|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Will God allow anyone to go to hell?
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
…it's not that I have to do action X, or a small set of actions Xn, but rather that in every choice there is a good and a bad.
And salvation rests in choosing good every time? In choosing good most times? In choosing good enough times so as to create a condition of the heart that would enjoy heaven (That’s out of Freddy’s book, no credit to me)? But all of these seem cumbersome and legal-based.
quote:
I don't think it's possible to know with certainty that you will be saved, nor is it a particularly useful position to take spiritually. But that doesn't mean that you might not have some confidence.
Okay, so then how do you answer the proposition? “I have to figure out how to make sure I’ve gotten myself saved so that I don’t end up being turned away at the end for (x reason).” Or is it, “Do your best, live your best, hope for the best”?
quote:
quote:
But the way I see it, everybody wants to be saved.
I'm not sure this is the case. People have told me they don't - they just want this life and that's enough. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination.
People say a lot of things. They want this life and that’s enough, not this life and then eternal torment. Not this life and then a series of scenarios like this life in which they are never truly happy. When faced with the real choices, everybody picks the best one. If you pick less than the best, you don’t have all the facts, or you don’t understand the choices.
quote:
quote:
I'm not 100% sure I know exactly what your asking, but I think you mean why would God allow suffering on earth if it's not to be used for convincing us about trying to get to heaven over hell?
Half right. I mean why would God allow suffering on earth if it's not a necessary part of his design. Not necessarily a stick with which to beat the ungodly but rather an unavoidable consequence of sin (or freedom, if you like).
That’s just the thing—it can be a necessary part of his design without resulting in eternal torment. It makes more sense that way. When suffering is rehabilitative, its purpose is clear and can be aligned with good. When suffering is simply an outpouring of wrath and vengeance, it creates the root of the problem of evil. Hell, as eternal torment, has no rehabilitative value. It doesn’t, therefore, align itself with any good.
quote:
Yet why bother if at death all are made perfect without anything that happened on earth having a consequence? God could have avoided all the suffering by just skipping the earth bit.
See, my current soteriological position (and it might change tomorrow, I'm like that) is that one of the things this life provides is space for us to begin to grow into Heavenly creatures and so our actions have eternal consequences.
You have answered your own question two sentences later. This life provides space for us to grow into heavenly creatures. Suffering, through some process we do not fully understand, readies us for the differences between life now and life after death. It doesn’t provide us a place to find out if we make the team. It is part of the training camp before the actual season begins. (That’s a terrible analogy, I apologize. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
quote:
quote:
I can't explain it entirely, obviously, but it seems to me that something about suffering, no matter how bad it is, is always doing a job preparing either the sufferer or people surrounding the sufferer for some situation down the road.
I agree again, but I'm sure you see the consequence of this for someone dying alone and isolated. The only down the road is the next life.
Again, I agree. It is preparing the person for a life in heaven, whatever that actually is or means.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
If you pick less than the best, you don’t have all the facts, or you don’t understand the choices.
I think this is our fundamental difference on this thread. I disagree with this.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
You've already pointed out the error in the logic. It's that omnipotence does not imply the ability to do something that is nonsense.
Well, it may be the case that the following two statements lead to a logical contradiction:
1. People have absolute free will
2. God will save everyone in his own time
But I don't think that it is necessarily the case. Arguably, an omnipotent God could so constrain the environment that a person freely chose his own salvation. Whether this makes a nonsense of free will is arguable -- people like William Lane Craig have argued at immense length that it doesn't. I agree that it certainly doesn't sound like free will if you will inevitably choose to act as someone else has planned.
Free will means the potential that someone can make a choice that has meaningful and distinct consequences. If no matter what you choose, there is the same outcome - that's not really reflecting free will or free choice at all.
Hence, as I see it. Free will means the potential for people to end up in hell.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Free choice is great when it is based on facts and clear understanding. Being that this world is based on an imperfect perception of God and an unclear understanding of how God works, with thousands of differing options to choose from in how we all believe <snip>
I hear you on this. I am in agreement that it would be fundamentally unjust for God (IMHO) to judge people if they don't know wrong from right. Paul in Romans said as much as well. I guess it then becomes a matter of how much people know...
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I cannot assert that God will put his desire for our free choice based on the very little that we know or understand above his desire to save us all at any cost, knowing our heart's desires and knowing that we all would choose him if we truly understood him.
Ok, again, this is where we diverge. I believe that choice means that even if we really understand God fully, we can make the choice not to want him.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018
|
Posted
Slight Tangent/
I think many of the people arguing a Universalist point of view are saying they can't imagine this happening.
Slight Tangent done/
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And salvation rests in choosing good every time? In choosing good most times? In choosing good enough times so as to create a condition of the heart that would enjoy heaven (That’s out of Freddy’s book, no credit to me)? But all of these seem cumbersome and legal-based.
Nevertheless I think later you basically agree with the idea, but I'll come to that in a minute.
I think the fear of legalism goes too far, into waters that are unbiblical and unreasonable. Is St Paul being legalistic when he says that murderers will not inherit the kingdom? Surely he's speaking of a work. What about when he warns people not to condem themselves at the eucharist?
St James isn't just wriggling on the idea of faith without works being dead. If works flow from faith then it must be the case that in the end it could be possible for God to judge a person's faith by what they have done - and to me that's the only consistent way of handling the message of the New Testament. Note that to do it fairly (and we believe God is at the very least, fair) requires a perfect knowledge of what a person had to work with.
