Thread: Are the OT "bad guys" saved? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027439
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Cain, King Saul, and Job's friends, are known as the "bad characters of the Bible." Has the Church or anyone considered them beyond the reach of saving grace?
I know that orthodoxy believes that the OT Patriarchs were redeemed retroactively by the Christ Event. Does the Christ Event also apply to the "bad guys" of the Hebrew Bible as well?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Given that Christian doctrines of salvation have never depended on whether one is 'good' or 'bad', then if there is any offer of salvation open to OT people it must be open to both 'good' OT people and 'bad' OT people.
Whether any particular 'good' or 'bad' person in the OT is in fact saved is a matter between them and God as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I know that orthodoxy believes that the OT Patriarchs were redeemed retroactively by the Christ Event.
How on earth is someone "saved retro-actively"?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I was always taught the expression "saved by anticipation"...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I know that orthodoxy believes that the OT Patriarchs were redeemed retroactively by the Christ Event.
How on earth is someone "saved retro-actively"?
I would suggest that it is a matter of perspective. The redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection are not restricted by the time in which they took place.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Does the Christ Event also apply to the "bad guys" of the Hebrew Bible as well?
Definitely (subject to standard premises about Christ Event), how it applies is another matter.
Practically I'd be surprised if it wasn't related to how it applies afterwards I.E if vanilla Universalism is true now it's true then, if some kind of super-exclusivism is true, then things look quite bad for many of them*. Otherwise it would either feel unfair or a limitation of God's power, however as both those things apply to the Christ Event as it applies in Common Era, a lot of things are going to be surprising.
*say all the ones who belonged to Israel, not to the one true kingdom of Judea.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Well, if your theology is that way inclined...
The efficacy of salvation by faith depends not upon the faith itself but upon God's grace. So if you're a PSA-ist or satisfactionist etc etc, you can argue that God knew in advance that Jesus would perform the necessary legal arrangements. Knowing this, God anticipated Jesus' death by declaring that whatever faith the patriarchs had in God was sufficient, or whatever faith the patriarchs had in God's promises of a messiah or redeemer was sufficient, or (dispensationalism) that the patriarchs' adherence to the law to the best of their ability was sufficient.
An Abelardian subjectivist could argue that God's promises of a messiah were sufficient to have the effects.
The traditional Christian belief is the harrowing of Hell: that Jesus after the crucifixion but before the resurrection, descended to the dead, preached to the souls in Hell, broke down the gates of Hell, and led all the righteous dead out.
A more deificationist or participationist theology would argue that the grace made available by Jesus' death is not limited in time and so the effects could be transferred backwards. (This is the hardest position to reconcile with any restriction of salvation to Christians in the present.) Roman Catholics have to hold this in order to explain how Mary could have been free from sin before Jesus' birth.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
The same as they are today.
If salvation depends on knowing about Jesus, then Abraham is in hell.
Jesus actions enabled salvation. This was what enabled Abraham to be saved, and enabled all of the OT people to be saved.
I believe that people like Jobs friends learnt through their experience, and were saved.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Jesus isn't Tinkerbell, he doesn't depend on our belief. Christ's resurrection broke the power of death and hell, not for some but for all.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Christ descended into Hades and preached to the spirits there. Of course, it doesn't tells us precisely to whom he preached, to the righteous only or to the righteous and unrighteous. Maybe it was to both and it's certainly possible that should any of the unrighteous heard and believed that Christ opened the way for them also.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks Dafydd and Schroedinger for the explanations.
I admit to still being completely baffled. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not even sure where to start unpicking it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Well, if your theology is that way inclined...
The efficacy of salvation by faith depends not upon the faith itself but upon God's grace. So if you're a PSA-ist or satisfactionist etc etc, you can argue that God knew in advance that Jesus would perform the necessary legal arrangements. Knowing this, God anticipated Jesus' death by declaring that whatever faith the patriarchs had in God was sufficient, or whatever faith the patriarchs had in God's promises of a messiah or redeemer was sufficient, or (dispensationalism) that the patriarchs' adherence to the law to the best of their ability was sufficient.
An Abelardian subjectivist could argue that God's promises of a messiah were sufficient to have the effects.
The traditional Christian belief is the harrowing of Hell: that Jesus after the crucifixion but before the resurrection, descended to the dead, preached to the souls in Hell, broke down the gates of Hell, and led all the righteous dead out.
A more deificationist or participationist theology would argue that the grace made available by Jesus' death is not limited in time and so the effects could be transferred backwards. (This is the hardest position to reconcile with any restriction of salvation to Christians in the present.) Roman Catholics have to hold this in order to explain how Mary could have been free from sin before Jesus' birth.
The whole idea seems to make completely irrelevant Jesus' earthly ministry and the New Testament idea that it is faith in Christ that provides salvation.
It also seems to deny that he brought anything new with him in any chronological sense (which is totally contrary to experience and what the New Testament says).
It essentially seems to imply universal salvation regardless of whether you knew Jesus or not.
Totally weird.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
The same as they are today
Why on earth do we bother telling people about the gospel and learning about the gospel then?
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If salvation depends on knowing about Jesus, then Abraham is in hell.
There was no such thing as Hell in Abraham's day. You died and that was it.
And salvation does depend on knowing Jesus (at least Christian salvation). That's precisely what the New Testament teaches.
This idea seems to me to be totally unscriptural.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Jesus isn't Tinkerbell, he doesn't depend on our belief. Christ's resurrection broke the power of death and hell, not for some but for all.
So I don't need to bother being a Christian then? I don't need to bother to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life?
Everybody is free from the power of sin and death and Hell right now?
The mind boggles
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Evensong
You need to look up the "harrowing of Hell" which is extra-Biblical but there is also indications in gospels when the dead rise at the point of Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51-53). I look at it as story a reality that is difficult for us to take in. There is perhaps more evidence for Moses and Elijah being in heaven (see the Transfiguration account).
It would easily be possible using the OT sacrificial understanding to argued that Jesus' death could only be retrospectively active. Nowhere does it suggest in the OT that atonement act preemptively. You do not make your sacrifice to God and then go and blow the relationship. We do not today think a "Let's be friends" before an argument is good enough to mean that the argument has no effect on the relationship.
The problem is really down to assuming God experience time the way we do. As somebody who has a mild grasp of relativity I am afraid such ideas just do not work within the wider Universe and are only true within the small space-time zone that we inhabit. If we could alter our speed substantially we would experience time differently. In other words Time travel is possible but only in one direction at present. So I think it is only sensible to stop projecting onto God our view of time.
There has however been for a long time in Christianity a totally different understanding of how God relates to time. This is that God's act of creation is not to light the fuse of the big bang and watch it play out, but his role is to create the whole of time. This moment is as much part of God's creative activity as what we see as the start of the Universe. If this is the case then I would suggest you might view God's experience of time as something akin to a bright bead on the string where the string is time. There is not difference between God's experience of the future than the past. However, God's experience of the present is different, more conditional, more negotiated.
