A theme of discussion on the Poly/Rel board continues to be rather or not The Christian God (hereafter referred to by CG) as described in the Bible can justify his titles of being "All Loving" and "All Merciful."

 

My posistion is this:

 

An "All Loving" and "All Merciful" God could not allow his creations to burn and be tormented.

 

Within the bible, CG himself is quoted as suggesting he is not all-merciful:

 

He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (Romans 9:15)

Would an all-merciful God not have mercy on us all, and have compassion for us all - not simply who he chooses?

 

The scriptures are also pretty clear that CG isn't exactly always loving:

 

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

 

Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

 

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

 

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,

19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

 

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

 

 

Here is the question I really wish to dive into in this thread: CG allows those who reject him to burn in Hell. Don't use the excuse "He only allows the wicked" to burn because if we are to believe that the only path to Heaven is through Christ - what about Ghandi?

ttt

God continually calls people into a right relationship with God. There are many, many, Christians who do not believe in a hell, but believe in the absence of God in the afterlife to a degree chosen by the individual. However, there is hope that God, even in the afterlife will continue to call said individual into a right relationship and bring with that all of the good stuff like love, and hope and peace.

God continually calls people into a right relationship with God. There are many, many, Christians who do not believe in a hell, but believe in the absence of God in the afterlife to a degree chosen by the individual. However, there is hope that God, even in the afterlife will continue to call said individual into a right relationship and bring with that all of the good stuff like love, and hope and peace.

 

Do those Christians believe in the writings of the Bible - because the Bible is pretty clear in its stance in the existence of a "Hell."

 

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

 

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

 

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Do those Christians believe in the writings of the Bible - because the Bible is pretty clear in its stance in the existence of a "Hell."

 

 

Most references to Hell were really reference to horrible places on earth and the human beings that were writing these stories used those places to describe life/existence absence from God. Geanna and Sheol were two such places and one was a garbage dump that was continually burning.

 

Paul, by the way, tended toward large exxagerations and hyperbole. He was a passionate man the most righteous of Jews (even killing Christians) and then the holiest of Christians. There was no middle ground for him and he had an audience/congregations to turn around.

 

Paul was also caught up in the apocalyptic writing of his day so his books deal with an apocalypse that was imminent - he believed that it would happened in his generation (again exxageration) and here we are 2000 year later.

I cannot take credit for the post below. A friend of mine who is reading along with us, emailed it to me and I thought it was appropriate.

 

 

 

If Jesus is indeed the "exact representation" of God (Hebrews 1:3), then Jesus shows us what God is like. So if you want to know what God is like, then you look to Jesus.

 

Throughout his life, we see Jesus extending mercy and love to everyone who desired it. If they rejected him, he allowed them to do so. If they accepted him,

he was giddy. He never twisted arms, and he never asked for an emotional response.

 

But Jesus was always willing to forgive and extend mercy to those who asked for it. Is that not why he told Peter to forgive his enemies, not just seven times, but seven times seventy?

 

But I think the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 is the perfect description of God's character. It's the one that most people use to Biblically validate their message of "tolerance" and "acceptance." The one where Jesus says, "You who are w/o sin cast the first stone."

 

But they forget that Jesus also told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

What did he do there? He (1) Forgave her & (2) Asked her to leave her current lifestyle. He perfectly balanced tolerance & truth. Liberals today have tolerance w/o truth. Many conservatives have truth w/o tolerance. Jesus, however, had both.

 

Therefore, if Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, then that is how God is also. He is always willing to forgive, yet at the same time is always adamantly opposed to sin.

Most references to Hell were really reference to horrible places on earth and the human beings that were writing these stories used those places to describe life/existence absence from God. Geanna and Sheol were two such places and one was a garbage dump that was continually burning.

 

Paul, by the way, tended toward large exxagerations and hyperbole. He was a passionate man the most righteous of Jews (even killing Christians) and then the holiest of Christians. There was no middle ground for him and he had an audience/congregations to turn around.

 

Paul was also caught up in the apocalyptic writing of his day so his books deal with an apocalypse that was imminent - he believed that it would happened in his generation (again exxageration) and here we are 2000 year later.

 

 

The idea of Hell, a lake of fire, is seen throughout the Bible. Old and New Testament. I could be wrong - but I dont see how this idea stretched through thousands of pages of writing could be mere hyperbole.

 

Though it would make a lot more sense, logically.

I cannot take credit for the post below. A friend of mine who is reading along with us, emailed it to me and I thought it was appropriate.

 

 

 

If Jesus is indeed the "exact representation" of God (Hebrews 1:3), then Jesus shows us what God is like. So if you want to know what God is like, then you look to Jesus.

 

Throughout his life, we see Jesus extending mercy and love to everyone who desired it. If they rejected him, he allowed them to do so. If they accepted him,

he was giddy. He never twisted arms, and he never asked for an emotional response.

 

But Jesus was always willing to forgive and extend mercy to those who asked for it. Is that not why he told Peter to forgive his enemies, not just seven times, but seven times seventy?

 

But I think the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 is the perfect description of God's character. It's the one that most people use to Biblically validate their message of "tolerance" and "acceptance." The one where Jesus says, "You who are w/o sin cast the first stone."

 

But they forget that Jesus also told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

What did he do there? He (1) Forgave her & (2) Asked her to leave her current lifestyle. He perfectly balanced tolerance & truth. Liberals today have tolerance w/o truth. Many conservatives have truth w/o tolerance. Jesus, however, had both.

 

Therefore, if Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, then that is how God is also. He is always willing to forgive, yet at the same time is always adamantly opposed to sin.

