Thread: Imagine there's no heaven (nor hell, nor anything after you're dead) 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=028787
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
LaRoc's post here got me thinking
quote:
my version of Heaven also includes Muslims, Hindus, Wicca's, Candomblezeiros, Atheists (they'll be a bit cross when they arrive there, but they'll get over it)
What difference does it or should it make to your religious faith if there is nothing after you die?
My initial answer: It isn't here right now for me, so it makes no difference at all in how I live at present. I find comfort in religious practice and faith, and think religion guides us ethically, but the life after death angle, is not important. It is a nice idea in some ways, but very central for me.
Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on
:
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"
It is generally much easier for anyone to live a life with belief in a supreme being and afterlife. I remember when I was little I was terrified of a prospect of the whole faith to be one of the children's stories. I remember thinking what would happen after my death, and seeing this emptiness and blackness (after that I usually cried, stopped doing that about a decade ago).
But apart from that. Faith gives one some moral compass, the one you should believe in no matter of what your priest tells you. The church may help you to arrive at those convictions, however without God, shouldn't you be about the same?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...:
LaRoc's post here got me thinking
Thanks for this, but I'm not a Lady.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I remember a friend saying to me that there's no such thing as oblivion, and I did a double take; I thought I ought to mind, but then it was a big relief. I feel there's nothing to worry about. Hence my current sig.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What difference does it or should it make to your religious faith if there is nothing after you die?
My initial answer: It isn't here right now for me, so it makes no difference at all in how I live at present.
I find that it makes all the difference for me. I have a detailed belief in life after death as an extension of life before death and it prompts me to make the effort to change my life in ways that I don't expect to "pay off" before I die. To the contrary, it prompts me to be more determined to live my life according to my belief about how God wants me to live, even though it means giving up things that seem like they would make me happier.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There's a contradiction in the claim that everyone is sitting side by side in Heaven and that everyone is happy with being in Heaven.
Why would that be preferable to everyone getting the heaven that they wanted. If you want to think that only those in your sect are elect, then perhaps you go to such a heaven and don't see the other people who are in some other place.
The alternative is that you are changed so you're happy with the heaven defined by someone else.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
It is generally much easier for anyone to live a life with belief in a supreme being and afterlife.
[citation needed]
My personal experience is the opposite - I find it easier to live without such a belief.
quote:
...Faith gives one some moral compass... however without God, shouldn't you be about the same?
I haven't find a strong correlation between faith and morality. Some atheists have a strong moral sense without having given it a lot of thought. Some professed Christians are, in my view, particularly immoral.
Personally I find it more admirable when someone does "good" simply because it is the right thing to do rather than for the potential rewards or or fear of suffering in the afterlife.
So for me it makes no difference in how I behave today whether or not there is an afterlife, or what happens in it. I still try to do what I believe to be the right thing.
Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[citation needed]
Edmondson, D., Park, C., Chaudoir, S., Wortmann, J. (2008) 'Death without God: Religious Struggle, Death Concerns, and Depression in the Terminally Ill', Psychological Science, 19(8), pp. 754-758.
It basically says that proper religious beliefs help to deal with death among terminally ill. Obviously I wrote this without any real academic references like those, it just seems to me like a common sense, that belief in life after death helps to deal with death. Of course it does not work for everyone, however I think most people work like that.
Anyway, I do believe that existence of God, even though it acts for some as mobilization, shouldn't really affect your morality. Without supreme being would you really be an immoral prick?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I'm with St. Paul.
1 Corinthians 15:12-19New International Version (NIV)
quote:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
And I have nothing more to add here.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Depends on the beliefs system.
If religion is about following rules that inhibit you from doing what you really want but that's the price for getting into heaven and/or avoiding hell, then eliminating an afterlife has huge effect, you are free to - whatever, have sex with lots of people or sleep in on Sundays or quit your "God-pleasing" job and do the work you really long to, feel free to cuss and hold grudges. Not rob banks, there's still the political law to deal with.
If religion is about enjoying the person who is God, and following wise guidelines for a happier healthier life as long as that life lasts, then heaven/hell is not a primary issue, more like a side effect.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[citation needed]
Edmondson, D., Park, C., Chaudoir, S., Wortmann, J. (2008) 'Death without God: Religious Struggle, Death Concerns, and Depression in the Terminally Ill', Psychological Science, 19(8), pp. 754-758.
It basically says that proper religious beliefs help to deal with death among terminally ill.
To be pedantic for a moment, that would suggest that it's easier to die with belief in a supreme being and afterlife, rather than it being easier to live a life with belief in a supreme being and afterlife as you originally said.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Dhying is not going to be any easier or harder because I know* that there is no heaven or hell and that I will be dead. Full stop. Even when long ago I believed there was a heaven, it was only a vague somewhat sceptical view! Like many atheists I know, I absolutely could not return to belief, even if I knew I was to die tomorrow. Because of medical expertise, this is extremely unlikely to happen.
*know = 99.99 recurring knowledge!
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Some of my friends think and believe that after all are dead and come alive because of Jesus, they all end up together in the world, not in Heaven. I do not understand what will happen to us after we die.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Some of my friends think and believe that after all are dead and come alive because of Jesus, they all end up together in the world, not in Heaven. I do not understand what will happen to us after we die.
This is an ancient view that really is closer to the OT portrayal of the afterlife than the disembodied souls in heaven pov, which is closer to a Greek view. In this OT view (and presumably the view of your friends) when we die we are dead-- full stop. Rotting in the grave. When Jesus returns, we will be resurrected in a new heaven and new earth. fwiw this seems to be the view promoted in the NIcene and Apostle's Creeds.
[ 25. October 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
If there turns out to be nothing after death, it makes no difference to my faith in and relationship with the living God while I'm here.
In fact, I'm more alive because of consciousness of God, and if this continues after physical death in any form it will be icing on the cake.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
For me the crucial point is that Jesus taught about the Kingdom. Many Christians seem to have bypassed some of the significance of that teaching and focused everything in on whether we're in or out and will therefore have a good time in the afterlife.This has of course also proved to be an excellent method for attempting to control people's behaviour.....
However if it's about the Kingdom then it's about participating in seeing some of the things Jesus taught break in to the here and now (Sermon on the Mount and Parables stuff for example). These things will be fully inaugurated in the age to come.
So although I do believe in an age to come, I also think that it isn't because of that belief that I try to live the way I do. It's because I've been captured by the person and teaching of Christ and I cannot let it go!
This idea was first planted in me when I read the Narnia books as a child and got a glimpse of the possibility of the Kingdom being in another realm, outside of our time and space yet able to affect the here and now.I remember regularly feeling that I'd understood it, then feeling it slip away again. But I was convinced Aslan was nearby and that made all the difference.
Much the same for me nowadays!