Now if this is the case, how God's act of salvation works is conceptually different. It is not a mental frame we can easily inhabit. What I do know is the Church through all ages has held that the OT Saints were not outside heaven. How would God be just if he made Salvation dependent on being born after a specific date? Is not that a bigger blasphemy against God's justice than Predestinarianism?
Jengie
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Christ descended into Hades and preached to the spirits there. Of course, it doesn't tells us precisely to whom he preached, to the righteous only or to the righteous and unrighteous. Maybe it was to both and it's certainly possible that should any of the unrighteous heard and believed that Christ opened the way for them also.
The harrowing of hell seems to me to be a different kettle of fish from the idea of retrojectively imputing righteousness.
You're mixing your chronological with your synchronic.
I think I heard Mudfro say Noah was only righteous because Christ's work made him so.
Well that's just ridiculous. Why wasn't everyone else righteous too then? What made Noah different?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Eh? What do you mean mixing my chronology? Christ descended into Hades, preached to the spirits there, had Satan bound and opened the way to heaven, the first to be led out being Adam and Eve as depicted in our iconography.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong There was no such thing as Hell in Abraham's day. You died and that was it.
Actually, that's still the situation today....
But, buying into the mythos for a moment, where does that leave Enoch and Elijah?
Is it your position that the Sadducees were right up to the Incarnation, whereupon at some point humanity acquires immortal souls (don't you just hate it when you miss the cutoff point?) that we may the more conveniently be saved or damned?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's really no different to dealing with the question of people who had no opportunity to hear about Jesus even after his earthly ministry. Unless you're a Mormon, there are many centuries of people in the America who had no contact with civilisations that had heard of Jesus. Same goes for Australia and the Pacific. To a lesser extent that also applies to much of Africa and eastern Asia.
Many people aren't comfortable with the notion that the limitations of Jesus' earthly ministry in time and space mean that salvation, too, is limited in time and space. Frankly because it makes God look a bit arbitrary and capricious.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Now if this is the case, how God's act of salvation works is conceptually different. It is not a mental frame we can easily inhabit. What I do know is the Church through all ages has held that the OT Saints were not outside heaven. How would God be just if he made Salvation dependent on being born after a specific date? Is not that a bigger blasphemy against God's justice than Predestinarianism?
I don't have a problem with the idea that Jesus has somehow reached those who have already died (or fallen asleep as Paul usually calls it) and that they will be included in the general resurrection in the age to come.
1 Thessalonians talks about something like that.
What I don't understand is how on earth is one supposed to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the pharisees if you've never known Jesus.
matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How would God be just if he made Salvation dependent on being born after a specific date? Is not that a bigger blasphemy against God's justice than Predestinarianism?
If "salvation" is only about life after death, then why wouldn't God just give EVERYONE life eternal?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's really no different to dealing with the question of people who had no opportunity to hear about Jesus even after his earthly ministry. Unless you're a Mormon, there are many centuries of people in the America who had no contact with civilisations that had heard of Jesus. Same goes for Australia and the Pacific. To a lesser extent that also applies to much of Africa and eastern Asia.
Many people aren't comfortable with the notion that the limitations of Jesus' earthly ministry in time and space mean that salvation, too, is limited in time and space. Frankly because it makes God look a bit arbitrary and capricious.
But this starts to open out, doesn't it? What about people who have heard about Jesus, but are not interested? That describes most of my family, most of whom are dead now. I find it hard to believe that they are in hell, but I suppose for many Christians there has to be such a demarcation, or Christianity becomes pointless. Reward and punishment, I guess.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Well the answer given by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews is "Through Faith" (Hebrews 11). You are thinking of "faith" too much as holding specific tenets and not as based on response to God.
Jengie
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Arethosemyfeet ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It's got NOWT ter do wi' us.
We are so insanely grandiosely egotistical about OUR salvation.
If we aren't saved NOW, if our lives aren't redeemed NOW and measured in charity NOW, then we aren't saved in any meaningful sense.
And we aren't much are we? Living as if we were immortal. Spending ourselves without limit for others. How much have I spent of myself today so far? Yesterday?
Anyone?
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
I think salvation depends upon how we respond to the grace which God freely gives us. If we respond as well as we are able to within the limits of our knowledge and ability then we enter into the fruits of the redemption won for us by Jesus. Since God is not bound by time or space He can offer those fruits simultaneously to all points and places of human history.
The benefit of having an explicit knowledge of the Christian faith is that it enables us, through a personal relationship with Jesus, to enter into the life of eternity here while we are in the life of time as a prelude and anticipation of entering it more fully, uninterruptedly and forever after the end of our mortal journey.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I think my head has just exploded.
But I think the problem here is what everyone means by the term salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Well the answer given by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews is "Through Faith" (Hebrews 11). You are thinking of "faith" too much as holding specific tenets and not as based on response to God.
Jengie
Faith in any kind of God is okay then? And outorkings of this faith mean nothing? Faith without works is dead.
Again. Very unscriptural.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that Christian doctrines of salvation have never depended on whether one is 'good' or 'bad',
Too many assumptions also happening on this thread.
The parable of sheep and goats in Matthew says judgement certainly does depend on actions.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You're getting there.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? What do you mean mixing my chronology? Christ descended into Hades, preached to the spirits there, had Satan bound and opened the way to heaven, the first to be led out being Adam and Eve as depicted in our iconography.
Sorry. I'm getting confused. As I said above I'm not fussed with the harrowing of hell because a response is required.
The only trouble with the idea is why righteous people in OT, say Abraham and Noah are in Hell in the first place.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Of course they're not. Nobody is. It's just a story we make up. Just like Jesus did. Let alone Peter.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? What do you mean mixing my chronology? Christ descended into Hades, preached to the spirits there, had Satan bound and opened the way to heaven, the first to be led out being Adam and Eve as depicted in our iconography.
Sorry. I'm getting confused. As I said above I'm not fussed with the harrowing of hell because a response is required.
The only trouble with the idea is why righteous people in OT, say Abraham and Noah are in Hell in the first place.
First point, fairy nuff. Second point, the term hell, hades or whatever you want to call it, used in reference with the Harrowing of Hell is not the place of eternal punishment described in the Apocalypse but rather the grave, the realm of the dead. Before the resurrection this is where all souls stayed, both the righteous and unrighteous.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And Peter 'knew' that how?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Peter 'knew' that how?
Because Jesus told him or it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You I like Ad Orientem. Lucky you!! And yes, those are the obvious answers and I'd have accepted both, especially the latter.
Not that the traditional interpretation makes sense any way: the One who incarnated popped down to the demons in jail at the time of Noah. That minimally makes sense. Odd as it is.
But now neither. Unless Jesus remembered doing that like He remembered banging them up in the first place and shared that with Peter for some odd reason. Which I very much doubt.
Peter made it up in good faith. Just like Jesus did generally.
[ 05. July 2014, 10:47: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong There was no such thing as Hell in Abraham's day. You died and that was it.
Actually, that's still the situation today....
But, buying into the mythos for a moment, where does that leave Enoch and Elijah?