It's fairly easy to see from this that if we are judged according to how we did with what we had, then this is the same as being judged on whether we have made choices that lead towards or away from Heavenliness. Tie in the biblical and reasonable assertion that God wants all to be saved and yet it is possible that some may not be, and the only conclusion I can come to is that salvation requires choice and a consistent series of wrong choices leads inevitably to not-Heaven.
Even Calvinism has it that works and faith are tied into each other. If sanctification does not proceed from saving faith, it was an illusion and so on. Now, from this framework I agree that you have a very difficult problem with reconciling God's character as loving if any end up in Hell. I think double predestination is wrong though.
quote:
People say a lot of things. They want this life and that’s enough, not this life and then eternal torment.
One could speculate (and those who believe in conditional immortality are pinning their colours to this particular mast) that the fires of Hell are actually a metaphor for what these people are choosing, that Hell is annihilation, and that in comparison to Heaven these people are missing, well, everything.
quote:
When faced with the real choices, everybody picks the best one.
I disagree. This is exactly what people do not do, and that's the problem. Nobody would ever deliberately sin if you're right and many people have done so - including me many times, before anyone asks.
quote:
If you pick less than the best, you don’t have all the facts, or you don’t understand the choices.
My experience has been that this is not the case. I have been known to do what I hate - what I know is wrong, unhealthy, has bad consequences and so on. My reading of St Paul tells me that I'm not alone.
quote:
It is preparing the person for a life in heaven, whatever that actually is or means.
I think we agree then on a soteriological process by which we are being led into being heavenly, but the question is whether the will (free or not, it doesn't matter) has a role to play, and I say that it must. If our will (free or not) is such that I reject the opportunities to grow, where do I end up? Obviously I hope nobody does this, but it is a mistake to think that even in a fully-determined worldview we either cannot choose or our choices are inconsequential.
This is what Marvin's argument is, and he's wrong because if even if free choice is an illusion, choice due to nature is the key by which the outcome is predetermined, if you see what I mean.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Free will means the potential that someone can make a choice that has meaningful and distinct consequences. If no matter what you choose, there is the same outcome - that's not really reflecting free will or free choice at all.
Hence, as I see it. Free will means the potential for people to end up in hell
That, in a nutshell, is what Craig argues, except that he takes 15 pages to come to the same conclusion. I don't think either he nor you are necessarily right, but I concede that you might me.
But, in the end, I don't think it makes the problem go away. If I concede that, logically, free will is a defence to the notion that some people end up condemned, that doesn't explain why free will is such a big deal.
If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does he think that free will is important enough for people to be damned? As I argued above, I don't allow my children sufficient free will that they are likely to kill themselves; why should expect less of God?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But, in the end, I don't think it makes the problem go away. If I concede that, logically, free will is a defence to the notion that some people end up condemned, that doesn't explain why free will is such a big deal.
If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does he think that free will is important enough for people to be damned? As I argued above, I don't allow my children sufficient free will that they are likely to kill themselves; why should expect less of God?
But you probably will allow your children sufficient free will to do this, when they're adults.
If ultimately salvation is to come to love God with all our hearts, minds, etc and if this can't happen without free assent (because forced love isn't love) your question is answered. Are you certain this is wrong?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
This is what Marvin's argument is...
Only if Salvation is purely down to God. If it's not, as you seem to be claiming, then that argument is indeed wrong.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think the fear of legalism goes too far, into waters that are unbiblical and unreasonable. Is St Paul being legalistic when he says that murderers will not inherit the kingdom? Surely he's speaking of a work. What about when he warns people not to condem themselves at the eucharist?
St James isn't just wriggling on the idea of faith without works being dead. If works flow from faith then it must be the case that in the end it could be possible for God to judge a person's faith by what they have done - and to me that's the only consistent way of handling the message of the New Testament. Note that to do it fairly (and we believe God is at the very least, fair) requires a perfect knowledge of what a person had to work with.
Well, I actually specifically avoided using the word “legalistic” because I understand the loaded context that word brings with it. To avoid legalism at all costs is to eliminate any way of being practical and realistic about what life is. I absolutely agree with that.
However, my problem was that the ideas of salvation I outlined were all incredibly “legal-based,” claiming that God runs his universe in a courtroom-style fashion. I’m not convinced that the God I know and think about and read about and pray to works like that. In fact, JollyJape’s great explanation of the Healing Model as opposed to this Judge/Legal Model seems far more convincing, though I doubt it’s flawless either (what here could be?).
quote:
It's fairly easy to see from this that if we are judged according to how we did with what we had, then this is the same as being judged on whether we have made choices that lead towards or away from Heavenliness. Tie in the biblical and reasonable assertion that God wants all to be saved and yet it is possible that some may not be, and the only conclusion I can come to is that salvation requires choice and a consistent series of wrong choices leads inevitably to not-Heaven.
I think you lost me with this string of assumptions and premises on the very first one. Being judged on choices that lead towards or away from Heavenliness may be how God will do things in the end (or is currently, or whatever), but the only way to reconcile this with “being judged according to how we did with what he had” is to say that our choices here really can’t lead away from Heavenliness. How many people on this Ship use the “we see through a glass darkly” to explain away thousands of unintelligible concepts about God, and yet we think we have enough information to make solid enough choices about our eternal destinies?
quote:
quote:
When faced with the real choices, everybody picks the best one.
