Proof of God . . .

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Mike Oxlong+Jun 13 2005, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike Oxlong @ Jun 13 2005, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Frank the Tank@Jun 13 2005, 06:15 PM
I have yet to find a reasonable answer for the New Testament. I mean, really, what was wrong with the Old Testament? Is it not God's law? You're telling me that somewhere down the line a decision was made to edit God's Law? Puh-lease!

Actually the New Testament is basically everything happened since Jesus was born. It isn't an edit of the Old Testament it more like a continuation. [/b][/quote]
Ah, see, I should have gone to church...

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mike Oxlong+Jun 13 2005, 06:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike Oxlong @ Jun 13 2005, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Frank the Tank@Jun 13 2005, 06:15 PM
I have yet to find a reasonable answer for the New Testament. I mean, really, what was wrong with the Old Testament? Is it not God's law? You're telling me that somewhere down the line a decision was made to edit God's Law? Puh-lease!

Actually the New Testament is basically everything happened since Jesus was born. It isn't an edit of the Old Testament it more like a continuation. [/b][/quote]
Welll.... didn't the rules change between the Old and New Testaments? Are both versions completely congruent in what's allowed and punishments? I was under the assumption that the NT laid waste to many of the 'laws' of the OT, but I could be way off base.

[V]

It goes way way deeper than that, and I have no interest in explaining it to you, but the NT does not 'lay to waste' the OT. It is more of a fulfillment, or coming to terms of the OT.

[Thunderball]

Well, we all agree that the Earth wasn't made 6000 years ago on a Tuesday...

However, there is no proof for, or to the contrary of, a supreme deity capable of creating everything.

For all we know, the precise, logical, scientific way everything exists is by a higher design, and while its very complicated to us, it may be very simple to a higher being. Of course, it could all be random chance of particles that have always been there... which begs the question, what created the material necessary for the big bang? (Just stirring the pot a little, I'm a fencesitter, but I don't think we can discount a God just because religion has been a political tool for centuries)

As for the OT v. NT... my impression is that the Old Testament is an attempt to rally everyone into very strict, regimented rules, where the goal of them all is simply love thy neighbor, love thy self... the New Testament throws away the pretension, and Jesus simply states that rather than be burdened by all these rules and commandments, simply love your fellow man and yourself and that will cover it. Thats all the Old Testament ever tried to teach, but it was more tough love. There's no break in the main ideology, really.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 13 2005, 02:53 PM
It goes way way deeper than that, and I have no interest in explaining it to you, but the NT does not 'lay to waste' the OT. It is more of a fulfillment, or coming to terms of the OT.

A paragraph of a good story that is MUCH longer...


In the 4th century, the Roman church set about to codify and settle the issues of dogma and approved texts once and for all. Certain texts were rewritten or edited. New ones were added. Others were hunted down and burned. Thus was born the first “official” new testament. A collection of documents to confer central control and authority(read as power and wealth) to the Roman church. While this did not eliminate all problems, I submit the Roman Catholic church as plain evidence of the long term success of this tactic. Between this “power play” of an editorial process and the unavoidable mistakes and difficulties of language translation, I submit that one cannot trust any copy of the bible as the true word of God, even if you believe in God. On an empirical level and a practical/political level, I simply don’t see how a translation of any text from Hebrew and or Aramaic to Greek to Latin to OOOOld English to old English to Modern English and any number of European languages in between, as one that could possibly retain an accurate transcription. I would say this even if the bias editorial and rewrite process was not places somewhere in between by a Roman church with an obvious political agenda at the time and clearly since. Catholic intolerance in terms of dogma and tax collection over the intervening 1300 years stands on it’s own without further commentary.

[photon]

RE: OT vs NT

Depending on what your faith is (there are of course lots of different interpretations of the Bible), the OT is the framework for the relationship between God an man. God is Holy, man is fallen, so there has to be a way to bridge the gap. The OT was about ritual and such to bridge that, but it was always a temporary measure until the Messiah came to become the final bridge. Accept that and you've accepted the foundation of faith in the Bible and salvation.

(That's one of my pet peves; everyone seems to think that the Bible says that if you do good things, obey the 10 Big Instructions, don't sin, you'll "be saved", when that's furthest from what it says)

And while yes things get lost in translation, anyone who seriously studies the Bible does so in Greek and Hebrew not in English or Spanish. The tremendous effort that goes into transcribing the OT (for example) has been shown to have minimal changes over thousands of years (through comparison with ancient texts). Huge topic though, and I've only done light reading on it.