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If there turns out to be nothing after death, it makes no difference to my faith in and relationship with the living God while I'm here.
Same here. In fact, for me, it would make things an awful lot easier.
I don't recall being terribly miffed about not existing before I was born; I can't imagine I'll be terribly miffed about not existing after I die.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I really can't get my head around the idea that there's just nothing at all, only extinction at death. It goes against everything I've ever believed or felt.
It would make life completely pointless and random. There would be no point in believing in God, no point in bothering with a code of ethics, you might just as well live for the moment and get as much as you could out of life, and everyone you meet. You're never going to experience the glory that is God in the afterlife, there will be no reunions with your family and friends, nothing at all. The only thing you can do is concentrate on the here and now and try to postpone the inevitable snuffing out of the candle for as long as possible. How grim is that for a world view?
No wonder people are afraid of death. For me personally death would simply be stepping out of a body, as Kahlil Gibran puts it so beautifully, "A moment of rest upon the wind, and another woman shall bear me". You continue, but in a different form. Having that taken away is to take away the purpose of life and hope along with it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It's a nonsense to belief there is nothing.
Why would you believe in salvation an d trust in Christ tio save you if you won't see him?
Isn't the whole point of heaven 'to be with Christ, which is far better?'
My testimony is "I know that my Redeemer lives." It's so special to me that I've had it tattooed on the inside of my upper arm!
Anyway, the full passage says:
I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me! *
That is the whole point of Heaven - I want to see Jesus.
* I am aware of the difficulties with this passage - let's not go there.
[ 25. October 2014, 17:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[citation needed]
Edmondson, D., Park, C., Chaudoir, S., Wortmann, J. (2008) 'Death without God: Religious Struggle, Death Concerns, and Depression in the Terminally Ill', Psychological Science, 19(8), pp. 754-758.
It basically says that proper religious beliefs help to deal with death among terminally ill.
To be pedantic for a moment, that would suggest that it's easier to die with belief in a supreme being and afterlife, rather than it being easier to live a life with belief in a supreme being and afterlife as you originally said.
IME, the faithful fight just as hard to delay being carried away in the loving arms of Jesus as do atheists wishing to avoid cold dark, oblivion.
I think it easier for the living to deal with the death of a loved one if they believe there is something after, if there is a purpose.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Jesus shows us the way to live. The way to love. Not the way to die. I am uninterested in seeing Jesus and God after I die. Rather, see them now in the actions and words of others. It is pointless to see them after death. The good we need is now, in this sometimes bad place.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I think I'd end up adopting Puddleglum's philosophy:
"I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."
[ 25. October 2014, 17:53: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IME, the faithful fight just as hard to delay being carried away in the loving arms of Jesus as do atheists wishing to avoid cold dark, oblivion.
I think it easier for the living to deal with the death of a loved one if they believe there is something after, if there is a purpose.
Agreed.
For me, the instinct to fight against death in all but the most dire of circumstances has always validated the Jewish/ creedal notion referenced above that when we are dead we are dead until the resurrection. I also think it validates our experience of grief. We fight against death, we mourn it and curse it, precisely because it is the "final enemy" that has yet to be defeated.
[ 25. October 2014, 18:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I can't say anything for others, and I obviously haven't died yet. But when I came close to dying in spring (emergency surgery followed by ICU) it was a help to be able to commit everything into Jesus' hands and then lay back and let it go.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's a nonsense to belief there is nothing.
Why would you believe in salvation an d trust in Christ tio save you if you won't see him?
Isn't the whole point of heaven 'to be with Christ, which is far better?'
My testimony is "I know that my Redeemer lives." It's so special to me that I've had it tattooed on the inside of my upper arm!
Anyway, the full passage says:
I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me! *
That is the whole point of Heaven - I want to see Jesus.
* I am aware of the difficulties with this passage - let's not go there.
To be clear, I do believe I will spend Eternity with Christ. However, it's my relationship with the living and risen Lord NOW that has the most impact on my life. I would still have that relationship and the effects of it if there was nothing after death.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am uninterested in seeing Jesus and God after I die.
Some of the saddest words I have ever read.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so ...
Jesus shows us the way to live. The way to love. Not the way to die. I am uninterested in seeing Jesus and God after I die. Rather, see them now in the actions and words of others. It is pointless to see them after death. The good we need is now, in this sometimes bad place.
This is quite similar to the religion of the Jews in the Torah. Though they knew nothing about Jesus, their Law was about living now in the present moment. The way to live and love. Of course we have Jesus as the sublime example of how to live, how to love and how to die. There's that old arguement that religion and belief in an afterlife is just we human being's way of coping with our mortality.
I've felt God's presence all my life. Sometimes very intensely, even in childhood. Sometimes it's strong. Other times it departs from me for a season. But it always returns. If anyone were to ask me to prove that it isn't a figment of my imagination I couldn't, not even to myself. As a youth I had a terror of death, but it's long gone. Oblivion can't hurt. I try very imperfectly to live in God's presence, and I trust him to care for my future and the future of all His creation.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I just don't understand why you keep trying to invent your own religion all the time.
The N ew testament is full of talk of heaven.
Can you really have Christian faith without resurrection life?
From 'today you will be with me in paradise' right through to 'we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is', THIS is the Christian hope. And because it's all focussed on the Lord Jesus I really don't understand why anyone doesn't want to meet him - especially when that's his very intention for us.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am uninterested in seeing Jesus and God after I die.
Some of the saddest words I have ever read.
If it makes you less sad: want to see them now, and not interested in waiting until death.
PaulTH*'s post, right after your's says it rather well I think, as do some others upthread.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And because it's all focussed on the Lord Jesus I really don't understand why anyone doesn't want to meet him
I'm not saying I don't want to meet him. I'd be delighted and enthralled! I'm just saying that I don't sure your certitudes about what happens when we die. I don't think we really know very much.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I can't see that seeing Jesus is particularly important to me. I haven't thought much about this. It might be nice, I guess. But I'm not some kind of groupie.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
For people who feel they've received adequate spiritual, psychological and/or material fulfillment in this life, perhaps the need for heaven is less. But for those who haven't, meeting with God in a place where there's no more want and no more sorrow is likely to be more meaningful.
I do think there's a certain lack of honesty in modern mainstream Christianity, which is to say that while we as individuals are free not to believe in heaven, our communal life of worship still 'pretends' that heaven is out their waiting for us. Our liturgies and hymns encourage us to pay lip service to the idea, but we rarely address the possibility that this is all a matter of form over content. It's obvious that few people in our culture want to play this rather sophisticated game.
Speaking for myself, my faith is weak, and I can hardly imagine meeting God beyond the very vague and cloudy way that I believe I've met him already. However, I'm not going to distance myself from the teaching that more is on offer, if not in this life then in the next. The question is whether God wants to meet me, not I him....