I disagree. This is exactly what people do not do, and that's the problem. Nobody would ever deliberately sin if you're right and many people have done so - including me many times, before anyone asks.
But nobody has ever experienced eternity. Nobody has gone beyond death and then written back to tell us about it. We can’t fully understand or appreciate eternal consequences without a complete concept of what eternity really is. We can’t fully understand the gravity of sinning against God when we don’t fully understand who God is. Which is why I then say:
quote:
quote:
If you pick less than the best, you don’t have all the facts, or you don’t understand the choices.
My experience has been that this is not the case. I have been known to do what I hate - what I know is wrong, unhealthy, has bad consequences and so on. My reading of St Paul tells me that I'm not alone.
Of course we do things we don’t want to do. But that’s just it, isn’t it? We don’t really want to do them. Recognizing that fact is proof in itself that when we pull back from our immediate desires and gratification-driven impulses, we see what we really truly want.
quote:
If our will (free or not) is such that I reject the opportunities to grow, where do I end up? Obviously I hope nobody does this, but it is a mistake to think that even in a fully-determined worldview we either cannot choose or our choices are inconsequential.
This assumes what people misunderstand about me often on this thread. What I think I believe, for now, is this:
We CAN choose.
Our choices ARE consequential.
God will save us all.
We make choices every day, all of which carry consequences. We learn and we grow and we struggle and we are affected by choices, all of the time. Just because they won’t be used to condemn us to some sort of eternal punishment doesn’t mean that we are robbed of choice (we may all choose heaven) or that the choices aren’t consequential (all choices carry consequences).
-Digory
[fixed code]
[ 20. January 2006, 04:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Ok. I just want to briefly recap where we are right now. Please feel free to correct me because this is the way I see it and I kind of simplified things:
Are people ultimately responsible for their actions?
Answer 1: Yes, and so some might end up in hell
Answer 2: Yes, sin and rebellion is truly hell-worthy - but God will take the _____(punishment, condemnation, consequences) and so no hell for them
Answer 3: No, because life is so mysterious and vague, there’s not really a free choice, we are slaves to sin so no one really understands what he or she is doing so they can’t be held accountable, so no hell
Can people ultimately choose against God?
Answer 1: Maybe in this life but its just one big misunderstanding so not the next when all will be revealed
Answer 2: Yes, it is possible both in this life and the next.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
... What I think I believe, for now, is this:
We CAN choose.
Our choices ARE consequential.
God will save us all.
...
I'm with you for 2 out of 3.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I'm with you for 2 out of 3.
Really? No kidding, which two? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Care to elaborate on why?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Perhaps a different vein, jumping off of Joyful's concise summary a few posts back, is in order:
Let's for a moment assume that people are held repsonsible for their earthly actions, and they receive eternal consequences for such actions. So, in this way, free will is upheld and free choice is given to all.
What choice or choices did I make that allow me some confidence that I will go to heaven? If the question is "are people held responsible for their actions" and the answer is "Yes, so some will end up in hell," then the inverse answer is "Yes, so some end up in heaven" which implies that we end up in heaven because our actions were good. Fine, the Bible can definitely be understood that way. But we draw a line around actions that lead to Hell and actions that don't, always conveniently around the things we don't do vs. the things we do.
Some things, or some ways of life, lead to hell. But not the one I do (but probably the one I used to do before I saw the light).
Where does God's grace come into this view? I don't believe or understand the misconstrual of God's grace as "power to do good things." Grace is the exact definition of "not getting what you deserve" which goes completely against the idea that "you are held responsible for your actions."
It's an interesting twist-up.
-Digory
[Fixing some grammar, d'oh]
[ 19. January 2006, 18:56: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
What choice or choices did I make that allow me some confidence that I will go to heaven?
Heaven starts now, though. I am not found of this type of question (what can I do go to heaven?) because it misses the point that life is actually continuous. So, maybe the answer is:
quote:
To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
(Romans 2:7, NIV, bold mine)
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Grace is the exact definition of "not getting what you deserve" which goes completely against the idea that "you are held responsible for your actions."
It would be great to hear from LutheranChik, but as far as I was taught mercy and grace are different things. As far as I've been taught, mercy is not receiving due punishment. And grace is about receiving something additional, undeserved.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Where does God's grace come into this view? I don't believe or understand the misconstrual of God's grace as "power to do good things."
Well, I do. The invitation to know God now and the ability to repent and to walk in a newness and re-birth, is an amazing testimony of God's grace and receving power from God "to do good things."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I can give a classical answer to this one, Digory.
Nobody deserves Heaven, because to deserve it you'd have to be perfect. Perfection is the standard that earns it. Nobody's perfect (excepting our Lord of course - and ignoring the interesting but irrelevant debate about Blessed Mary).
So, if anyone makes it to Heaven it's grace in action. Now, I think that what we've been promised, participation in the life of God, eternal life or however you want to put it, requires us to become perfect in the end. Experimental evidence suggests that we can refuse to grow spiritually, indeed that we can actively resist it. I'm sure you see where this is going...
...but I want to emphasise again that I hope universalism is true. I just think both scripture and reason reject it as a certain and necessary outcome.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
To GF:
First off, I don't see it as a necessary outcome, either. It just seems to be where reason and what I know about God all point to, for me.