You won't find any argument from me that the Roman Catholic church has had a political agenda since probably day 1.

As to where does the material from the Big Bang come from, well there's lots of theories about that.. just keep in mind that concepts such as space, time, and even causality (cause and effect) are results of our universe and would have no meaning outside our universe.. so to ask "what came before the big bang" really doesn't mean anything in that context.

[Faid1]

It was very nice of our creator to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Faid1@Jun 13 2005, 06:05 PM
It was very nice of our creator to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed

Too bad the immune system can't beat stupidity because it's obviously thriving in the head of at least one Knoxvillian.

That yahoo has such a fouled up idea of evolution that I find it odd that the paper would even print such a letter. Same with the start of this thread I guess. What's the point?

Would they print a letter from me condemning astrophysics? That's something I don't know anything about but I'm sure I could make some big pronouncements about it if I tried. It's the same thing as printing these letters.

[Buff]

Originally posted by photon+Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (photon @ Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(That's one of my pet peves; everyone seems to think that the Bible says that if you do good things, obey the 10 Big Instructions, don't sin, you'll "be saved", when that's furthest from what it says)[/b]

Exactly. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The religions that don't believe in Jesus or believe that you go to heaven by doing good deeds really bother me. Some of them are so close, but not quite there yet, and you don't dare tell them otherwise because you might start a fight so you let it be and hope that they find Jesus... however, how will they find Jesus if you and everybody else after you thinks the same way and don't tell them about the truth either? Yet each and every one of us (by us I mean Christians) are guilty of this.

<!--QuoteBegin-photon@Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM
And while yes things get lost in translation, anyone who seriously studies the Bible does so in Greek and Hebrew not in English or Spanish. The tremendous effort that goes into transcribing the OT (for example) has been shown to have minimal changes over thousands of years (through comparison with ancient texts). Huge topic though, and I've only done light reading on it.[/quote]

They have found that it wasn't translated from language a to b to c to d to e. Rather from a to b, and a to c, etc. There may be some a to c to e somewhere in there, but there have been, like you said, minimal changes. The Bible still says the same thing in a version printed yesterday as a Bible printed 100 years ago, or a version of the Bible from 1000 years ago. It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM
Exactly. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The religions that don't believe in Jesus or believe that you go to heaven by doing good deeds really bother me. Some of them are so close, but not quite there yet, and you don't dare tell them otherwise because you might start a fight so you let it be and hope that they find Jesus...

I am not religious by any stretch, but I do believe that by trying as hard as I can to be the best person I can be, that should be enough. If it isn't enough, well I guess I am screwed but I'll be at peace with my choice.

I don't know why it would bother you though. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that other people think or believe differently than I do.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Great post Photon (the original one, I didn't read the latter).

The letter is flawed for sure.

But what kills me is how evolutionists are so very willing to mock religion and the belief in creation by others. Certainly, there can't possibly be things we are incapable of comprehending at work here. (THIS IS SARCASM).

Talk about closed minded.

[IGGYRULES]

Originally posted by Buff+Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Exactly. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The religions that don't believe in Jesus or believe that you go to heaven by doing good deeds really bother me. Some of them are so close, but not quite there yet, and you don't dare tell them otherwise because you might start a fight so you let it be and hope that they find Jesus... however, how will they find Jesus if you and everybody else after you thinks the same way and don't tell them about the truth either? Yet each and every one of us (by us I mean Christians) are guilty of this.

<!--QuoteBegin-photon@Jun 13 2005, 01:38 PM
And while yes things get lost in translation, anyone who seriously studies the Bible does so in Greek and Hebrew not in English or Spanish.# The tremendous effort that goes into transcribing the OT (for example) has been shown to have minimal changes over thousands of years (through comparison with ancient texts).# Huge topic though, and I've only done light reading on it.