Is it your position that the Sadducees were right up to the Incarnation, whereupon at some point humanity acquires immortal souls (don't you just hate it when you miss the cutoff point?) that we may the more conveniently be saved or damned?
Very good questions. Ones that I have asked myself and tried to nut out on other threads to no seeming avail. No one wants to play.
When and how does the OT notion of Sheol turn into the NT idea of eternal punishment of the wicked in Hell?
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Second point, the term hell, hades or whatever you want to call it, used in reference with the Harrowing of Hell is not the place of eternal punishment described in the Apocalypse but rather the grave, the realm of the dead. Before the resurrection this is where all souls stayed, both the righteous and unrighteous.
Sounds more like Sheol. See my questions above. Do you want to play?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You I like Ad Orientem. Lucky you!! And yes, those are the obvious answers and I'd have accepted both, especially the latter.
Not that the traditional interpretation makes sense any way: the One who incarnated popped down to the demons in jail at the time of Noah. That minimally makes sense. Odd as it is.
But now neither. Unless Jesus remembered doing that like He remembered banging them up in the first place and shared that with Peter for some odd reason. Which I very much doubt.
Peter made it up in good faith. Just like Jesus did generally.
Whatever. Suffice it to say I don't share your your understanding. I don't believe Christ or Peter "made it up".
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Enoch was killed by Methuselah. Elijah moved counties in Kansas.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong There was no such thing as Hell in Abraham's day. You died and that was it.
Actually, that's still the situation today....
But, buying into the mythos for a moment, where does that leave Enoch and Elijah?
Is it your position that the Sadducees were right up to the Incarnation, whereupon at some point humanity acquires immortal souls (don't you just hate it when you miss the cutoff point?) that we may the more conveniently be saved or damned?
Very good questions. Ones that I have asked myself and tried to nut out on other threads to no seeming avail. No one wants to play.
When and how does the OT notion of Sheol turn into the NT idea of eternal punishment of the wicked in Hell?
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Second point, the term hell, hades or whatever you want to call it, used in reference with the Harrowing of Hell is not the place of eternal punishment described in the Apocalypse but rather the grave, the realm of the dead. Before the resurrection this is where all souls stayed, both the righteous and unrighteous.
Sounds more like Sheol. See my questions above. Do you want to play?
I don't think Sheol (Greek Hades or English Hell or Grave) "turned" into a place of eternal punishment. They are two different things.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What's wrong with making it up? The arc of progressive revelation is toward less making it up, that's just evolution for you.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What's wrong with making it up? The arc of progressive revelation is toward less making it up, that's just evolution for you.
Because I don't see revelation being compatible with making it up.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So how much of the OT is revelation and how much is made up? Us making it up IS revelation. It's a four thousand year dialectic we're having with ourselves in the Light.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
]I don't think Sheol (Greek Hades or English Hell or Grave) "turned" into a place of eternal punishment. They are two different things.
I think so too.
But why then, do we have both?
Was eternal punishment in Hell only an option with the advent of Christ?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think Sheol (Greek Hades or English Hell or Grave) "turned" into a place of eternal punishment. They are two different things.
Okay.
Why are they two different things?
Is the realm of the dead different in different times?
Because the place (or "state" if you prefer) of eternal punishment is something which happens after the general resurrection as described in the Apocalypse.
Sheol didn't change, except that since the Harrowing of Hell the righteous are no longer bound there, for Christ by his death and resurrection has openned up the way to heaven for them and they now live and reign with him a thousand years.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It gelled in His words from the culture which had been going that way for centuries.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So that reign ended a thousand years ago?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So how much of the OT is revelation and how much is made up? Us making it up IS revelation. It's a four thousand year dialectic we're having with ourselves in the Light.
We shall just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So that reign ended a thousand years ago?
The "thousand years" denotes the period of time between Christ's first and second advent.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think Sheol (Greek Hades or English Hell or Grave) "turned" into a place of eternal punishment. They are two different things.
Okay.
Why are they two different things?
Is the realm of the dead different in different times?
Because the place (or "state" if you prefer) of eternal punishment is something which happens after the general resurrection as described in the Apocalypse.
Sheol didn't change, except that since the Harrowing of Hell the righteous are no longer bound there, for Christ by his death and resurrection has openned up the way to heaven for them and they now live and reign with him a thousand years.
Sorry. I edited my post but you responded before that.
So I agree that the advent of Christ opened heaven for them, but did it not also open Hell as eternal punishment for them?
Why is this?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I suppose in a way it did. As to why, that's a more difficult question to answer which probably deserves more thought first, though sticking my neck out here maybe this is the mystery the Apostle writes of in his epistle to the Romans, that God having foreknowledge of such things, that was the lot ordained for the unrighteous from eternity. I don't know.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Two thoughts feed into this, based on 'revelation' as given in the Bible. The first was God's word for David given to the prophet Nathan (thereby giving it the authenticity of revelation) : 'I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.' (2 Sam. 7:15)
The second are the words of Jesus to the Sadducees (Mark 12:26): 'He is God not of the dead, but God of the living; you are quite wrong.'
If God's Kingdom is founded on God's love, surely anyone who has lost that love cannot live within it?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
All VERY vague isn't it? Very human. Iron Age speculation. And the strangely definite interpretation of it.
Has anyone found it Raptor Eye?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All VERY vague isn't it? Very human. Iron Age speculation. And the strangely definite interpretation of it.
Has anyone found it Raptor Eye?
The more we discover, the less we know Martin. God will always be greater than our understanding. It's for us to enjoy our time in the thick cloud, knowing that God is with us and straining to catch glimpses of him.
Will those who are determined to steer clear or to go in the opposite direction eventually arrive at the same wonderful place as those who strain? I hope so. In fact, they're the ones who are missing out, they will eventually be eating the pigs' pods. I for one will be more than happy to celebrate with all who come to the feast.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's really no different to dealing with the question of people who had no opportunity to hear about Jesus even after his earthly ministry. Unless you're a Mormon, there are many centuries of people in the America who had no contact with civilisations that had heard of Jesus. Same goes for Australia and the Pacific. To a lesser extent that also applies to much of Africa and eastern Asia.
Modern day people with very severe mental retardation are in the same position. I do not believe that the God of justice and mercy would deny them salvation because of their disability.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon
You are thinking of "faith" too much as holding specific tenets and not as based on response to God.
This is an important point. If I say, "I have faith in you.", I am not saying I think you exist. I am saying that I trust you to behave in a certain way.
Moo
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks Dafydd and Schroedinger for the explanations.
I admit to still being completely baffled. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not even sure where to start unpicking it.
...There was no such thing as Hell in Abraham's day. You died and that was it.
And salvation does depend on knowing Jesus (at least Christian salvation). That's precisely what the New Testament teaches.
This idea seems to me to be totally unscriptural.
It sounds like it does make sense to you, you simply disagree with it.