But to say that only perfection earns heaven makes a mockery out of everything we've been discussing for days. If only perfection earns heaven, then no action can be responsible for getting there besides perfection. Grace given to those who do the right thing or set of things or who live the right life makes no sense---did God simply use grace to lower his entry requirements? "Okay, I know none of you can be perfect, so I'll give grace to any of you who can be, say, 20%. We'll see how that goes, and if that's still not low enough, we'll revisit and perhaps lower it to 10% in a few centuries."
Or could grace be God's way of saying, "I know you all can't be perfect, that was obvious in how I made you. But the point is that you don't need to be--let me do it for you because I want to. Stop trying to do it yourself, because I understand you enough to know that the best way for you to live your life now is to stop trying to be perfect and start living in the grace I've already granted you."
I mean, let me say--I have no clue, really. We could ALL end up in hell for all I know. Any one of you all could be right. I trust God enough to believe that whatever IS the case, I'll be okay with it knowing that God has it under control. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
To JS:
The only reason I phrased the question, "What do we do to get to heaven" is because we have been talking about how some people "go to hell." I agree--heaven and hell in some ways start right now. But I think you and I would also agree that after death things have to be different in a lot of ways. If after death you head more solidly into a hell-like substance, what is it that causes that to happen to a person? Is that a better way to word it?
I also have to say that the Romans verse you quoted actually sounds quite terrible to me! Whoever is persistent about doing good things for the purpose of seeking his own glory, honor and immortality will receive eternal life? Weird.
What I was always taught about grace vs. mercy was that MERCY = not getting what you deserve to get, while GRACE = getting something else that you didn't deserve to get. So mercy is the idea that you get off without punishment, but grace is the idea that you actually get a reward instead, or something along those lines. I'm not sure I totally go along with those definitions, but it's a framework. And yes, I think I quoted mercy rather than grace before. Apologies.
Still, I think equating grace to power is wrong. True, I think the fact that we are given grace energizes us to do good things, just like when your parents don't ground you when you come home late on Friday night, you are suddenly very willing to help around the house on Saturday. But that doesn't mean the grace WAS the power to do good things--it was simply part of the catalyst/motivation. Grace isn't some sort of super power that is bestowed on humans that allows them to rise from their sinful lives and do good things. Grace is when God takes our sinful selves and says, "I don't care about what you've done or who you've been, I accept you as my own." The "ability to walk in newness and re-birth," one might even say.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
The only reason I phrased the question, "What do we do to get to heaven" is because we have been talking about how some people "go to hell." I agree--heaven and hell in some ways start right now. But I think you and I would also agree that after death things have to be different in a lot of ways. If after death you head more solidly into a hell-like substance, what is it that causes that to happen to a person? Is that a better way to word it?
Thank you for the clarification. That was helpful.
The answer is that I don't know.
All I know is that somehow dying to oneself's enables life and the knowledge of God (according to my (mis?)interpretation of JC). But being soley self-seeking and without love or compassion can lead to death.
I just want to add a little caveat about this self-seeking/without love leads to hell/death thought.
I wouldn't put people in this category who have been so traumatized by horrible experiences in their lives to the point that they can only think of their own survival and because of such experiences, they have been stripped of faith/love/compassion. One of my favorite verses is Isaiah 42:3 quote:
"A bruised reed he will not break and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice."
The idea is that God cares about broken people and he knows the pain and trouble in their lives. I don't think he holds it against them that they have been robbed/stripped of imago dei.
One of things that I noticed in Lazarus & the Rich Man story that Jesus tells - is strangely there is no mention of Lazarus's personal goodness or faith. (There is, however, a clear judgement on the Rich Man's, though.) Only that Lazarus is really poor and dogs lick his wounds. So I think that God has a special heart for people that have been broken and trampled by this world.
Another example that I can think of where God doesn't put demands on people who are cruelly oppressed by life is:
quote:
But when Moses delivered this message to the Israelites, they didn't even hear him--they were that beaten down in spirit by the harsh slave conditions. (exodus 6:9, message)
The following verses in the context seem to me to indicate an absense of judgement on the people's lack of faith. Hence I've come to a conclusion (perhaps erroneously) that God is compassionate and knows each individual's limitations and stories.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I also have to say that the Romans verse you quoted actually sounds quite terrible to me! Whoever is persistent about doing good things for the purpose of seeking his own glory, honor and immortality will receive eternal life? Weird.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Ok. I must admit that the first time I read that verse in Romans, I was like WTF??? What about Jesus? Doesn't this verse totally contradict the GOSPEL? But then I remembered what Lewis said in the Great Divorce. He said something about how actually our desires and passions are actually too weak and they are often not strong enough for the real things.
Now, I actually like the ideas in these verses:
"God 'will give to each person according to what he has done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." (romans 2:6-8, niv)
I think a good question is what is pursuing glory, honor, and immortality? And if Jesus is our Leader - then glory, honor, and immortality is really about washing people's feet, hanging out with losers, being really patient, suffering a lot, and dying the most gruesome death for the sake of love. I don't think its wrong to want immortality - meaning, living a life without suffering, destruction, malaise, and death.
I also think if you put Paul's verse in the cultural context - people in those days were all about honour and immortality. It was like a big thing in Rome in those days.
