them; and in fact are one of the only denominations (if you want to even consider them as such) forbidden to even take religious documents from others (the fastest way to get JW's off your doorstep is, in fact, to happily welcome them to take your religious pamphlets, bulletins, and magazines if you take their 'Watchtower' magazine).
The point is that this is one of many illustrations of the verity of sects and denominations under one banner of Christianity. Monks would hold annual and very heated debates about whether or not Christ owned his own clothes or not. Look, Calvinist doctrine, Catholic dogma and practice, the argument over one baptism for the forgiveness for sins- it all falls into this category: variance. But I still don't see what agitates and confuses you over this. If you don't think "tolerance" is a Christian virtue, you and I simply will have to disagree on that one. Like anything else, the notion itself has undergone changes. More variance, I'm afraid.
" **Which faith in Christianity? Depending on the denomination, it's not an aggressively proselytizing religion" at all! This, again, is what I am urging you to understand. There is diversity in all parts of the religion, the faith, and the following."
"I guess this gets to the nub of the matter. I’m very happy to see mainline Christian denominations preach a more humanistic and tolerant version of the Bible. But at the end of the day, I don’t find them to have a particularly convincing theology, and quite a few Christians don’t, either."
No one is out to convince you, but that's your call. Seeking to understand why someone or a group believes what they do is what is at the heart of the matter. Too many non-believers have an antiquated sense of the faith, simply juxtaposing the modern movements to events of the faith that took place millennia ago. For something that means so much- if not everything- to the vast majority of the world, these people are both short-changing themselves, and dismissing one of the most profound happenings of all time.
"It is my impression that mainline churches over time tend to lose congregants to the more hardline evangelical churches, and that every time that they “soften” their theology -- ie, make a concession to modern ideals of tolerance and inclusivity -- they tend to suffer schisms."
Schisms will ultimately occur in any organization. For what reasons, any can guess, but that's not to say the whole foundation of the movement is at stake, or the aim and goal of it is somehow less needed.
"The harsher, more fundamentalist arguments are very easily understood -- the Bible means what it seems to mean about homosexuality, the position of women, divorce, and Hell, however inconvenient or at odds with more modern values it may seem. Mainline theology seems much more intellectualized and ambiguous in comparison."
And, again, you've touched upon the variance of the faith.
"That being said, I think that most fundamentalists tend to ignore the Bible when it is inconvenient to them -- particularly the verses which seem to encourage chastity within marriage, poverty, and absolute non-violence."
Once again, I would invite you to shy away from ultimates like "most" or "all" or "tends to be" unless you bring numbers. Remember, your exposure to the faith and faithful is limited, which is not to say mine is somehow abundant in some way. Many people in and out of the faith do things when it is convenient for them. It's called being human.
" ** Your discussions go "in circles" when talking with Christians because depending on the Christian, the Bible and their faith mean something different ot them."
"I think that my discussions go in circles because it’s hard to get certain Christians to take a position. What do concepts like “hell” mean to you? If you do believe in the classical concept of hell, I think you are worshipping a version of the Divine that you perhaps ought not to be worshipping. If you don’t, then I’d be really curious to know how you would answer the following question: what is the Bible? How should it be read?"
And again- some Christian take a hard line to subjects like these. To some, it is vaguer to put it in terms. For others, the notions take a real-life meaning. Like any actualized person, I think a Christian- or anyone else for that matter- deserves scrutiny about their beliefs, no matter what they are. It should only make for their beliefs to become stronger, even if that means augmenting or making exceptions when once there were none. But again, that is me as an individual. Congregations spring up and grow for this very reason. Someone asks someone what their faith means to them, and what they believe within a given faith. If it is something which appeals and drives them, they join with that congregation, to foster that notion and relationship.
To your "suffering" line of discussion- someone has suffered. Christ suffered and died so no one will have to suffer anymore from sin or because of their sin. That IS the Good News. We all have the opportunity to ask for forgiveness for our misdeeds, and will never have to worry about God keeping an infinite tally on those sins. Reading passages, God throws those old sins farther away than He can reach, which as it turns out, is pretty far. The saying goes, "Jesus wished for Heaven on Earth, and what he got was the Church." Meaning, the Church, like any group, institution, or foundation, is not perfect. the only thing that is perfect is God and his Son. That foundation, which has launched so many of the sects and groups to supporting that end, is what we have.