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For people who feel they've received adequate spiritual, psychological and/or material fulfillment in this life, perhaps the need for heaven is less.
I feel filled up quite full spiritually, psychologically, and materially, so it may be that I feel less of a need for heaven, but it also means I feel more of a desire for heaven. And the more fulfilled I feel, the more I want to help spread and share that feeling with as many people as I can for eternity, not just for a limited time.
I actually have a hard time understanding how someone can believe in God and not believe in some form of eternal life. Obviously, there are many people who believe in the former and not the latter, but it seems to me that if God does exist, that implies that there is much more to creation than the physical universe. (We already know that there is more to the physical universe itself than we can ever know about.) How does it make sense that God creates us as sentient creatures and limits our lives to a few decades? I know it makes sense to people who believe it, but I have a hard time seeing how.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is an ambiguity about 'eternal' though. It is used sometimes to mean a time which stretches on and on, to infinity; but it can also mean 'without time'. So some people see the present moment as the gate to eternity, Blake maybe. If you get into that, the idea of an after-life seems odd, since there is no after.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
That's a good point, but I would include a life after death "without time" in "some form of eternal life." It's a belief in oblivion after death that I have a hard time meshing with a belief in God.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We get breathed out and live. Then we get breathed in again. I've no idea what the insides of the lungs of God might be like. But I still think we need to see it all now. Here. In the world. Can you be like Christ to me?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: There is an ambiguity about 'eternal' though. It is used sometimes to mean a time which stretches on and on, to infinity; but it can also mean 'without time'.
I prefer the term 'outside of time', which is of course inaccurate too. There are many more than these two options.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm with ChastMastr - and Paul - on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I think I'd end up adopting Puddleglum's philosophy:
"I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."
Largely as a result of discussions on the Ship, I've thought long and hard about this, veered somewhat away from a belief in the resurrection (and thus in life after death) - and then almost in spite of myself, returned to this belief following Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 15.
The above passage from The Silver Chair featured in my personal thought trajectory.
In the book, the happy reality is that there is a Narnia. That's the only reason Puddleglum's declaration is stirring. If there there was no Narnia, Puddleglum would be merely deluded and thus, as Paul says (more or less) to be pitied among all marshwiggles.
To lurch (as I often do) from CS Lewis to Douglas Adams in my cobbled-together practical theology, he is like Slartibartfast, preferring to be happy than right any day - which Slartibartfast admits unfortunately doesn't work (and appears not to work for Puddleglum either, given his disposition!).
I know not all christians feel this way, but if there's nothing after death, for me the whole thing is nothing but a delusion. I don't think I think it is though.
[ 26. October 2014, 07:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
If a belief in life after death is a delusion, then when we die, we won't know that as there will be no knowing, nothing.
If, on the other hand, there is something beyond death, that may be pleasure or pain. We still don't know.
Seems to me that believers in life after death do not behave any better (en masse, not necessarily as individuals) than those who do not believe. Societies anywhere, anytime are full of death, destruction and inequality.
Not sure where I stand. I'd be quite happy with nothing (or the thought of it, I wouldn't know nothing, after all). I find Jesus rather scary.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, you would not know nothing; in fact, there isn't nothing. It's even worse than we thought!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I used to imagine this when I was 14 if not before. Existential horror starting at 11 in the face of Auschwitz and Hiroshima. And it wasn't imagine it was inhabit. Reading Wells and Camus didn't help either. Nihilistically looking forward to being switched off. Becoming null. Meaning that my consciousness, my existence was meaningless with the brief guilty narcotic of self-pleasure as my only pleasure. Which is why I was easily hijacked by Herbert W. Armstrong's publishing empire on the back of James Michener's The Source.
46 years later I cannot imagine for one moment that all will be well. It's a meaningless ... almost ... academic exercise to imagine a meaningless existence. Almost? I haven't the faintest idea how transcendence will be made real.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What difference does it or should it make to your religious faith if there is nothing after you die?
Makes a lot of different to orthodox christian metanarrative. You're basically cutting out a huge chunk of the grand story and nullifying Jesus' resurrection and its bearing on our lives.
Screws with the questions of ultimate justice too and the problem of evil.
Cuts out the Kingdom of God/Heaven in its fullness which is the basis of the Good News.
And as cliff dweller points out, We will be resurrected in the New earth where God's will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. There will be no distinction between heaven and earth in the age to come.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[citation needed]
Edmondson, D., Park, C., Chaudoir, S., Wortmann, J. (2008) 'Death without God: Religious Struggle, Death Concerns, and Depression in the Terminally Ill', Psychological Science, 19(8), pp. 754-758.
It basically says that proper religious beliefs help to deal with death among terminally ill.
To be pedantic for a moment, that would suggest that it's easier to die with belief in a supreme being and afterlife, rather than it being easier to live a life with belief in a supreme being and afterlife as you originally said.
IME, the faithful fight just as hard to delay being carried away in the loving arms of Jesus as do atheists wishing to avoid cold dark, oblivion.
Different from my experience. I think trust in God does help people face death better.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I can't say anything for others, and I obviously haven't died yet. But when I came close to dying in spring (emergency surgery followed by ICU) it was a help to be able to commit everything into Jesus' hands and then lay back and let it go.
This.
[ 26. October 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I find Jesus rather scary.
Can you imagine a non-scary Jesus? How would the non-scary Jesus be different from scary Jesus?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Can you imagine a non-scary Jesus? How would the non-scary Jesus be different from scary Jesus?
well, the Jesus I read about usually says "do this........ otherwise I won't know you/the Father won't know you/you will go to hell" (to put it briefly and baldly)
Paul, who I find even scarier, says exactly the same only more firmly.
A non-scary Jesus would be loving, kind, and understanding of the frailty of man or woman.
The only time I find Jesus' response non-scary is when the woman who haemorrhaged touched his cloak and Jesus called her "daughter".
And all this is rather a tangent to the OP. Sorry, admins!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is an ambiguity about 'eternal' though. It is used sometimes to mean a time which stretches on and on, to infinity; but it can also mean 'without time'. So some people see the present moment as the gate to eternity, Blake maybe.
I have heard an analogy which appeals to me.
"Eternity is a circle, and time is a tangent to that circle. The present moment is where the tangent touches the circle."
Moo
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the book, the happy reality is that there is a Narnia. That's the only reason Puddleglum's declaration is stirring. If there there was no Narnia, Puddleglum would be merely deluded and thus, as Paul says (more or less) to be pitied among all marshwiggles.
Oddly, it seems the opposite to me. And I assume I'm deluded about many things - as most of us must be judging by the differences of opinions expressed here. We can't all be right but all of us could be wrong.
I'll make the best guess I can, and if I'm wrong well, you may pity me if you wish. So it goes.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I find Jesus rather scary.