I would not say that the NT "precisely" teaches that salvation comes from "knowing" Jesus. It teaches precisely that salvation comes through Jesus-- that no one is saved apart from his redemptive work. That's not the same thing as saying it comes thru "knowing" him or that redemptive work.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Jesus isn't Tinkerbell, he doesn't depend on our belief. Christ's resurrection broke the power of death and hell, not for some but for all.
So I don't need to bother being a Christian then? I don't need to bother to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life?
Everybody is free from the power of sin and death and Hell right now?
The mind boggles
Well, "mind-boggling" is pretty much the way the Bible describes God's salvation throughout, so that makes sense.
The reason we follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life is because we have faith-- iow, we believe it is the best possible life for us. Because we are "rehearsing in the present the life we live for all eternity." Not because we are under the thumb of some tyrant threatening us with eternal punishment.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Salvation is immediate in following the way of Jesus (the answer's in His name), whether one has ever heard of Him or not.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I think salvation depends upon how we respond to the grace which God freely gives us. If we respond as well as we are able to within the limits of our knowledge and ability then we enter into the fruits of the redemption won for us by Jesus. Since God is not bound by time or space He can offer those fruits simultaneously to all points and places of human history.
The benefit of having an explicit knowledge of the Christian faith is that it enables us, through a personal relationship with Jesus, to enter into the life of eternity here while we are in the life of time as a prelude and anticipation of entering it more fully, uninterruptedly and forever after the end of our mortal journey.
I missed this. This is good.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I suppose in a way it did. As to why, that's a more difficult question to answer which probably deserves more thought first, though sticking my neck out here maybe this is the mystery the Apostle writes of in his epistle to the Romans, that God having foreknowledge of such things, that was the lot ordained for the unrighteous from eternity. I don't know.
Hallelujah! Somebody played! Thank you for your honest response Ad Orientum. If you have any further thoughts, feel free to share them with me in a PM or here. I'm genuinely curious.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't understand. What are the redemptive qualities of Christ's death and resurrection if you never knew anything about him?
Jesus isn't Tinkerbell, he doesn't depend on our belief. Christ's resurrection broke the power of death and hell, not for some but for all.
So I don't need to bother being a Christian then? I don't need to bother to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life?
Everybody is free from the power of sin and death and Hell right now?
The mind boggles
Well, "mind-boggling" is pretty much the way the Bible describes God's salvation throughout, so that makes sense.
The reason we follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life is because we have faith-- iow, we believe it is the best possible life for us. Because we are "rehearsing in the present the life we live for all eternity." Not because we are under the thumb of some tyrant threatening us with eternal punishment.
Ah, you have faith that it is the best possible life that leads you to the eternal now.
And where would you learn that from if you never encountered Jesus?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
This thread seem to miss the point. Christianity isn't about "who goes to heaven and who goes to hell." It's about revealing God to us, the fact that God loves us, and wants us to see reality from his viewpoint. Stop being so hung up on material things, consider the lilies, don't fret when you are the victim of another flawed human, love your enemies, do good, rejoice, eternal life is now, the kingdom is at hand, just reach out!
"I and the father are one," Jesus did what he sees the father doing, and that includes the crucifixion and resurrection - forgiving those who scorn abuse neglect and haven't yet repented because they don't think they are doing wrong. Forgiven anyway, Jesus on the cross showing us what God does all the time since he does only what he sees the Father do.
It's not about heaven hell as remote from us places/experiences, it's about seeing with new eyes, a change of how to relate to each other and to creation and to God. Spread the word you are loved and valued and so is your neighbor and your no good son and you don't have to worry! Help others rejoice! Yes there are short term problems - Jesus on the cross - but long term it works out amazingly - Jesus resurrected.
Those who continue to cheat, steal, backbite, send out inflated bills, do shoddy work when no one is looking, spread false gossip just because it's "a good story," they don't "get it," even if they go to church regularly. Those who reach out to others with forgiveness and love instead of trying to amass possessions or status or other "this too will end" addictions "get it" even if they have not heard the specific name "Jesus" they have caught on to life the way he wants us to see it and they reflect him in their lives.
Abraham mostly caught on even though he was a flawed human (telling his wife to lie, to save his own skin).
Christianity is not about rituals, its about the nature of reality, which rituals can help us see, but there are other ways to catch on.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Stealing from Lewis here--
Everyone who is saved / has eternal life/ comes to the Father / however you want to phrase it, everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ. Christ is the only way, as he himself says. However, he does NOT say that everyone who is saved through Christ, explicitly knows his name and the basic facts of his life, death, and resurrection.
The OT believers are certainly saved through Christ, regardless of their position in space-time with regard to the Incarnation. They are saved because they are in Christ just as we are, however vague, hidden or confusing the details of that may be to them.
The OT baddies are also saved (or not) on the same basis. So also for infants, the profoundly disabled, and IMHO those who have never had a chance to hear.
They are not going to be standing there on Judgement Day looking all confused and squinting at the One on the throne, saying "Whozat? Never met him before. Look familiar to you, Ernie?" They will know him, just as we will--because God has reached them in Christ, though the exact means might seem unfamiliar to us (circumcision anyone? sacrifices? those sure seem a bit odd to me). No one will be able to truly say that God is unjust or unmerciful.
Not that any of this lets us off the duty of evangelism and Christian teaching.
[ 06. July 2014, 19:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Stealing from Lewis here--
Everyone who is saved / has eternal life/ comes to the Father / however you want to phrase it, everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ. Christ is the only way, as he himself says. However, he does NOT say that everyone who is saved through Christ, explicitly knows his name and the basic facts of his life, death, and resurrection.
So assuming there are sentient beings spread across the universe, the majority of whom will never hear of Jesus, they will all get judged? And some will go to the bit of heaven reserved for green slimy things with tentacles (or is Heaven/Hell only for homo sapiens?) while others will get the Hell appropriate to them - and none of them will have the slightest idea why.
Funny old world.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
One New Testament event that does seem relevant to all this is the Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah appear (though how anyone could recognize them is a good question; maybe Jesus introduced them to the others?). Presumably, when Moses and Elijah died, that was not an absolute end for them.
Likewise, the witch of Endor was able to summon the spirit of Samuel. Assuming this was not a hoax, he likewise must in some sense have continued to exist after his death.
To me it seems likely that characters of the Old Testament are "saved" or not based on the same criteria as anyone else: acceptance of the love and will of God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Stealing from Lewis here--
Everyone who is saved / has eternal life/ comes to the Father / however you want to phrase it, everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ. Christ is the only way, as he himself says. However, he does NOT say that everyone who is saved through Christ, explicitly knows his name and the basic facts of his life, death, and resurrection.
So assuming there are sentient beings spread across the universe, the majority of whom will never hear of Jesus, they will all get judged? And some will go to the bit of heaven reserved for green slimy things with tentacles (or is Heaven/Hell only for homo sapiens?) while others will get the Hell appropriate to them - and none of them will have the slightest idea why.
Funny old world.
First of all, how do we know they have sinned and require any judgement? We don't. We may be the only idiots out there, and everybody else is already happily getting on with life, the universe, and everything. Under the one triune God of course, who is also their God, and who will doubtless have his own ways of dealing with them in their situations.