I also like that verse because it gives me hope that many athiests and/or other religious (non-Christians) might be saved as well because they want good in life and they do the best they can to pursue goodness. Perhaps they are too participating in bringing God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven?
All in all, I am most disappointed with the teachings I got when I was younger about how God's judgement was all bad, bad, bad. While reading more of the bible, I think sometimes scripture may indicate that God's judgement often brings reward, not just punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Still, I think equating grace to power is wrong. True, I think the fact that we are given grace energizes us to do good things, just like when your parents don't ground you when you come home late on Friday night, you are suddenly very willing to help around the house on Saturday. But that doesn't mean the grace WAS the power to do good things--it was simply part of the catalyst/motivation. Grace isn't some sort of super power that is bestowed on humans that allows them to rise from their sinful lives and do good things. Grace is when God takes our sinful selves and says, "I don't care about what you've done or who you've been, I accept you as my own." The "ability to walk in newness and re-birth," one might even say.
Having just finished philip yancey's "what's so amazing about grace" a mere month ago- all I can say is that grace is many things. I don't have a problem with grace being a catalyst or being a super-power that motivates to rise above our sinful lives and do good things.
Or maybe a new thread could be opened for further insight and discovery and discussion, "What is God's grace?" (j/k) heh.
I just pulled some (negative) verses about grace from a search on biblegateway ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) :
"Though grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and regard not the majesty of the LORD." (Isaiah 26:10)
"Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." (Jonah 2:8)
But -- just to add - I do agree that redemption is grace-based:
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" (Ephesians 1:7, NIV).
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Grace is when God takes our sinful selves and says, "I don't care about what you've done or who you've been, I accept you as my own." The "ability to walk in newness and re-birth," one might even say.
Ok, I just had one more thing to add about grace.
Yes, I agree that God extravagantly bestows grace on us and accepts us and says "I don't care about what you've done or who you've been."
It's like the father of the prodigal son - God wants to throw a party for us. And we, just like that son, cannot enjoy it unless we get out of the pig pen and humble ourselves and turn towards the father, that is God.
It's like God love us no matter where we are or what we have done but we have to receive it. And we can't receive it if our backs are towards God.
It's like if someone wants to dance with you --you have to be willing to go along and dance.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
It's like if someone wants to dance with you --you have to be willing to go along and dance.
You have to be able to dance as well...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
It's like if someone wants to dance with you --you have to be willing to go along and dance.
You have to be able to dance as well...
Have you ever seen a white guy get dragged out onto the dance floor, and finally "let loose" and give in? I mean, the guy can't dance. At all. But as soon as he becomes willing to give it his best, everyone has a pretty good time.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sugar mouse
Apprentice
# 9828
|
Posted
I recently read on a Christian Website that the only Unforgivable Sin was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Upon reading this I was immediately overcome by the urge to shout out "the Holy Spirit is a bastard!"
Am i now damned for eternity?
Posts: 6 | From: leeds | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Still, I think equating grace to power is wrong. True, I think the fact that we are given grace energizes us to do good things, just like when your parents don't ground you when you come home late on Friday night, you are suddenly very willing to help around the house on Saturday. But that doesn't mean the grace WAS the power to do good things--it was simply part of the catalyst/motivation. Grace isn't some sort of super power that is bestowed on humans that allows them to rise from their sinful lives and do good things. Grace is when God takes our sinful selves and says, "I don't care about what you've done or who you've been, I accept you as my own." The "ability to walk in newness and re-birth," one might even say.
Digory, this does make sense. I understand what you mean here. I agree that grace isn't some kind of super-power granted by God.
Maybe the question of what grace is, and what mercy means, is a central question here. What is actually the most loving way to behave towards the object of one's love?
Jesus does not take it as a given that people know what mercy is:
quote:
Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Matthew 12:7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
Is it merciful to call sinners to repentance? It is surely unmerciful to condemn the guiltless - but what does this say about the guilty? Is it merciful to fail to restrain the criminal?
I believe that God's love and grace towards all people is more about empowerment than erasing consequences. Or rather, it is about enabling the erasure of consequences through empowerment. Similarly, forgiveness is more about enabling change than about abrogating the results of our actions.
If you have the idea that all are guilty, and all deserve punishment, then grace and forgiveness will need to take the kind of form you are giving it.
I agree that all are utterly unworthy and powerless. I agree that of ourselves we tend towards wickedness. I agree that only God's power, love, grace, and mercy prevent us from casting ourselves into hell itself.
I don't agree, however, that this makes us guilty and deserving of punishment. We are victims of these tendencies, and God's mercy rescues us from them. We are therefore free to go with God's mercy and refrain from evil, or obey our innate tendencies and commit evil. The one leads us to heaven, the other to hell.
God's grace also means that we can do evil, and then later change our ways and our life. It means that we can reject God, and then later think better of it.
It doesn't work for me to say that God's grace means that no repentance or change is required. The Bible uniformly refers to the need for change. Grace is what enables it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sugar mouse:
I recently read on a Christian Website...
Wait, wait, does this imply that you didn't think this was a Christian website??? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm so offended, really I am.
-Digory
(Welcome aboard, sugar mouse.)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sugar mouse:
I recently read on a Christian Website that the only Unforgivable Sin was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Upon reading this I was immediately overcome by the urge to shout out "the Holy Spirit is a bastard!"
Am i now damned for eternity?