Can you imagine a non-scary Jesus? How would the non-scary Jesus be different from scary Jesus?
A non-scary Jesus would be like Santa Claus. Then there is the problem that Santa Claus does not exist.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
And I assume I'm deluded about many things - as most of us must be judging by the differences of opinions expressed here. We can't all be right but all of us could be wrong.
I'll make the best guess I can, and if I'm wrong well, you may pity me if you wish. So it goes.
I don't think it's quite the same. Puddleglum says he prefers to willingly embrace his viewpoint even if it's wrong. I'm not sure many people here would go along with that, at least not avowedly so.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
Can you imagine a non-scary Jesus? How would the non-scary Jesus be different from scary Jesus?
well, the Jesus I read about usually says "do this........ otherwise I won't know you/the Father won't know you/you will go to hell" (to put it briefly and baldly)
Paul, who I find even scarier, says exactly the same only more firmly.
A non-scary Jesus would be loving, kind, and understanding of the frailty of man or woman.
The only time I find Jesus' response non-scary is when the woman who haemorrhaged touched his cloak and Jesus called her "daughter".
If Jesus is so scary that even Christians don't want to meet him in heaven, that seems like a big flaw in the Christian religion!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Santa Claus is scary.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think it's quite the same. Puddleglum says he prefers to willingly embrace his viewpoint even if it's wrong. I'm not sure many people here would go along with that, at least not avowedly so.
Sorry, you are correct about what I said.
Though I'd still be with Puddleglum. If the 'true' alternative to something you believe to be noble is something you believe to be ignoble then truth is not all it's cracked up to be - so b***er it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Indeed. Which is why he would be the most pitied of all marshwiggles in that hypothesis. It only works, according to Paul, if it's true.
[ 26. October 2014, 16:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can't see that seeing Jesus is particularly important to me. I haven't thought much about this. It might be nice, I guess. But I'm not some kind of groupie.
Forgive me, but I don't understand your beliefs very well, or how you self-identify theologically. As I understand Christianity, we're more than groupies for Jesus--we worship Him. Seeing Him face to face is one of the things we long for.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Scary doesn't have to be bad. There is the fear of the Lord, there is Aslan not being a tame Lion, there is what Charles Williams called the "terrible good." It's good--it's to be desired--but our God is a consuming fire. Part of the paradox of Who He Is is that He is both gentle and mild but also fiercer than anything on Earth. But He's good.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
As George Orwell pointed out, there's belief in hell, and belief in hell, and not many people these days seem to have the latter: quote:
Never, literally never in recent years, have I met anyone who gave me the impression of believing in the next world as firmly as he believed in the existence of, for instance, Australia. Belief in the next world does not influence conduct as it would if it were genuine. With that endless existence beyond death to look forward to, how trivial our lives here would seem! Most Christians profess to believe in Hell. Yet have you ever met a Christian who seemed as afraid of Hell as he was of cancer? Even very devout Christians will make jokes about Hell. They wouldn't make jokes about leprosy, or RAF pilots with their faces burnt away: the subject is too painful.
[ 26. October 2014, 17:59: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Part of imagining there is no heaven is to understand how I would live my life without some reward at the end. I think the above-quoted Puddleglum quote is the right way. That the reward of heaven means nothing until you are dead. So thus doesn't matter while I am alive.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Or one can see heaven not as a reward, but as a term applied to a kind of life oriented to God and our neighbor that we can strive for now.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Excellent n p's etc. Worry about creating heaven now. Eternity will take care of itself. The trouble is I'm such a howling wilderness inside I need that certainty to turn me in to an aspiring to half way decent human being.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That the reward of heaven means nothing until you are dead.
That's a bit like saying the gold medal doesn't mean anything until the race is over. Sure, it's technically true, but it misses the point of why everyone is running in the first place.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That the reward of heaven means nothing until you are dead.
That's a bit like saying the gold medal doesn't mean anything until the race is over. Sure, it's technically true, but it misses the point of why everyone is running in the first place.
Disagree with the premise. It is not a race. It is not a competition. I am not running a race toward a goal. I am enjoying the act of walking/jogging/runing, the scenery and the opportunity to interact with other trekkers. Some of whom are going the same direction, on the same trail, some of whom tell me what they encountered on the trail ahead of me, and others I can share similar info. It strikes me as more of a "fun run", where "everyone has won, and all must have prizes", but perhaps I am a Dodo bird.
[ 27. October 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Came across this quote from Alistair McGrath today:
quote:
"The Christian hope of Heaven raises our horizons and elevates our expectations inviting us to behave in the light of this greater reality. The true believer does not disengage this world in order to focus on Heaven but tries to make this world more like Heaven."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
How about these from C. S. Lewis:
quote:
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
quote:
If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.
I love that second quote - I've used it more than once in sermons.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Disagree with the premise. It is not a race. It is not a competition. I am not running a race toward a goal.
Are you sure about that?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Disagree with the premise. It is not a race. It is not a competition. I am not running a race toward a goal.
Are you sure about that?
I'm well familiar with these ideas. There were a series of such verses posted in the entrance hall of my boarding school. And I recall reading Kipling's porem "If" while holding my knees and being hit on the backside at the front of the class when I had too many errors in my poetry memorization (which kept me from crying out). I've rejected everything "muscular Christianity" offers since. Not been big on Paul since either.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm with ChastMastr - and Paul - on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I think I'd end up adopting Puddleglum's philosophy:
"I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."
Largely as a result of discussions on the Ship, I've thought long and hard about this, veered somewhat away from a belief in the resurrection (and thus in life after death) - and then almost in spite of myself, returned to this belief following Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 15.
The above passage from The Silver Chair featured in my personal thought trajectory.
In the book, the happy reality is that there is a Narnia. That's the only reason Puddleglum's declaration is stirring. If there there was no Narnia, Puddleglum would be merely deluded and thus, as Paul says (more or less) to be pitied among all marshwiggles.
To lurch (as I often do) from CS Lewis to Douglas Adams in my cobbled-together practical theology, he is like Slartibartfast, preferring to be happy than right any day - which Slartibartfast admits unfortunately doesn't work (and appears not to work for Puddleglum either, given his disposition!).
I know not all christians feel this way, but if there's nothing after death, for me the whole thing is nothing but a delusion. I don't think I think it is though.
Richard Holloway, former primus of Scotland's Episcopal Church, is fond of the following Miguel de Unamuno quote: "Man is perishing, that may be, but if it is nothingness that await us, let us go resisting, and so live that it will be an unjust fate."
I find it more heroic than futile, a neon "screw you" to an indifferent universe. Following a path not in hope of reward, but simply because you believe it to be right, is heroic in the classical sense of surpassing the limits of your existence. Lewis' friend and mentor Tolkien coined the phrase "theory of courage" to describe this defiant POV, found, appropriately, in the Norse, who believed in doing the right thing not in hope of payment, but for its own sake.