They have found that it wasn't translated from language a to b to c to d to e. Rather from a to b, and a to c, etc. There may be some a to c to e somewhere in there, but there have been, like you said, minimal changes. The Bible still says the same thing in a version printed yesterday as a Bible printed 100 years ago, or a version of the Bible from 1000 years ago. It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word. [/b][/quote]
Normally I don't like to get into debate about religion but this irks me. Why is it that "christians" are right?? I wonder what the folowers of other religions think of christians, quite possibly the same as you wrote Buff. I know you're response to this will be that you're way is the right way, and it's OK to believe that, but I think there is a problem when you condescendingly look at people that don't follow you're faith and feel it is your duty to show them the "right path". I believe that people need to do what makes them happy wheter or not religion is involved in their lives, and I don't believe anyone should push their beliefs onto someone else. It's like a god damn recruiting campaign out there, the church (whichever one it may be) wants your tithes. <----- Bottom Line!!!!!!!!!!!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 13 2005, 06:53 PM
It goes way way deeper than that, and I have no interest in explaining it to you, but the NT does not 'lay to waste' the OT.# It is more of a fulfillment, or coming to terms of the OT.

Oh. Too bad you don't have the interest.

I could have sworn from my years and years of Catholic school that the 'rules' from the OT to the NT changed fundamentally, and that things that were 'legal' in the first became 'illegal' in the second. That's definitely different than a 'fulfilment' of the Old Testament. Of course, I didn't pay much attention in religion class because it was super-boring.

edit: 'lay to waste' was my attempt at biblical talk. Feel free to semantic it up however you please.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Just to add a little (more...) humour and thought to the thread:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...1CB83414B7FFE9F

Forgive me if this has already been posted before...

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by IGGYRULES@Jun 13 2005, 08:08 PM
Normally I don't like to get into debate about religion but this irks me. Why is it that "christians" are right?? I wonder what the folowers of other religions think of christians, quite possibly the same as you wrote Buff. I know you're response to this will be that you're way is the right way, and it's OK to believe that, but I think there is a problem when you condescendingly look at people that don't follow you're faith and feel it is your duty to show them the "right path". I believe that people need to do what makes them happy wheter or not religion is involved in their lives, and I don't believe anyone should push their beliefs onto someone else. It's like a god damn recruiting campaign out there, the church (whichever one it may be) wants your tithes. <----- Bottom Line!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians believe they are right because if you are to believe in a religion, you need the integrity and accountability to not waver from your beliefs. It explicitly states not to have other gods, engage in worldly activities, to separate yourself, etc. Christians push their beliefs onto others because it is part of Jesus' Great Commission...

And I quote from the ever handy but often flawed Wikipedia:

The Great Commission is to evangelical Christians the basis for their worldview and activities arising from it. It is also more generally the primary basis for Christian missionary activity in general. It is given most explicitly in Mark 16:15-16: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel unto every person. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." This quotation from Jesus suggests that all his followers as Christians have this duty to do, although it was given directly only to his apostles.

Critics note that this portion of Mark 16 is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The response generally given is that this is immaterial, as essentially the same thing is quoted as having been said by Jesus in at least three other New Testament passages, and that additionally, the passage in question has always been regarded as part of the canon of the scriptures by church leaders of all ages from the 1st century CE to the present.

Evangelicals often contrast this "Great Commission" with the "Limited Commission" given to seventy of Jesus' followers as reported in Luke 10, in which they were to restrict their mission to their fellow Jews, to whom Jesus referred as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

Most Christian missionary and religious conversion activities are products of the Great Commission being interpreted as being valid and binding upon all Christians of all eras, not just the 1st century apostles.

That's why Christians work so hard to convince others of their beliefs. Accepting the idea of many truths or many God is contrary to Christian dogma. I know most people cringe and quickly rally to complain about Christian's assertion that they are only ones who are all right and all the rest will burn in Hell. Many Christians are certainly guilty of this. Most Christians would never realize things like how this Commission wasn't includeded in some texts and even if they did, would never question the authenticity of it. What a different religion Christianity would be if this were truely aprocryphal?

Personally, I believe in compassion and compassion but not tolerance of things which are against your personal faith. I myself am working this out and I'm leaning ever more and more toward apostasy because I believe less and less.

Let's just say that I am a shaky Christian who has studied evolutionary biology, geological history, and am interested and read in astrophysics. I definetely believe in evolution and science's interpretation of the Universe.

And I am most certainly not Catholic. Protestant interpretations of the Bible were in their day, the liberal and progressive and secular messages of their time where the Roman Catholic Church was engaged in horrible excess in their hegemony of wealth and power...

But it may interest some of you to check out their offical stance on evolution because it's one concentrated voice (as compared to the hundreds of conflicting Protestant denominations)

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 23, 1996 (VIS) - In a Message made public today to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, meeting this week in the Vatican in plenary session, the Holy Father recalled that Pope Pius XI, who restored this academy in 1936, called this group of scholars "the Church's 'scientific senate'" and asked them "to serve the truth."