Ditto Digory's outrage. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
It makes you want to ask what blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is.
I would say that it is sinning and never repenting.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sugar mouse:
I recently read on a Christian Website that the only Unforgivable Sin was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Upon reading this I was immediately overcome by the urge to shout out "the Holy Spirit is a bastard!"
Am i now damned for eternity?
Ditto Digory's outrage.
It makes you want to ask what blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is.
I would say that it is sinning and never repenting.
Just to extend this tangent.
The Holy Spirit is God's presence, which enlightens, vivifies, and enables you to repent, change, turn to Him, etc.
You can reject the Father because He is invisible to you. You can reject the Son because you might have a mistaken idea of Him. But you can't reject the Spirit, because that is goodness itself - the Spirit is the heart of the matter. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit means to turn away from all goodness, and not to change.
The only reason that it can't be forgiven is that this position prevents repentance. Ignorance and misconceptions can be cleared up, but the deeply rooted rejection of what is good leaves no opening for future change.
I would doubt that it is possible for anyone to do this very completely in this world. I'm sure many would doubt that it is ever possible to do it.
The point of Jesus' words is not just to be mysterious about "the one thing that can never be forgiven", but to emphasize the importance of the "spirit" of things, or their real essence.
The Holy Spirit is God reaching deep down within you, or God as He is present everywhere and with everyone. Rejecting ideas is one thing, but rejecting this is a whole different category. On these boards, for example, people often express doubts about Jesus, or about God the Father, or about whether there even is a God. We all have incomplete and mistaken ideas, and this is very forgivable, according to Jesus' words here. We all do this to some degree, and it is part of the normal search to work things out.
But no one on these boards ever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. No one ever rejects goodness, honesty and mercy themselves, or expresses support for torturing, maiming or destroying all of humanity and everything that exists. Not that someone couldn't theoretically take that position, I'm just not sure why anyone would.
So the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a particular statement or action that is mysteriously unforgivable. It is a long term way of being that has the effect of utterly shutting out God - perhaps not even a way that is really possible. But it is a warning not to head in that direction, and to be mindful of the importance of the real spirit behind ideas and actions.
Maybe this isn't really a tangent, since if there is an eternal hell there must be some sense in which those there are not forgiven. Maybe Jesus' statement is a description of the condition of everyone in hell - that they have all sinned against the Spirit. Since God loves and forgives everyone, there must be some way of being that cannot accept this forgiveness.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Freddy - I agree, but it sounds a bit long-winded; the circumstans in which Jesus mentioned the unforgiveable sin make it crystal clear what that sin is (he had been accused of using th Devil's power to effecta healing miracle).
So the one unforivable sin is to say or imply that something manifestly good (i.e. Godly) is evil. Given that we sometimes entertain angels unawares we really do need to watch what we say and think.
And Hell? Well, if you encounter God and call him the Devil, you may end up believing your own propaganda and, voila! you are in a hell of your own making. For ever? Hopefully not, but in that position, where can one look for correction? It must come direct from God, who must want reconciliation. But since one moment out of the sight of God is an eternity....
And I've ended up being more long-winded than you. Plus ca change.....
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
Freddy - I agree, but it sounds a bit long-winded; the circumstans in which Jesus mentioned the unforgiveable sin make it crystal clear what that sin is (he had been accused of using th Devil's power to effecta healing miracle).
I think you're right. You said it better and more briefly. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
Freddy - I agree, but it sounds a bit long-winded; the circumstans in which Jesus mentioned the unforgiveable sin make it crystal clear what that sin is (he had been accused of using th Devil's power to effecta healing miracle).
One small thing for me--few things found in the Bible make anything "crystal clear."
I like your definition, but I'm not 100% convinced it's the only or even best one.
(Nice to meet you though, chemincreux. Welcome aboard. )
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sugar mouse
Apprentice
# 9828
|
Posted
Well I am relieved to hear that I am not necessarily damned for eternity.
Although part of me was enjoying the feelings of reckless abandon - if I'm damned anyway then it doesn't matter what I do with the rest of my life.
And apologies, I should have said “another Christian website”
Posts: 6 | From: leeds | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sugar mouse:
Although part of me was enjoying the feelings of reckless abandon - if I'm damned anyway then it doesn't matter what I do with the rest of my life.
I know what you mean.
Of course, in theory it's exactly the same if you're saved anyway ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by sugar mouse:
Although part of me was enjoying the feelings of reckless abandon - if I'm damned anyway then it doesn't matter what I do with the rest of my life.
I know what you mean.
Of course, in theory it's exactly the same if you're saved anyway
Yes. Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential.
Hey, if people could eat as much chocolate as they wanted to and not get fat, I bet they'd eat a lot more than they do now!
It's the same principle, only instead of "fat" insert "damned". And instead of "chocolate" insert your temptation of choice ...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential.
Hey, if people could eat as much chocolate as they wanted to and not get fat, I bet they'd eat a lot more than they do now!
Do you really think so? The people I know, including myself, seem to eat quite a bit of chocolate as it is, even though we're told it makes us fat. (We're also told it can make you happy, it can cause acne, it can cause migraines, etc etc etc).
I just don't think we completely understand future consequences, bound to the present as we are.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential.
Hey, if people could eat as much chocolate as they wanted to and not get fat, I bet they'd eat a lot more than they do now!