But then I dig existentialism, so I would say that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It's a good case as far as it goes, but as I have said before here, it doesn't seem, overall, to be the line taken by the Scriptures, right the way from Job through to Paul*.
=
*I'd say the nearest Paul appears to get to this level of uncertainty is when he talks in Philippians 3:11 of sharing, "if possible", in the resurrection of the dead.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
I agree, it's not a line taken in the Bible. On this, as on so much else, I disagree with the scriptures. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I do agree with Puddleglum. But then part of the idea suggested there is that there is, indeed there must, be more than that--that while all appearances may be so empty as the Green Witch (or as some modern philosophies) suggests, there is Something More--and remember, he's going to spend the rest of his life searching for a real Narnia, he's not just giving up.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm well familiar with these ideas. There were a series of such verses posted in the entrance hall of my boarding school. And I recall reading Kipling's porem "If" while holding my knees and being hit on the backside at the front of the class when I had too many errors in my poetry memorization (which kept me from crying out). I've rejected everything "muscular Christianity" offers since. Not been big on Paul since either.
Well I'd never heard of "muscular Christianity" before reading that Wikipedia article myself - must be a British thing.
But the metaphor of a Christian life as a race or athletic competition is fairly well-established I would say.
One must throw that metaphor away entirely to also hold the belief that there's no finishing line or gold medal at the end.
In my view, where God is, love and goodness are also, and that's where I want to be. If following Jesus - a person in whose presence I would love to spend eternity - here on Earth gets me to that place, then that's the goal. I'm looking through a glass darkly now, but I want to see face to face. That's sort of the point!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
2 Timothy 4 v 7
quote:
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the good news of God's grace.
Acts 20 v 24
quote:
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
1 Corinthians 9 v 24
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
Seems to me many have read it, chosen to reject 99% of it, and go about telling the rest of us who interpret it in the traditional way that we've misunderstood it! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
At the very least, a statement like "Christianity is not a race" has to be qualified to "I know it's described as such, but in my experience it's more like..."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I don't find the metaphor of life as a race that you have to run in order to win a prize particularly helpful.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
2 Timothy 4 v 7
quote:
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the good news of God's grace.
Acts 20 v 24
quote:
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
1 Corinthians 9 v 24
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
In those three, carefully selected, verses we have two approaches. Two verses refer to finishing the race while the other to coming first. There's a fundamental difference between winning and taking part, and in the third verse quoted, there's a contentious element of finishing the race not being enough.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
The race analogies seem more about perseverence in the face of adversity than anything else.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't find the metaphor of life as a race that you have to run in order to win a prize particularly helpful.
You don't have to find it helpful - there are plenty of metaphors in the New Testament that are not helpful to me personally. But it's by no means inappropriate or odd for a Christian to see life as a race, given how many times it's referred to as such in the New Testament.
I'm not going to tell someone who says Jesus is like a lamb "No you're wrong buddy, he's a bunny rabbit because he's lovable and has a large and growing family. I have no idea why you think he's a lamb. Oh, you read it in the Bible? Eh - never liked that bit anyway."
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The race analogies seem more about perseverence in the face of adversity than anything else.
And finishing the race as I understand it could mean speeding across the line in first place, or having a friend carry you over it. I'd certainly see myself in the second category!
Dropping out of the race entirely is the thing to be avoided.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't find the metaphor of life as a race that you have to run in order to win a prize particularly helpful.
It doesn't say that! It says run 'in such a way...' It means that we are to put as much intentionality, dedication and commitment into our Christian living - it mirrors the dedication of the athletes who run to win. We must show that same drive. We don't get a prize; that's just a metaphor. How can it be literal? If it were there would only be one person in heaven, the one person who won the race.
We just told to run like winners!
On that point alone, whenever I watch the Olympics or other athletic contests, I always feel sorry for the bloke who is obviously going to come last in the face of such strong opposition. And yet he still takes part, he still faces the knowledge he is not going to win, and yet he still trains, he still races and he still runs 'so as to win.' That's our example. I will never be a Booth or a Bonhoeffer; I'll never be half as good as some of the faithful people in my congregation, but I still run as if to win.
[ 28. October 2014, 10:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
But if you're only running for your own glory and your own good, you're missing the point of the gospel. It's not about you, it's about others and selflessness ( see Jesus' example).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But if you're only running for your own glory and your own good, you're missing the point of the gospel. It's not about you, it's about others and selflessness ( see Jesus' example).
Indeed - that's why we are told to:
quote:
12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely,[a] and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of[b] the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12
No one running in the spirit of the crucified Jesus can be doing it for their own glory.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
Wrong.
We have read it, but we disagree with Paul's analogy that life is akin to a race.
It's a very poor analogy imo. A race implies rushing, not savouring. It implies passing others to get across the winning tape. It implies having a fixed goal and being unable to adapt and change according to people's needs at the time.
I simply don't find it helpful. Just like I don't find 'battle' analogies helpful either - far too little caring and co-operation in races and battles for my liking.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The race analogies seem more about perseverence in the face of adversity than anything else.
Yes, that's what they told us. That despite the world going to hell in a handcart, we had to hold out and do the 'hard things' because there is glory in doing so, and our rewards would be in the next life. And other such crap.
It's hard to separate perseverance with the reward idea. When you're in the midst of adversity created rather intentionally by others. Which is more or less foundational, on sand, to the enterprise.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I think it means what Mudfrog said, that we totally commit ourselves to following Christ, in the same way as athletes totally commit themselves to competing so that they will win the prize.
For me, although I don't think it would make any difference to my commitment and faith now, the idea of the possibility of an afterlife and the question as to whether loved ones had ceased to be in every way, not only physically, once they died propelled the first steps of my search to find out whether or not God existed.
Therefore, it has been an important aspect of my faith.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, that's what they told us. That despite the world going to hell in a handcart, we had to hold out and do the 'hard things' because there is glory in doing so, and our rewards would be in the next life. And other such crap.
That's the least generous way of interpreting it.
I read it as perseverance in faith. That is, not giving in to worldly things that separate us from God but keeping our eye on the finish line. That doesn't mean we don't stop to catch our breath or consider packing it all in along the way.
I'm not sure what the "hard things" that you refer to are. Were you being asked to door knock for days on end or something?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
Wrong.
We have read it, but we disagree with Paul's analogy that life is akin to a race.
It's a very poor analogy imo. A race implies rushing, not savouring. It implies passing others to get across the winning tape. It implies having a fixed goal and being unable to adapt and change according to people's needs at the time.
I simply don't find it helpful. Just like I don't find 'battle' analogies helpful either - far too little caring and co-operation in races and battles for my liking.