As for never having heard of Jesus--
Sure they aren't likely to know his name on earth, or his story here. But the one God is their God too, if Christianity is true at all. Would you bet that Christ doesn't have his own personal dealings with them we know nothing of? Seems very likely to me. Not that it'd be our business to poke into unless they chose to tell us about it.
I rather hope they do. I would love to spend part of eternity hearing what Christ has been up to in other parts of the universe.
[ 06. July 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sure they aren't likely to know his name on earth, or his story here. But the one God is their God too, if Christianity is true at all. Would you bet that Christ doesn't have his own personal dealings with them we know nothing of? Seems very likely to me. Not that it'd be our business to poke into unless they chose to tell us about it.
In that case might not the same apply here? If God deals differently with other planets might he not do so also with civilisations on this planet. A dispensation for ancient India (Vedic/Jain/Buddhist), China (Taoist/Confucian) and so on.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
If we're not unique, then neither is Jesus. Otherwise we're unique even if were not ...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sure they aren't likely to know his name on earth, or his story here. But the one God is their God too, if Christianity is true at all. Would you bet that Christ doesn't have his own personal dealings with them we know nothing of? Seems very likely to me. Not that it'd be our business to poke into unless they chose to tell us about it.
In that case might not the same apply here? If God deals differently with other planets might he not do so also with civilisations on this planet. A dispensation for ancient India (Vedic/Jain/Buddhist), China (Taoist/Confucian) and so on.
It's an interesting idea. I suppose possibly it makes Christianity in its traditional form, collapse, since you are removing the boundaries between in-groups and out-groups. But maybe God wants to remove those boundaries? God is probably a postmodernist, after all, hence a shape-shifter.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Cain, King Saul, and Job's friends, are known as the "bad characters of the Bible." Has the Church or anyone considered them beyond the reach of saving grace?
Just wanted to put in a plug for Job's friends. They started off OK by giving Job a sustaining presence for seven days. For their misguided arguments we are told quote:
After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done.” So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the Lord had told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer
(IMHO Job is a play and the characters are not historical, so the question is only of theoretical interest for them. PS. Elihu does not get mentioned in this conclusion)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
If God deals differently with other planets might he not do so also with civilisations on this planet. A dispensation for ancient India (Vedic/Jain/Buddhist), China (Taoist/Confucian) and so on.
I think that would raise a question of demarcation. Is the Indian dispensation available to people in the Indus Valley or the Persian highlands? What about Europeans who move to India? (For that matter, why is the Jewish dispensation available to Europeans?) And do the dispensations between them achieve total coverage of all human populations throughout history?
For that matter, it requires further elaboration to say that the Vedic and Taoist traditions are self-contained dispensations from a God who isn't explicitly referred to in those terms from within those religions.
Not that I think you have to know about Jesus to be saved. Salvation is on the basis of God's grace, not human knowledge, let alone human assent to a creed or doctrinal basis. But I think it's important that all of humanity has a common hope in what we call the one God. And dispensations would imply otherwise.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Not that I think you have to know about Jesus to be saved. Salvation is on the basis of God's grace, not human knowledge, let alone human assent to a creed or doctrinal basis. But I think it's important that all of humanity has a common hope in what we call the one God. And dispensations would imply otherwise.
You find "a common hope" for all humanity important. I don't see why it's important we should all believe the same thing or live in the same way or, indeed, have the same hope. Indeed given the variety of humanity I see diversity as good. It encourages us to be always aware that there are other people (sometimes cleverer, living apparently better lives, dealing better with life's problems and so on) who don't share our beliefs and so, with a bit of luck, we may become more aware of our fallibility and our possibilities.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I always have to demur when people say, we need a common hope in God. Nobody in my family believed in God, even the grandparents, and they were decent people, who loved life, and each other.
Sometimes, when I am musing on it, I wonder if God has a dispensation for atheists like them. I don't see why not.
I should also mention my Buddhist friends, who find God a superfluous term; and as some of them say, kill the Buddha also.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
Perhaps all religions need a dispensation. Maybe God, having given us free-will, expected us to get on with creating a good world without having to keep looking back to Him for excuses like kids who blame their parents for the mess they make. Or the sort who never leave the parental home.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
Are you talking about The Buddha?
If not:-
It seems to me from reading the Gospels that judgment/condemnation is mostly reserved for the religious types/Christians who are unforgiving and do not love their neighbours. The "our father" prayer example(s) asks God to forgive us in just the same way that we forgive others. The crowds who do not become disciples seem to be let off lightly. Becoming a Christian is not something to be taken lightly. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are called.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Not that I think you have to know about Jesus to be saved. Salvation is on the basis of God's grace, not human knowledge, let alone human assent to a creed or doctrinal basis. But I think it's important that all of humanity has a common hope in what we call the one God. And dispensations would imply otherwise.
You find "a common hope" for all humanity important. I don't see why it's important we should all believe the same thing or live in the same way or, indeed, have the same hope. Indeed given the variety of humanity I see diversity as good. It encourages us to be always aware that there are other people (sometimes cleverer, living apparently better lives, dealing better with life's problems and so on) who don't share our beliefs and so, with a bit of luck, we may become more aware of our fallibility and our possibilities.
They can't make us more aware of our fallibility and possibilities if we don't have common possibilities. If their possibilities are nothing to do with our possibilities, then they can't tell us anything about our possibilities. If their successes are nothing to do with our successes, they can tell us nothing about our fallibility.
Do you really think that having a common hope rules out diversity? That among those of us with whom you do share a common hope, diversity is a bad thing? Surely diversity and common hope are compatible? Diversity might be one of the things we hope for?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
For those who call themselves active committed Christians but boast about cheating others, a generous dispensation is the only hope I see. Some of my atheist friends are more consistently loving to the down and out than some of my Christian friends. But those Christians proudly don't use swear words. Like God really cares about that!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
For those who call themselves active committed Christians but boast about cheating others, a generous dispensation is the only hope I see. Some of my atheist friends are more consistently loving to the down and out than some of my Christian friends. But those Christians proudly don't use swear words. Like God really cares about that!
Well, that's something I ponder a lot. I have friends of different faiths, and none. Does a loving God really care about the differences?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Do you really think that having a common hope rules out diversity? That among those of us with whom you do share a common hope, diversity is a bad thing? Surely diversity and common hope are compatible? Diversity might be one of the things we hope for?
Your original quote said: But I think it's important that all of humanity has a common hope in what we call the one God.
I interpreted that, perhaps wrongly, as implying a shared belief in one God. Buddhists, for example, won't share that unless you are prepared to equate a triune personal God with the workings out of the impersonal process of the Dharma. Hindus will want a different trinity, and so on.
Clearly our hopes intersect. We are all human and most of us want homes for the homeless, food for the hungry, protection for the widows and orphans and so on. What doesn't convince me is a common hope in what we call the one God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Venn diagram required, please!
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
(IMHO Job is a play and the characters are not historical, so the question is only of theoretical interest for them.
Damn right!