It's the same principle, only instead of "fat" insert "damned". And instead of "chocolate" insert your temptation of choice ...
It's not just the consequences. Regardless of the consequences, eating loads of chocolate (even if it won't make you fat) is indictative of a problematic internal imbalance.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential.
Hey, if people could eat as much chocolate as they wanted to and not get fat, I bet they'd eat a lot more than they do now!
It's the same principle, only instead of "fat" insert "damned". And instead of "chocolate" insert your temptation of choice ...
Millions of dollars are spent each year on diet foods with that goal - of allowing us to commit nutritional "sin" without consequences.
How much would we be willing to spend on the spiritual equivalent?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it interesting that we have figured out so many ways to make our actions inconsequential.
Hey, if people could eat as much chocolate as they wanted to and not get fat, I bet they'd eat a lot more than they do now!
Do you really think so? The people I know, including myself, seem to eat quite a bit of chocolate as it is, even though we're told it makes us fat. (We're also told it can make you happy, it can cause acne, it can cause migraines, etc etc etc).
I just don't think we completely understand future consequences, bound to the present as we are.
I don't think that we are that helpless. I think that we regulate our behavior all the time based on our understanding of the consequences. This is so ingrained in us that we hardly think about it. Would any of us claim that removing consequences would have no effect on human behavior?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I just don't think we completely understand future consequences, bound to the present as we are.
Who said anything about the future?
The anticipation of results, effects, and consequences guides and shapes our behavior minute to minute. While it may be true that we don't necessarily understand these things, it is still true that we would have difficulty functioning for even a few minutes without feedback.
I'm pressing keys, but if I wasn't assured of predictable results I wouldn't do it very long. As it is, the expected words pop out on the page, and I am entertained.
Everything in life, big and small, works this way. Why talk if no words come out? Why complain if no one listens?
So as I go through each day attempting to achieve my goals, however spontaneous and poorly thought out, I reap the consequences of whatever I do or don't do. There is no escaping this. The consequences are not necessarily fair, consistent, or according to anyone's intention - but things happen, and they are not completely unrelated to what I do or don't do.
At what point in the moment-to-moment sequence of existence do things stop working this way?
I would say that they never do. They simply become more fair, consistent, and intentional.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Millions of dollars are spent each year on diet foods with that goal - of allowing us to commit nutritional "sin" without consequences.
How much would we be willing to spend on the spiritual equivalent?
If the negative results of spiritual 'overeating' were as well-known or certain as those of nutritional overeating, and if it were possible to create such spiritual 'diet foods', I'd be willing to bet it would be the leading industry in the world.
Imagine it - a small financial outlay to guarantee salvation regardless of your sins or character. Everyone would want it!
In fact, didn't there used to be a similar thing available back around the time of the reformation? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In fact, didn't there used to be a similar thing available back around the time of the reformation?
The thread on that is located just below!
Maybe we could come up with a plan to legitimize the idea in the minds of the paying public. I expect that this is the point of that thread, anyway.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that we regulate our behavior all the time based on our understanding of the consequences.
Of course we do. And our understanding, being time-based creatures, is not complete. So our choices in regulating our behavior are almost always wrong to some extent. How many medical journals have come out this year alone talking about the good effects of x and the bad effects of y, compared to last year's journals proclaiming the good effects of y and the bad effects of x?!?
Sometimes we may say, "I don't really care if I get fat, I'll eat chocolate." More often, I think, we say, "I'm not going to get fat from this one piece of chocolate." Because honestly, we're not really sure if we are.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Who said anything about the future?
<snip>
So as I go through each day attempting to achieve my goals, however spontaneous and poorly thought out, I reap the consequences of whatever I do or don't do. There is no escaping this. The consequences are not necessarily fair, consistent, or according to anyone's intention - but things happen, and they are not completely unrelated to what I do or don't do.
Well first, anyone who has said anything about the word "consequence" necessarily implies the future, in that what I do NOW will affect what happens LATER. That's all I meant about "future consequences."
And yes, on earth we sadly must do our best to learn from past choices and try to predict what will happen later based on what has already happened. But it is quite the imprecise science, is it not? Perhaps try this, perhaps a little more of this, perhaps a little less of that...
I don't really count on that many of us "getting it right" or even on the right track, really. That may be a fundamental difference between myself and others. But for those who think it's possible to get on this right track, what separates those who do from those who don't? Choices, mainly? Based on the imprecise science I mentioned above?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I don't really count on that many of us "getting it right" or even on the right track, really. That may be a fundamental difference between myself and others. But for those who think it's possible to get on this right track, what separates those who do from those who don't? Choices, mainly? Based on the imprecise science I mentioned above?
Yes, I admit that it is imprecise. And I agree that few really get it right.
I guess my take is that it doesn't need to be perfect to be OK.
We have, for example, a nice little discussion board here, the Ship, that works pretty well. It's not perfect, but it didn't just happen. It is the result of lots of choices made by numerous people. All of us who socialize here make choices as to what we say and when. Our comments have consequences. We can be warned, ridiculed, or even tossed. We can get bored and not participate.
My point is that most things in life are to some extent like this. Generally we get out of it what we put into it. At times some things in life can be so perfect that it is really thrilling.
Why shouldn't this kind of normal, natural existence go on forever?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Most societies across time and space are based on similar guiding moral principles: don't take your neighbor's wife, don't lie, don't steal...