Think for whom this was originally written - their hardship, poverty, unpopularity, persecution and death.
Think of those for whom Chrstianity is not about how nice the choir sings or whether the correct rite was used at communion last week. Think of those for whom identifying as a Christian doesn't mean a gentle comment from the bloke at work but an arrest warrant from the local magistrate. Think of those for who Christianity means holding onto faith when a loved one dies or who lives in a difficult relationship or fights an addiction or even struggles to maintain faith when their natural desire is to jack it all in.
Think of those for whom Christianity is a real passion, a real fervent and joyous experience that is not shared by friends and family.
THEN you will know that for such people, the exhortation to run the race, fight the fight of faith, overcome and endure to the end, is not offensive but actually an inspiration, a comfort and a source of challenge and strength.
When churchgoers sit in the comfortable middle-class lifestyle of respectable 'churchianity', choosing which beliefs they allow themselves to hold, crossing their fingers when reciting creeds they don't feel happy with because it disturbs their little compartmentalised world where God has his hour but no more, they lose all sense of what being a Christian meant to Paul's hearers or to the vast majority of Christians on this planet in the developing world who would rather die than give up Jesus.
For me, for them, and for a huge bunch of people in the church militant and triumphant, running the race, fighting the fight and holding on by the grace of God is all they've got.
Being a Christian is not a lifestyle choice along with politics, musical taste, following a fat-free diet or choosing between genres of art or literature. For many, many people following Jesus is a matter of life and death - metaphorically and literally - and THEY will tell you that if you're not in the race you're merely a spectator. lukewarm, compromised, on the 'broad road that leads to destruction.'
If you haven't had to make an effort in your Chrstian faith and life, then I wonder whether it's worth having.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This sort of Christian, Mudfrog, is the one who asks me if I know Jesus, and I must end the conversation immediately by saying that I expect our beliefs do not coincide. It's why I cannot attend a parish where the priest prays "Jesus our redeemer and friend" before the amen (it's indicative of a broader orientation).
I've been through this, as I noted, and had to sternly reject it. As it was unkind, and because it told me I was the problem. In the face of terrible experiences - I managed it when it was merely me who was the target; my faith with such things collapsed when it was my own child - I could not keep running and pretending. I also didn't have the capacity to realize that the single set of tracks were when Jesus was supposedly carrying me (to take the image from an oft-quoted poem and inspirational poster).
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If you haven't had to make an effort in your Chrstian faith and life, then I wonder whether it's worth having.
So much for 'My burden is light' then?
I didn't once mention lack of effort - and I resent your assumptions as to my lifestyle and Christian walk. You have no idea where I have been and what I have done. I have worked on the Kibera in Kenya and with street children in Mexico. I suffer daily pain which I almost never mention (Psoriatic Arthritis) and I itch all day every day (Psoriasis) But none of my Christian walk involves a 'race' to the finish. I really do not think 'battling' or 'racing' through life is the way to go. Peace comes from God - and is much needed by me and others. Not a feeling that we are not trying hard enough as life is too 'comfortable'!
But, if the analogy gets you through - fine. Just don't assume that we all need it or that Paul's journey needs to be replicated.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This sort of Christian, Mudfrog, is the one who asks me if I know Jesus, and I must end the conversation immediately by saying that I expect our beliefs do not coincide. It's why I cannot attend a parish where the priest prays "Jesus our redeemer and friend" before the amen (it's indicative of a broader orientation). it told me I was the problem.
Hi
I was think of a response to your very first sentence when I read your second!
I was going to say that the Christians I was referring to were not all evangelicals (the kind you would expect to say, 'Do you know Jesus') - it would include Coptic, Catholic, Orthodox, etc, etc - people who have lived (and died) under extreme regimes in greater numbers than most Protestant evangelicals would imagine. These ancient traditions of Christianity are also running the race, etc.
But then I read your comment about not being able to attend a parish where the priest referred to Jesus as Redeemer and friend. I guess therefore than there are some deep hurts that are your burden and that some maybe 'convinced' Christians have been a little less than sympathetic or compassionate?
I am sorry about that; people with a strong faith, even when that comes out of their own struggles, can sometimes be a little on the insensitve side. There are, of course, those people whose strong faith is expressed a little more gently and they can indeed be an encouragement and a help.
I don't know why you would feel that 'Redeemer and friend' are difficult to take as descriptions of God in Christ, but I pray sincerely that He will come to you in another of the images and likenesses that the Gospel gives us, and bring what you need.
I heard once of a dying girl who could not bring herself to believe that God was a loving Father simply because her own father and even her brothers had abused her so much. She came to faith simply by hearing about and then clinging onto the image of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.
I guess it doesn't matter which of the many images and words you take to your heart as long as it leads you to Jesus and the peace he offers.
God bless you.
[ 28. October 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Hell call Mudfrog.
"God bless" you too ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: As I understand Christianity, we're more than groupies for Jesus--we worship Him. Seeing Him face to face is one of the things we long for.
I don't know. To me it's perfectly possible to worship someone (or Someone) without a need to see him face to face.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Peace comes from God - and is much needed by me and others. Not a feeling that we are not trying hard enough as life is too 'comfortable'!
Yes. Peace. To which I add comfort. I am comforted but not relieved of pain.
Redeemed is different than friend. Parallel: being doctored is also different from friend.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes I wonder whether fellow shipmates have ever actually read the Bible.
Perhaps, unless otherwise indicated you can assume they have. However, you can't assume, I think, that if they have, they will make of scripture the same thing you do.
Posted by Anesti (# 18259) on
:
quote:
To me it's perfectly possible to worship someone (or Someone) without a need to see him face to face. [/QB]
I agree. It reminds me of John 20-29:
quote:
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
ChastMastr: As I understand Christianity, we're more than groupies for Jesus--we worship Him. Seeing Him face to face is one of the things we long for.
I don't know. To me it's perfectly possible to worship someone (or Someone) without a need to see him face to face.
Of course it is, and of course we do now without seeing Him face to face, but I'm talking about longing to see Him more clearly, in the fullness of time, etc.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Having read my response to Boogie again I am still at a loss as to why she's thrown a tantrum and called me to hell.
She seems to think that I was criticising her lifestyle. Well, if the cap fits, I guess; but I actually wasn't. I was talking about the attitude that many people have - that Christianity is as easy as you want it to be - a view echoed by her when she said that the analogy of the race is not in accord with her opinion.
Apart from the fact that it is a well-tried and used Biblical image that is there in Scripture for our edification and instruction, all I was trying to say to her was that the vast majority of people for whom Christianity is not an easy option, really do see their Christian life as a battle, a race.
Maybe I should have put my posh voice on and, instead of saying 'if you're not in the race...' I should have written 'if one is not in the race...'