(In passing, how does Job as a play compare with other early examples of plays? When was anything comparable done? And where? I've always had this feeling that the drama of Job was fairly groundbreaking from a literary point of view. There certainly doesn't seem to have been anything else like it in Jewish writings of the time.)
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
PS. Elihu does not get mentioned in this conclusion)
Don't get me started on the various theories of why Elihu doesn't get a mention. We'll be here all night. I love the book of Job. (Can you tell??)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Venn diagram required, please!
There is no common hope for a Venn diagram. Perhaps that might be one thing we could all agree on.
Though this site makes a start.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
http://tinyurl.com/puc5h7z
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Your original quote said: But I think it's important that all of humanity has a common hope in what we call the one God.
I interpreted that, perhaps wrongly, as implying a shared belief in one God. Buddhists, for example, won't share that unless you are prepared to equate a triune personal God with the workings out of the impersonal process of the Dharma. Hindus will want a different trinity, and so on.
Clearly our hopes intersect. We are all human and most of us want homes for the homeless, food for the hungry, protection for the widows and orphans and so on. What doesn't convince me is a common hope in what we call the one God.
The argument, at the point where I said that, was talking about the Christian God putting forward different dispensations for different groups of people. So I thought it was presupposing God as something sufficiently like God as we Christians believe God to be that God can put forward dispensations for various groups. That I find problematic for lots of reasons. Nobody has addressed the question of demarcation boundaries that I put forward in my post. Or, what happens to the atheists under such a scheme?
I'm a Christian. I speak as a Christian. As a Christian I believe in God, and God is the common hope of humanity. Buddhists and Hindus interpret that differently. We all see in a mirror darkly; we're probably both a bit wrong. And both right in ways that we don't yet see. But I think I'd rather be a bit wrong about something that Buddhists are also a bit wrong about, so that we can have a common conversation; than be perfectly right in such a way that there's no conversation to be had with Buddhists about it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
For those who call themselves active committed Christians but boast about cheating others, a generous dispensation is the only hope I see. Some of my atheist friends are more consistently loving to the down and out than some of my Christian friends. But those Christians proudly don't use swear words. Like God really cares about that!
Well, that's something I ponder a lot. I have friends of different faiths, and none. Does a loving God really care about the differences?
Well, if God is indeed a loving God (as I believe s/he is) then s/he would certainly care. A loving God would certainly care whether one lives one's life wedded to a lie, or to truth. One would certainly care the consequences those lies might have on your happiness and way of life-- the difference, for example, in believing that it's a dog-eat-dog world and you have to screw them before they screw you, and living a life based on the belief that the first shall be last. Or the difference between living a life burdened by bitterness or unforgiveness or self-hatred vs. one lived in peace and grace. I gotta believe God cares about things like that.
But the fact that God cares about such things does not necessarily imply that he eternally punishes such things. I
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The story of Jonah is a pretty good illustration too, imv. Fear is used to help people to see that God is God. Jonah is sent to foreigners to try to help them to see the error of their ways. They do, but instead of celebrating Jonah is miffed as he always knew God was gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing, which is why he didn't want the miserable and dangerous task of giving them the message.
Somehow the story seems to speak into this thread....
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The argument, at the point where I said that, was talking about the Christian God putting forward different dispensations for different groups of people.
My apologies for mixing up contexts.
Nobody has addressed the question of demarcation boundaries that I put forward in my post.
I doubt that, whatever is ultimately in store for us, the particular route is as important as making the journey (however you interpret that). A friend of mine converted from Judaism to CoE, then to being a Quaker, from there to Anglo-Catholicism and now to RCC. If there is a God, I'm sure he can cope
Or, what happens to the atheists under such a scheme?
You get to say, "We told you so" for all eternity.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
For atheists, there might be a final post-mortem try-out with the flaky five arguments for God. After that, 'I told you so', on one side; and 'go and sleep with the fishes' on the other, so honour is satisfied, well, sort of.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
For those who call themselves active committed Christians but boast about cheating others, a generous dispensation is the only hope I see. Some of my atheist friends are more consistently loving to the down and out than some of my Christian friends. But those Christians proudly don't use swear words. Like God really cares about that!
Well, that's something I ponder a lot. I have friends of different faiths, and none. Does a loving God really care about the differences?
Well, if God is indeed a loving God (as I believe s/he is) then s/he would certainly care. A loving God would certainly care whether one lives one's life wedded to a lie, or to truth. One would certainly care the consequences those lies might have on your happiness and way of life-- the difference, for example, in believing that it's a dog-eat-dog world and you have to screw them before they screw you, and living a life based on the belief that the first shall be last. Or the difference between living a life burdened by bitterness or unforgiveness or self-hatred vs. one lived in peace and grace. I gotta believe God cares about things like that.
But the fact that God cares about such things does not necessarily imply that he eternally punishes such things. I
OK, but if my old Sufi friend lived a life full of peace and grace, how goes God rate that? Sort of B+?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For atheists, there might be a final post-mortem try-out with the flaky five arguments for God. After that, 'I told you so', on one side; and 'go and sleep with the fishes' on the other, so honour is satisfied, well, sort of.
Sleeping with the fishes
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For atheists, there might be a final post-mortem try-out with the flaky five arguments for God. After that, 'I told you so', on one side; and 'go and sleep with the fishes' on the other, so honour is satisfied, well, sort of.
Sleeping with the fishes
Beautiful. Mud unto mud! There are now six flaky (or scaly) arguments for God.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's something I ponder a lot. I have friends of different faiths, and none. Does a loving God really care about the differences?
A loving God would certainly care whether one lives one's life wedded to a lie, or to truth... the difference, for example, in believing that it's a dog-eat-dog world and you have to screw them before they screw you, and living a life based on the belief that the first shall be last. Or the difference between living a life burdened by bitterness or unforgiveness or self-hatred vs. one lived in peace and grace. I gotta believe God cares about things like that.
OK, but if my old Sufi friend lived a life full of peace and grace, how goes God rate that? Sort of B+?
If the Sufi friend rejects the dog-eat-dog looking out for number one world, that's a big step above some I know who have "accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior" but don't act like it.
I doubt any of us get it all right (B+ might be a high grade!), but either there are some major disagreements about what Jesus taught (the poor deserve to suffer because they are just lazy?) or we need some basic training about the difference between claiming someone is your savior and actually joining them on their path out of the burning building. Not that I believe in hellfire as literal, but we all need to be saved from our selves, our misunderstanding of what life is about, about what the real sources of joy are.
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He have a dispensation for most Christians though?
For those who call themselves active committed Christians but boast about cheating others, a generous dispensation is the only hope I see. Some of my atheist friends are more consistently loving to the down and out than some of my Christian friends. But those Christians proudly don't use swear words. Like God really cares about that!
Well, that's something I ponder a lot. I have friends of different faiths, and none. Does a loving God really care about the differences?