The Pope expressed delight on the plenary's theme on the origin of life and evolution, "a basic theme which greatly interests the Church, as Revelation contains, for its part, teachings concerning the nature and origins of man." If the scientifically-reached conclusions and those contained in Revelation on the origin of life seem to counter each other, he said, "in what direction should we seek their solution? We know in effect that truth cannot contradict truth."

John Paul II, noting the academy's "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," observed that "in the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications make new questions arise. The Church can grasp their scope all the better as she knows their basic aspects."

He pointed to the Church's magisterium on the question of the origin of life and evolution, citing in particular Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis" and the conciliar Constitution "Gaudium et Spes."

The Pope drew the academicians' attention to "the need for a correct interpretation of the inspired word, of a rigorous hermeneutics. It is fitting to set forth well the limits of the meaning proper to Scripture, rejecting undue interpretations which make it say what it does not have the intention of saying."

"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

He continued: "The elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obeying the exigency of homogeneity with the data of observation, borrows certain ideas from the philosophy of nature. To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution.... There are thus materialistic and reductionist readings and spiritual readings."

"The magisterium of the Church is directly interested in the question of evolution because this touches upon the concept of man, ... created in the image and likeness of God.... Pius XII underlined this essential point: 'if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God.' Consequently, the theories of evolution which, as a result of the philosophies which inspire them, consider the spirit as emerging from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are moreover incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person."

"Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life and place them on a timeline. The moment of passing over to the spiritual is not the object of an observation of this type, which can nevertheless reveal, on an experimental level, a series of very useful signs about the specificity of the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of the awareness of self and of its reflexive nature, that of the moral conscience, that of liberty, or still yet the aesthetic and religious experience, are within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology extracts from it the final meaning according to the Creator's designs."

There was also tenuous Papal approval of the Big Bang:

In 1951, interestingly, Pius XII (who so grudgingly acknowledged the possibility of evolution) celebrated news from the world of science that the universe might have been created in a Big Bang.# (The term, first employed by astronomer Fred Hoyle was meant to be derisive, but it stuck.)# In a speech before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he offered an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory: "

"…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies."# (ME, 254-55)"

But the Pope didn’t stop there.# He went on to express the surprising conclusion that the Big Bang proved the existence of God:

"Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.# Hence, creation took place.# We say: therefore, there is a Creator.# Therefore, God exists"

You can see how the machinery of (ironically) the Catholic Church is trying desperately to cope with modernity and science, but I appreciate the fact that these attempts contain at the least, a sentiment of flexibility and an openess to new ideas...Not like those Bible Belt Churches and people who so stubbornly refuse to address ideas they couldn't even possibly understand and even now, regularily bring to court cases of evolutionary teaching in schools and fight to keep monuments of the 10 Commandments in those very courthouses while expousing such closed-minded and ignorant rhetoric.

Personally, the nature of organized religion and the Church has really turned me off of it, as it all seems so ridiculous and full of hypocracy, and I can really only rely on history and science to make my own judgements. But I have also seen the love and joy of many Christians firsthand, and there's something there that I can't give up on yet. What a horrible spokesman for Christ I am...but it really is not in knowledge, but in the love, compassion, sacrifice, suffering, and stirring of the soul that true faith - true religion can be found.

[photon]

Hack&Lube, great post and I appreciate your candor. I've been going through a similar process, it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who thinks these things

Normally I don't like to get into debate about religion but this irks me. Why is it that "christians" are right?? I wonder what the folowers of other religions think of christians, quite possibly the same as you wrote Buff. I know you're response to this will be that you're way is the right way, and it's OK to believe that, but I think there is a problem when you condescendingly look at people that don't follow you're faith and feel it is your duty to show them the "right path". I believe that people need to do what makes them happy wheter or not religion is involved in their lives, and I don't believe anyone should push their beliefs onto someone else. It's like a god damn recruiting campaign out there, the church (whichever one it may be) wants your tithes. <----- Bottom Line!!!!!!!!!!!

While there will be some people that go to church or join religions just to feel superior to others, I don't believe they're all like that and to paint them all with the same brush is both unfair and is pretty much the same act you are accusing them of. Look at it from the other side; if you had something that you knew would help people, wouldn't you want to share it? If you had a great home cure for acne, and everywhere you looked there was pimply faces all around, wouldn't you want to tell them how to help their acne?