If Boogie has taken what I wrote so personally she could be so nasty as to tell me to "Sod off!" (Thank you very much for that ) then maybe she needs to lighten up a bit and not be so touchy.
As Carly Simon might have sung, "She's so vain, I bet she thinks this post is about her..."
[ 28. October 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have answered this in Hell Mudfrog.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I'm another to whom the existence of anything after death makes no difference to my faith and practice of it (wobbly though that currently is).
My mother died last year. I think the idea of an afterlife was a comfort to her, though it's not something we talked about. It's no comfort to me, though - I really don't buy the idea that it is somehow a good thing for those left behind.
My sister, who would probably identify as spiritual but not religious, firmly believes in heaven, and believes that mum is there. She talks to her all the time. For me, the idea that she's still somehow out there somewhere (and yes I understand this is Platonic rather than Christian) and yet I can't be close to, or communicate with her, is much worse than the idea of her just being gone.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ChastMastr: Of course it is, and of course we do now without seeing Him face to face, but I'm talking about longing to see Him more clearly, in the fullness of time, etc.
I know, and I hope it will be all you wish for. It just isn't a very important need for me.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I'm another to whom the existence of anything after death makes no difference to my faith and practice of it (wobbly though that currently is).
My mother died last year. I think the idea of an afterlife was a comfort to her, though it's not something we talked about. It's no comfort to me, though - I really don't buy the idea that it is somehow a good thing for those left behind.
My sister, who would probably identify as spiritual but not religious, firmly believes in heaven, and believes that mum is there. She talks to her all the time. For me, the idea that she's still somehow out there somewhere (and yes I understand this is Platonic rather than Christian) and yet I can't be close to, or communicate with her, is much worse than the idea of her just being gone.
I'm happy to think of family who have died being somewhere I can't reach them, as long as I can think of them as being at peace with God. Of course I can't know that they are, for sure. I wouldn't like to think of them as floating about 'out there' wanting to come back but not being able to. This latter, and the idea of coming back in the form of birds or butterflies, is how some 'spiritual but not religious' people I know see life after death.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[...] When churchgoers sit in the comfortable middle-class lifestyle of respectable 'churchianity', choosing which beliefs they allow themselves to hold, crossing their fingers when reciting creeds they don't feel happy with because it disturbs their little compartmentalised world where God has his hour but no more, they lose all sense of what being a Christian meant to Paul's hearers or to the vast majority of Christians on this planet in the developing world who would rather die than give up Jesus. [...]
Paul was surely the definition of middle class, if not upper class: leisured, literate, plenty time to study, chair of the board, member of the Roman elite. Pity the poor slave tortured for their faith (whose bondage Paul casually accepted), for whom an appeal to Caesar would be as fantastical as a trip to the moon.
As for early Christianity, Paul and his contemporaries thought the world was about to end. Not even the most devoted Left Behind fan can recapture that apocalyptic fervor. Without that expectation of an imminent end, I doubt they'd have been so willing to die.
Christianity has lasted millennia past it's expected endpoint. Of course it's gonna change and adapt.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[...] When churchgoers sit in the comfortable middle-class lifestyle of respectable 'churchianity', choosing which beliefs they allow themselves to hold, crossing their fingers when reciting creeds they don't feel happy with because it disturbs their little compartmentalised world where God has his hour but no more, they lose all sense of what being a Christian meant to Paul's hearers or to the vast majority of Christians on this planet in the developing world who would rather die than give up Jesus. [...]
Paul was surely the definition of middle class, if not upper class: leisured, literate, plenty time to study, chair of the board, member of the Roman elite. Pity the poor slave tortured for their faith (whose bondage Paul casually accepted), for whom an appeal to Caesar would be as fantastical as a trip to the moon.
As for early Christianity, Paul and his contemporaries thought the world was about to end. Not even the most devoted Left Behind fan can recapture that apocalyptic fervor. Without that expectation of an imminent end, I doubt they'd have been so willing to die.
Christianity has lasted millennia past it's expected endpoint. Of course it's gonna change and adapt.
I think you underestimate Paul's sufferings:
quote:
as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labours, sleepless nights, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, 7 truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 in honour and dishonour, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet are well known; as dying, and see—we are alive; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything.
2 Corinthians 6
and
quote:
Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman—I am a better one: with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. 24 Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked. 28 And, besides other things, I am under daily pressure because of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not indignant?
30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie. 32 In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.
2 Corinthians 11
Paul was no mere middle class churchgoer.
Posted by Anesti (# 18259) on
:
I don't don't believe one can explain Paul's martydom as an act of a fatalist convinced that the World was going to end shortly.
Getting decapitated would have been horrific, painful and terrifying. He was the only one of the 12 not to have known Jesus while he walked amongst us.
I have often found Paul the hardest to come to terms with, but he did what he did and without him, Christianity may never have reached so many.
I am no theoligian, I hasten to add.
It is not my field.
But he did give us 1 Corinthians 13.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Paul was a tent- maker, wasn't he? He continued to work at the same time as evangelising and building up the early Church. An example church ministers today are copying, where the church administration hasn't got the money to pay them.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
For me, the idea that she's still somehow out there somewhere (and yes I understand this is Platonic rather than Christian)
I'm sorry about your mum, but (1) still being out there somewhere is a Christian doctrine and (2) there needn't be an either/or dividing Platonic (in at least some aspects) and Christian.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My sister, who would probably identify as spiritual but not religious, firmly believes in heaven, and believes that mum is there. She talks to her all the time. For me, the idea that she's still somehow out there somewhere (and yes I understand this is Platonic rather than Christian) and yet I can't be close to, or communicate with her, is much worse than the idea of her just being gone.
I find it interesting how many non-religious people seem to be rather attracted to the idea of an afterlife. In fact, it's been said that in popular culture the notion of heaven has broken free from its Christian moorings, and doesn't have a great deal to do with going to meet Jesus.
It would be ironic if Christians retreated from the idea of an afterlife while non-religious people were increasingly engaging with it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2:I find it interesting how many non-religious people seem to be rather attracted to the idea of an afterlife.
I meet more non-(institutionally) religious people attracted to reincarnation than to the afterlife.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But the New Atheists would say it was all just 'wibble' in any case!
Apparently there has been some work which suggests that belief in 'life after death' has increased while 'religious belief' has declined. I'm not sure how they're defining these two categories, though.
Another study interestingly notes that more British people believe in ghosts now than did in the 1950s.
[ 29. October 2014, 01:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on
:
i don't like Paul's analogy of a race because it is competitive. If I get the prize the other competitors don't. The impression I get of Paul as I read his letters is that he is has a driven personality - which was needed at that time and place. But it is not me.