 

Ever wonder why there are no historical documents short of the Bible that say anything about Christ's ressurection? I don't doubt that Jesus Christ, the man, lived on Earth two thousand years ago. I do not buy that he was anything past mere mortal.

John 5

The Healing at the Pool

1Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?"

7"Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me."

 

There are times that God wants to have a loving relationship with people, but there answer to the question, "Do you want to get well?" is no. They like relying on themselves, their intellect, their pride, their ego. They don't want to admit that they need Jesus Christ.

Ever wonder why there are no historical documents short of the Bible that say anything about Christ's ressurection? I don't doubt that Jesus Christ, the man, lived on Earth two thousand years ago. I do not buy that he was anything past mere mortal.

 

Haven't perused the full site but on a quick Internet search found this site of information for you.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Here is one example from a Jewish historian.

 

B. Josephus

The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:

 

 

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.

 

Those who regard the passage as spurious

 

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

 

Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;

the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;

its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.

Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions

 

A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:

 

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.

Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).

Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.

Those who consider it to be completely genuine

 

The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:

 

First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.

Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.

Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.

Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.

All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

As far as his resurrection, the Bible indicates that he appeared to thousands. Why make the claim if it was going to be so easy to disprove.

 

If the apostles made it up, why would they write a story that makes themselves look so horrible in the story.

 

Almost all died horrible and painful deaths. If it was all a scam, why would they go to their deaths still believing this scam? None denounced what they believed at their deaths but rather proclaimed even more fervently at their deaths.

 

At least that is "logically" what you would assume and consistently you have indicated that "logic" plays a big part in your stance on the matter.

Another interesting note from the link....

 

D. Other pagan writers

The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.

Haven't perused the full site but on a quick Internet search found this site of information for you.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Here is one example from a Jewish historian.

 

B. Josephus

The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:

 

 

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.

 

Those who regard the passage as spurious

 

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

 

Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;

the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;

its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.

Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions

 

A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:

 

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.

Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).

Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.

Those who consider it to be completely genuine

 

The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:

 

First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.

Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.

Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.

Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.

All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

 

 

LBBC,

 

I thought you might bring up the writing of Josephus. I have came across this writing and studied it before.

 

There are a lot of problems with this writing however. Spend a day watching the history channel, and I'm sure atleast once they will shread this writing to pieces.

 

The writing above has been shown to be a forgery beyond a shadow of a doubt - even conservative scholars admit that at best, the document has been tampered with. Even if the document where historically written by Josephus - the document dates more than 6 decades after the death of Christ. Notice the phrase "to this day...."

 

The main evidence in the passage that would suggest Josephus did not write (or atleast had his writings tampered with) is that Josephus, a Jew who converted to Christianity, would have never called Jesus "The Christ" or "The Truth"

 

Further trouble with the document concerns propaganda over history... Josephus (or the writer) mentions Jesus fortelling of Prophets yet he never says who these prophets are or what they said. Not to mention that in all of Josephus's writings Jesus and Christianity is no where mentioned outside of the paragraph below. Seems suspicious that a man so important and bewildering would have only got a brief mention by the most hardcore historian of Jewish history.

 

There is also historical disconnect. Hegesippus, the Christian historican wrote in 170 that Jesus's brother James was killed in a riot - his death having nothing to do with a court sentence.

 

Where is the rest of the proof? Jesus's era was documented in great detail though the only historian to make a breif, tiny mention of him was Josephus (or atleast it could have been)

 

 

Aside from this paragraph, the only documented history we have of Christ is the gospels and the letters of Paul. The Gospels which could easily be considered to be religious propaganda can't be considered proof without something backing it up - and Paul never even met Jesus. He fails to mention any deeds of dialouge of Christ outside of briefly mentioning the last supper.

The idea of Hell, a lake of fire, is seen throughout the Bible. Old and New Testament. I could be wrong - but I dont see how this idea stretched through thousands of pages of writing could be mere hyperbole.

 

Though it would make a lot more sense, logically.

 

The fact that you cannot see it being stretched through thousands of pages as hyperbole does not make it not so. (how about that for convolution).

I cannot take credit for the post below. A friend of mine who is reading along with us, emailed it to me and I thought it was appropriate.

 

 

 

If Jesus is indeed the "exact representation" of God (Hebrews 1:3), then Jesus shows us what God is like. So if you want to know what God is like, then you look to Jesus.

 

Throughout his life, we see Jesus extending mercy and love to everyone who desired it. If they rejected him, he allowed them to do so. If they accepted him,

he was giddy. He never twisted arms, and he never asked for an emotional response.

 

But Jesus was always willing to forgive and extend mercy to those who asked for it. Is that not why he told Peter to forgive his enemies, not just seven times, but seven times seventy?

 

But I think the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 is the perfect description of God's character. It's the one that most people use to Biblically validate their message of "tolerance" and "acceptance." The one where Jesus says, "You who are w/o sin cast the first stone."

 

But they forget that Jesus also told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."

What did he do there? He (1) Forgave her & (2) Asked her to leave her current lifestyle. He perfectly balanced tolerance & truth. Liberals today have tolerance w/o truth. Many conservatives have truth w/o tolerance. Jesus, however, had both.

 

Therefore, if Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, then that is how God is also. He is always willing to forgive, yet at the same time is always adamantly opposed to sin.

 

 

Jesus, however, did not say that he would abandon her and condemn her to hell if she did not leave her life of sin. As He instructed Peter he would never Condemn her, he would continue to forgive her and call her to a right relationship with him. Not to a doctrine or set of beliefs, but to a right relationship.