Well, if God is indeed a loving God (as I believe s/he is) then s/he would certainly care. A loving God would certainly care whether one lives one's life wedded to a lie, or to truth. One would certainly care the consequences those lies might have on your happiness and way of life-- the difference, for example, in believing that it's a dog-eat-dog world and you have to screw them before they screw you, and living a life based on the belief that the first shall be last. Or the difference between living a life burdened by bitterness or unforgiveness or self-hatred vs. one lived in peace and grace. I gotta believe God cares about things like that.
But the fact that God cares about such things does not necessarily imply that he eternally punishes such things. I
OK, but if my old Sufi friend lived a life full of peace and grace, how goes God rate that? Sort of B+?
You seem to have missed the point of my post. I don't think God is in the "rating" game.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Belle Ringer wrote:
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
That's an interesting group of ideas. So what does earn your way to heaven? It seems to be different from treating other people well, so I suppose you are referring to the correct beliefs? Hmm. That is a weird notion of God in my book.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Belle Ringer wrote:
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
That's an interesting group of ideas. So what does earn your way to heaven?
That's an unusual logical deduction.
From, 'Dai has never fucked a sheep,' it does not follow that Dai has fucked another farm animal. From 'good behaviour does not earn your way to heaven,' it does not follow that something else does.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Belle Ringer wrote:
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
That's an interesting group of ideas. So what does earn your way to heaven?
That's an unusual logical deduction.
From, 'Dai has never fucked a sheep,' it does not follow that Dai has fucked another farm animal. From 'good behaviour does not earn your way to heaven,' it does not follow that something else does.
Well, that's a fair point; but honestly, it's like getting blood out of a stone sometimes with you Christians. I am guessing now that 'earn' is incorrect in any case. Ah well, I will go and ask my wife, she was at a Methodist boarding school, so she probably knows something about it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Belle Ringer wrote:
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
That's an interesting group of ideas. So what does earn your way to heaven?
That's an unusual logical deduction.
From, 'Dai has never fucked a sheep,' it does not follow that Dai has fucked another farm animal. From 'good behaviour does not earn your way to heaven,' it does not follow that something else does.
Well, that's a fair point; but honestly, it's like getting blood out of a stone sometimes with you Christians. I am guessing now that 'earn' is incorrect in any case. Ah well, I will go and ask my wife, she was at a Methodist boarding school, so she probably knows something about it.
The standard Christian answer is that nothing "earns" you a place in heaven, *we* gain entrance through Christ's redemptive death & resurrection. The only dispute is who is the "we"-- is it some version of "Bible-believin' Christians" or people who "trust in/follow Jesus" or is it "good people" or do we take Jesus at his word and assume that he truly did die for the whole world?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
cliffdweller
Now that's talking, brother! I have heard something similar in Zen: when you're sitting outside the palace of truth, and you want to be inside, you can't get there by your own efforts, but then you find yourself inside - by grace. Or alternatively, who is that fellow with no name and no head?
[ 09. July 2014, 18:43: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Belle Ringer wrote:
quote:
Behaviors don't earn your way to heaven, but they demonstrate whether or not you "get it" as to what life with other people is about. Some Sufi and atheists etc demonstrate they 'get it' better than some self-described Christians.
...So what does earn your way to heaven?
The standard Christian answer is that nothing "earns" you a place in heaven, *we* gain entrance through Christ's redemptive death & resurrection. The only dispute is who is the "we"-- ...
Yup.
(edited in flawed effort to putter with code)
[ 09. July 2014, 19:00: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think I heard Mudfro say Noah was only righteous because Christ's work made him so.
Well that's just ridiculous. Why wasn't everyone else righteous too then? What made Noah different?
His faith. See Romans, Epistle to.
(St Paul doesn't mention Noah, but he does mention Abraham, and one might assume that the same salvation is open to the other patriarchs and "righteous" people of the OT)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The only dispute is who is the "we"-- is it some version of "Bible-believin' Christians" or people who "trust in/follow Jesus" or is it "good people" or do we take Jesus at his word and assume that he truly did die for the whole world?
I still prefer the option of just ceasing to exist. Is that still available?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Hopefully.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The only dispute is who is the "we"-- is it some version of "Bible-believin' Christians" or people who "trust in/follow Jesus" or is it "good people" or do we take Jesus at his word and assume that he truly did die for the whole world?
I still prefer the option of just ceasing to exist. Is that still available?
Not really up to me, I'm not the one calling the shots. Thank God.
Can you conceive of a "new earth"-- reformed and recreated in such a way that an endless existence (even with the likes of me, or a reformed me) is not so dreary?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can you conceive of a "new earth"-- reformed and recreated in such a way that an endless existence (even with the likes of me, or a reformed me) is not so dreary?
Nope. The first billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years might be OK but that's 0% of the total. Follow that with a another billion billion ... years for every micro-second so far elapsed and you are still at 0% of the total.
A 'reformed me' who could face that prospect with delight would, I feel, be so unlike the current me that I cannot now think of it as 'me'. M2 (me, version 2) is either too different to imagine or not me. Of course if M2 is anything at all like me then endless paradise will be no worse than endless Hell.
The presence of almost all SoF members would help me though some of the ennui - and I'm sure you would be among them. The absence of a very few others would also help.
Would it be reasonable to ask for a moratorium on "I told you so!" after the first billion billion billion billion billion years?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I doubt it's going to be a case of endless boring duration. From some of the hints in the Bible I suspect our experience of time itself will be changed--will be deeper, not just longer and stretched out to infinity. And since we're promised a new heavens and a new earth--a new creation, in fact--I don't see that we would be getting bored with it at all. Especially if we're given responsibility for part of it under God,* and the abilities to go with it. (me, I'd quite like to create a new ecosystem or similar, and can't imagine getting bored with an infinite workshop/playground very easily)
* wild speculation I know, but the parables which end up with the servants handed responsibility for part of the new king's government are very interesting to me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can you conceive of a "new earth"-- reformed and recreated in such a way that an endless existence (even with the likes of me, or a reformed me) is not so dreary?
Nope. The first billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years might be OK but that's 0% of the total. Follow that with a another billion billion ... years for every micro-second so far elapsed and you are still at 0% of the total.
A 'reformed me' who could face that prospect with delight would, I feel, be so unlike the current me that I cannot now think of it as 'me'. M2 (me, version 2) is either too different to imagine or not me. Of course if M2 is anything at all like me then endless paradise will be no worse than endless Hell.
The presence of almost all SoF members would help me though some of the ennui - and I'm sure you would be among them. The absence of a very few others would also help.
Would it be reasonable to ask for a moratorium on "I told you so!" after the first billion billion billion billion billion years?
Some Eastern religions see the eternal as the absence of time, which seems preferable to me to a very very long time. However, they also may say that this is available now, so maybe, heaven is. But this is also about ego, since it's the ego (presumably) which constructs a sense of time passing, via memory. Hence, one of the great Zen koans - there is no time, what is memory?