It is very rare, though it does happen, that some societies promote cannabalism, lying, and thievery...papua new guinea comes to mind...but those societies tend disentigrate and end up destroying itself. cue long vitrolic speech about the eventual disentigration of our country and any others if lying/distrust becomes foundational in you s a.
C'mon, how can anyone argue that this talk about actions/consequences is like rocket science. For crying out loud. Its not.
Secondly, if I had a second point. I'm not a strict consequentialist. I think that even if you could steal or murder with impunity, without being sent to jail or hell - those actions would still be wrong and bad. there's some intrinsically problematic about a wrong action, regardless of the consequences.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
It is very rare, though it does happen, that some societies promote cannibalism, lying, and thievery...papua new guinea comes to mind...
Just popping up to defend Papua New Guinea, which didn't really promote lying or thievery any more than any other similarily developed society. Also cannibalism was bound up with ritual and often respect - by eating parts of a dead but respected enemy you could gain his powers; the Fore tribe of PNG ate deceased loved ones as an act of respect.
Sure, it wasn't all roses and violins, but to think of PNG as a decedant society that stepped away from a worldwide mainstream moral consensus is to mistake the case.
If it is so obvious what is right and wrong, and if it ain't rocket science, then why were the moral teachings of Jesus so contraversial?
"You have heard that ... but I say to you ..."
I would argue that the Old and New testaments show a gradual growing in understanding of the meaning of right and wrong, from the early 'devotions' of innocent children to God, through the mythic denunciation of child sacrifice in the story of Abraham and Isaac, from the ritual purity of the old testament to the deeper, inward purity demanded by Jesus.
Sure, when the light came into the world we hated it. But like it or not we can see more than those who struggled in the dark; and like it or not we are judged and condemned by what we can see.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
It is very rare, though it does happen, that some societies promote cannibalism, lying, and thievery...papua new guinea comes to mind...
Just popping up to defend Papua New Guinea, which didn't really promote lying or thievery any more than any other similarily developed society. Also cannibalism was bound up with ritual and often respect - by eating parts of a dead but respected enemy you could gain his powers; the Fore tribe of PNG ate deceased loved ones as an act of respect.
Sure, it wasn't all roses and violins, but to think of PNG as a decedant society that stepped away from a worldwide mainstream moral consensus is to mistake the case.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Serves me right for not being specific. I was stupid for saying papua new guinea when I meant to say a certain tribe in papau new guinea.
I do recall reading about a tribe in papua new guinea whose main tenant that deceiving each other was a staple virtue. Unfortunately, they nearly made themselves extinct because of certain horrible practices, especially the deceiving. I will go look that up. I hope my information wasn't faulty. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Yes, not all tribes in papau new guinea were like that , my bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
If it is so obvious what is right and wrong, and if it ain't rocket science, then why were the moral teachings of Jesus so contraversial?
"You have heard that ... but I say to you ..."
Controversial because it goes against our selfish nature and selfish, self-centered ways.
It makes sense to treat people decently. Call me dense, but I don't think that is rocket science either.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
No worries - I wasn't trying to pick on you.
I quite like a book called "A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by a guy called Harry Emerson Fosdick (although I don't agree with it all, of course ). It's online here.
The reason I mention it is because it takes the bible thematically and traces each theme through, trying to show how the ideas progressively got deeper and truer, culminating in the teachings of Jesus. Chapter 3 deals with the Idea of Right and Wrong and sets out a better case for an expanding and deepening sense of morality than I ever could.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I quite like a book called "A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by a guy called Harry Emerson Fosdick (although I don't agree with it all, of course ). It's online here.
Demas, those links don't work for me. Try this one.
I love the idea of the development of ideas throughout the Bible.
I agree with Joyfulsoul that morality is really pretty simple, and that most people worldwide have a good idea of most of it. It is true that Jesus contradicted common perceptions in His teachings when He said "but I say to you." Still, I don't think that the things He said (love your enemies, seek first the kingdom of God, don't lust) were completely counter-intuitive. He was explaining and deepening people's idea of God and goodness in order to encourage them to love Him and do His will.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Hmm, seems to be back online, for me at least
If it still doesn't work for you, try this link from archive.org.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Hmm, seems to be back online, for me at least
If it still doesn't work for you, try this link from archive.org.
Yes, they all work now. Thanks. Very interesting.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
The people I know, including myself, seem to eat quite a bit of chocolate as it is, even though we're told it makes us fat.
I go back to this because I think it goes to the crux of the matter.
The thing is that chocolate isn't all that harmful, and it is quite attractive. There are many similar things. It really depends on how convinced we are of the harm it causes.
A good example would be tobacco. It is enjoyable and addictive all over the world. In the United States, however, its usage has fallen off. The reason seems to be that people undestand more clearly than ever how harmful it is. Everyone always knew it was harmful, but exhaustive studies, reports, charges, court cases, and publicity, have fixed in the public mind that it is harmful enough for most people to want to avoid it.
Why wouldn't the same be true of sin? Sure, everyone knows that it is "bad" and that therefore it must be harmful. But until people really understand why and how it is harmful, and how harmful it is, it is hard to reduce its prevalence.
Hell is not a punishment for bad behavior. It is the misery caused by sin. If we don't understand it and how it works, including why a merciful God would permit its existence, then, as with tobacco smoke, it is hard to take the danger seriously. Information is key.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