With most people that's the root of their desire to share. Sure there are some people and churches that are militant about getting converts or that are condescending towards others, but that's true of any group of people, religious or not. I have Linux nuts try to convert me every day!

Most Christians I know will gladly tell you their story if you ask, and they may invite you to a function if they feel you would enjoy it, but they won't relentlessly try to grind you into submission. Those grinders exist but I don't think they realize they turn more people away than they'll ever convince.

It's not about convincing people anyway; it's supposed to be about living a life that would encourage others to desire to know the how and why.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by photon@Jun 14 2005, 09:16 AM
Hack&Lube, great post and I appreciate your candor. I've been going through a similar process, it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who thinks these things

While there will be some people that go to church or join religions just to feel superior to others, I don't believe they're all like that and to paint them all with the same brush is both unfair and is pretty much the same act you are accusing them of. Look at it from the other side; if you had something that you knew would help people, wouldn't you want to share it? If you had a great home cure for acne, and everywhere you looked there was pimply faces all around, wouldn't you want to tell them how to help their acne?

With most people that's the root of their desire to share. Sure there are some people and churches that are militant about getting converts or that are condescending towards others, but that's true of any group of people, religious or not. I have Linux nuts try to convert me every day!

Most Christians I know will gladly tell you their story if you ask, and they may invite you to a function if they feel you would enjoy it, but they won't relentlessly try to grind you into submission. Those grinders exist but I don't think they realize they turn more people away than they'll ever convince.

It's not about convincing people anyway; it's supposed to be about living a life that would encourage others to desire to know the how and why.

Its not that "some" Christians or "some" Muslims are good people and are doing good things. Its the belief in fairy tales to express this belief. Is it not possible to be good, to do good, without expressing it through a God? Why must Christianity or any other mainstream religion be "force fed" to the people, and why do they attempt to make people feel guilty for spiting them?

"The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The religions that don't believe in Jesus or believe that you go to heaven by doing good deeds really bother me. Some of them are so close, but not quite there yet, and you don't dare tell them otherwise because you might start a fight so you let it be and hope that they find Jesus... however, how will they find Jesus if you and everybody else after you thinks the same way and don't tell them about the truth either? Yet each and every one of us (by us I mean Christians) are guilty of this."

I know literally hundreds of good solid upstanding people who are what you and I would consider Atheists, or non Theists, that do wonderful things for all types of organizations, without the attachment of a religion. They deserve the same recognition as a church in my opinion. The difference is they dont desire the limelight and do it from their hearts with no political agenda whatsoever.
The line has been drawn, and with the advances of science and the knowledge that comes with it, educated people make smarter decisions. Part of those is not to believe in ghosts or an organizations control dogma of heaven and hell.

As in elementary school systems where Fairy tales are told and explained as fairy tales, there is no harm in discussing religion in that context.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Personally, I dont' know too many Christians who will force their beliefs down your throat. There will always be some who are fanatical about their faith, but isn't that the case with everything? I've met more Atheists who are confrontational and forceful in their beliefs than I've met Christians.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 13 2005, 06:14 PM
Exactly. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The religions that don't believe in Jesus or believe that you go to heaven by doing good deeds really bother me. Some of them are so close, but not quite there yet, and you don't dare tell them otherwise because you might start a fight so you let it be and hope that they find Jesus... however, how will they find Jesus if you and everybody else after you thinks the same way and don't tell them about the truth either? Yet each and every one of us (by us I mean Christians) are guilty of this.

I've always found this argument rather curious. I have never understood why a god would deny a good person salvation if he didnt accept JC as his "savior". It seems to me that this argument implies that satisfying God's ego is more important than living up to his rules. One would think a god would be above that kind of thing.

[octothorp]

Good points, Cheese. I've always maintained that the greatest problem with much of organized religion is its use of a reward system to manipulate the actions of its members--many churches today have little intellectual or spiritual capital to trade with the members beyond this notion that they can be rewarded in the afterlife. Personally, I am much more concerned with the notion of leading a compassionate life than the notion of salvation. If I end up in some sort of heaven, great; if I end up in some sort of hell because I didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, well, then I'll be content with the knowledge that God is ultimately unjust, and that there are a hell of a lot of good people down there with me.