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question6.htm
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I'd quite like to create a new ecosystem or similar, and can't imagine getting bored with an infinite workshop/playground very easily
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Create an ecosystem which lasts 14.5 billion and you have the age of our universe, maybe 30 billion years and any self respecting universe will be on its last legs. OK that could be fun. Now repeat the experience a billion billion etc. And absolutely 0% of endless time has passed. Maybe you could create billions of universes, none the less you will never be any closer to the end of time. Perhaps everyone goes to Heaven but, for some of us, it is Hell.
Though I've no idea what it means, you may be right that our experience of time itself will be changed -- will be deeper but when you say not just longer and stretched out to infinity you do seem to imply it will be endless.
One solution of course is if we have no memory. We could just go on doing stuff, it's always as enjoyable as the first time because for us it is always the first time. But again, a me without memory wouldn't be me.
quetzalcoatl there is no time, what is memory?. Memory (Mnemosyne) is the mother of the muses. The Greeks knew their stuff: no memory means no language, no human culture, no human being, certainly no ego.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Just think about the eternity awaiting Mormon women, just bearing baby after baby while the husband they are eternally bonded to gets to do all the fun make your own planet stuff.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Just think about the eternity awaiting Mormon women, just bearing baby after baby while the husband they are eternally bonded to gets to do all the fun make your own planet stuff.
Not "till death do us part" then? I didn't realise that. I'll let my wife answer the next Mormon who comes to the door.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
que sais-je wrote:
there is no time, what is memory?. Memory (Mnemosyne) is the mother of the muses. The Greeks knew their stuff: no memory means no language, no human culture, no human being, certainly no ego.
Yes, that's why the koan says there is no time, not there is no memory. But maybe time is memory.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I need billions of years to do all the fun things I haven't had time for in this life. And to meet all the billions of people each one and hear their amazing stories. Everyone has a story, lots of stories. I read once that God made people because God likes stories.
And then all the other parts of the universe to explore, both micro and macro. Public broadcasts on the life of mountain lions or bees or whales exist because the are interesting!
And then probably other universes, and new ones that we get to help to design, although some people would be happy just designing and painting a new sunset every evening on one planet. Can you imagine painting on "a ten-league canvas with brushes of comets' hair". Kipling could
Lots of billions of years needed. Gonna be fun!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
In the end, it all comes down to trust, doesn't it? The Bible doesn't tell us a whole lot about the after life-- just that there is one, and that God is there. If you trust God and believe in God's love and grace, then you can trust him with the "who gets in" question. And if you trust God and believe in God's goodness, then you don't need to worry about the boredom thing. Any God worth the name would have both those things covered, even if I can't imagine how it's all gonna shake out in the end.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Of the increase of His government there will be no end.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the end, it all comes down to trust, doesn't it? The Bible doesn't tell us a whole lot about the after life-- just that there is one, and that God is there. If you trust God and believe in God's love and grace, then you can trust him with the "who gets in" question. And if you trust God and believe in God's goodness, then you don't need to worry about the boredom thing. Any God worth the name would have both those things covered, even if I can't imagine how it's all gonna shake out in the end.
That's a very sensible way of looking at it.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Whatever we experience for the best, idyllically, and therefore lose in this life, great romantic love full of eros and agape, kids, grandkids, being blessed and being able to bless till we drop - will be nothing we will want to go back to at its endless best.
I was struck powerfully when I turned 60 this week and got a brilliant card from my last ex and cried and cried in the shower, that ALL will be well. That ALL will be redeemed. That whatever we had will be MORE than impossibly restored as with all those I've been intimate and broken with.
EVERYTHING not just everyone is redeemed. All our lost loves.
As Dave says to Hal who's about to lay his virtual life down for lying murdering humans in 2010, something's going to happen. Something wonderful.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Martin, nice post. I agree that everything is redeemed; although not because of religion necessarily.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I don't see how religion, a human activity, could.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I had a very difficult lesson once at school. Two classes had been watching a schools programme about the Greeks. We had a Q&A session afterwards, with me as the most senior and the one who had read around the subject doing the A-ing. Then out of left field came the deep concern of one child - would the Ancient Greeks, who did not know about Jesus, go to hell. Clearly, others of that class (not mine) wanted to know, too.
The difficulty came because I knew that the other teacher came from a very different strand of belief - for example, she would not go on a class visit to the local gurdwara "because it is full of demons". I strongly suspected that she had gone beyond guidelines in her RE teaching. And she was in the room with me, so I could not ask why the question was being asked.
Frantically searching through my less than adequate Biblical knowledge, certainly unable to offer chapter and verse, I was able to say that it says in the Bible that people who could not have known about Jesus would be judged by whether they had lived good lives according to what they believed, so there was no reason to worry that they would have gone to hell.
And I saw my colleague smiling and nodding, and I wanted to tell her that she had no business worrying young children from many different backgrounds like that. We weren't a church school.
I don't think that I could have used the same get out of the OT bad guys or gals.
By what judgement do we treat Jael, Judith and Delilah differently, for example?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The judgement of God in Christ to Sodom: it will be bearable.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, how do you know that? You're just making bald assertions, which i find frustrating.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No they are the bold assertions of Jesus himself. As you should well know. I find that incredibly frustrating that you, of all people, don't.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
If you are going on the basis of the text I think you are (you really ought to quote it, you know), Jesus says that it will be "more bearable in the Judgement for Sodom etc." than for another group of people he's addressing. That's a comparative, not an absolute. I can tell you from experience that there are degrees of bearability in the overall category of unbearable. For example, Pitocin induced labor is unbearable; but it is more bearable than the same labor with Stadol induced hallucinations on top.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
He said it twice. Why does no one know this and if they do, which they do, even here, why don't they believe it?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
He said WHAT twice? come on, I'm trying to see if you've got something good here. I'd be delighted to agree with your assertion if you can show it to me in the Scripture.
[ 14. July 2014, 23:47: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The judgement of God in Christ to Sodom: it will be bearable.
"Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)
"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt. 11:24)
More tolerable does not necessarily mean bearable just less bad.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Good man Ad Orientem.
So, Lamb Chopped, does JESUS have anything good here and why didn't you know it?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, Ad Orientem just proved my point. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Look, I'd love to believe that final judgement for those without Christ will be less than utterly dreadful. But there's not much to go on, is there? You'd maybe do better to focus on the text about those who did not know their master's will and did wrong, who will be beaten with few stripes (their ignorance being an extenuating circumstance).
But truthfully, I'd rather be neither Sodom nor Capernaum. And I'd rather the people I love be neither, either (darn rhymes). Which is one reason we tell them about Jesus.
[ 15. July 2014, 11:51: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And that achieves what? I'm sorry but that's childishly inadequate. Which is an insult to children.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And that achieves what? I'm sorry but that's childishly inadequate. Which is an insult to children.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
WTF? I have no clue what you're on about. Unless maybe you weren't responding to me?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
WTF? I have no clue what you're on about. Unless maybe you weren't responding to me?
Perhaps he's suggesting that two prooftexts do not an argument make, especially given that the biblical record is ambiguous enough to cause us to debate the issue for about 2 millennia.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Perhaps, but I can't even figure out if he IS prooftexting.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's all about what we bring to the party.
Ditchism or transcendence.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0