A friend of mine (who was one of my evangelists) said after a life or death crisis "if there is no life after death it is all for the best, because God can be trusted". A far cry from the the common folk belief in heaven which includes the hope that God is not present.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
i don't like Paul's analogy of a race because it is competitive. If I get the prize the other competitors don't. The impression I get of Paul as I read his letters is that he is has a driven personality - which was needed at that time and place. But it is not me.
Yes.
I think he would have done well in any field today. He was a good speaker and motivator and able to pick up on the latest trends and turn them to his advantage.
But the idea of life, or the Christian life, as a competition in order to win some (pretty much unknown, untested and unrealistic) prize is not good imo.
I wonder what Jesus would have thought of such theology?
It reminds me far too much of the zealous islamists who will do absolutely anything in order to get their 72 virgins in the afterlife.
I think we need to work with what we have in order to live our lives and care for others as best we can.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
To Philip Charles and Boogie, can I re-echo what I wrote yesterday about the running of the race? It is in no way a competition:
quote:
It says run 'in such a way (as to win the prize)...' It means that we are to put as much intentionality, dedication and commitment into our Christian living - it mirrors the dedication of the athletes who run to win. We must show that same drive. We don't get a prize; that's just a metaphor. How can it be literal? If it were there would only be one person in heaven, the one person who won the race.
We just told to run like winners!
On that point alone, whenever I watch the Olympics or other athletic contests, I always feel sorry for the bloke who is obviously going to come last in the face of such strong opposition. And yet he still takes part, he still faces the knowledge he is not going to win, and yet he still trains, he still races and he still runs 'so as to win.' That's our example. I will never be a Booth or a Bonhoeffer; I'll never be half as good as some of the faithful people in my congregation, but I still run as if to win.
What would Jesus say? Well he did use some pretty vigourous and exclusive analogies. The one about the broad and narrow way, for example, does certainly say that we have to be intentional about following him.
And he does say that we should ask, seek and knock - the original being 'keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking.'
And then, there is that quite strange saying of Jesus:
quote:
Luke 16:16New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.[a]
Footnotes:
Luke 16:16 Or everyone is strongly urged to enter it
In other words, Jesus is saying that effort needs to be made, determination, positive and proactive faith.
Some, many of us - Shipmates included - do have personal circumstances that mean faith is difficult and they have to 'exercise faith' in a deliberate manner under challenging circumstances - is that not in the same field as running the race, fighting the good fight, getting out of the boat, stooping to enter the strait (restricted) gate, taking up a cross, etc, etc - and all manner of descriptive and vivid metaphors for the Christian life?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Jesus did say "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for you souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Stop rushing, stop racing, stop battling. God is in the still small voice, giving His comfort.
Jesus neither raced nor fought. He took his time, he rested when he needed to. He loved and taught in a new way - a way which so enraged the people of his day that they killed him for it.
I really dislike the fact that much of Christianity has joined the rat race.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus did say "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for you souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Stop rushing, stop racing, stop battling. God is in the still small voice, giving His comfort.
Jesus neither raced nor fought. He took his time, he rested when he needed to. He loved and taught in a new way - a way which so enraged the people of his day that they killed him for it.
I really dislike the fact that much of Christianity has joined the rat race.
Huh?
The yoke is easy and the burden is light because the alternative - a life of sin and separation from God - is hard and heavy. The wages of sin is death doesn't just mean the afterlife. It means the real world consequences too. The things in the world that seem easy at the time - cheating, lying, avoiding reality through abuse of substances - never really are in the long term.
To interpret this to mean that being a Christian is easy in an absolute rather than a relative sense is an unusual leap.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Point is, races are a poor analogy for some.
Paul was conversant with Greek culture and athleticism. Jesus was more prone to agricultural analogies.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I really can't get my head around the idea that there's just nothing at all, only extinction at death. It goes against everything I've ever believed or felt.
It would make life completely pointless and random. There would be no point in believing in God, no point in bothering with a code of ethics, you might just as well live for the moment and get as much as you could out of life, and everyone you meet. You're never going to experience the glory that is God in the afterlife, there will be no reunions with your family and friends, nothing at all. The only thing you can do is concentrate on the here and now and try to postpone the inevitable snuffing out of the candle for as long as possible. How grim is that for a world view?
No wonder people are afraid of death. For me personally death would simply be stepping out of a body, as Kahlil Gibran puts it so beautifully, "A moment of rest upon the wind, and another woman shall bear me". You continue, but in a different form. Having that taken away is to take away the purpose of life and hope along with it.
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
Actually that last point is a good example. If there is a afterlife then isn't there less reason to save someones life because you are merely postponing their trip to heaven and conversely if there isn't an afterlife then there's more reason to save someones life as it's the only one they have.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Point is, races are a poor analogy for some.
Probably because they limit their view of a race to the Olympic 100m finals. It could just as well be the London Marathon, where some people run it with ease and some like this war veteran take days. All are cheered on as they cross the line nonetheless.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Point is, races are a poor analogy for some.
Probably because they limit their view of a race to the Olympic 100m finals. It could just as well be the London Marathon, where some people run it with ease and some like this war veteran take days. All are cheered on as they cross the line nonetheless.
It's still a poor analogy. Marathons take between two and six hours. There's practice and training, but a lot of rest too, but the Christian life has no rest: it's full-time, for all-time, albeit in different ways at different times. Not like a race at all.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's still a poor analogy. Marathons take between two and six hours. There's practice and training, but a lot of rest too, but the Christian life has no rest: it's full-time, for all-time, albeit in different ways at different times. Not like a race at all.
And a harvest only lasts for a few weeks. A wedding feast only lasts for a few hours. There are lots of time bound metaphors in the New Testament so I'm not clear that this in itself is a valid criticism of the race metaphor.
I get that people don't like the analogy, but it's a valid and ancient one for the Christian life. I'm simply defending its use and trying to get an understanding of why some people feel it's so inappropriate. I'm not attempting to force it on others.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm simply defending its use and trying to get an understanding of why some people feel it's so inappropriate.
I think it's inappropriate because working for a 'prize' at the end of a 'race' is not giving or loving - it's a selfish reason to do good.
Far better to live as if this is the only life to be had for us all. (Which could end up to be so, of course)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm simply defending its use and trying to get an understanding of why some people feel it's so inappropriate.
I think it's inappropriate because working for a 'prize' at the end of a 'race' is not giving or loving - it's a selfish reason to do good.
Far better to live as if this is the only life to be had for us all. (Which could end up to be so, of course)
*sigh* I wonder how many times I am going to having reoeat this: We are NOT running to win a prize, we are running 'so as' to win a prize - ie, in the same manner of determination and persistence.
Jesus said, "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
It's an analogy with a similar meaning - a life of direction and consistent, persistent effort. Or are you going to say that you don't like that analogy either.
It has two points in its favour as far as you are concerned: It's spoken by Jesus and it's an agricultural analogy.
Against: it seems to have an end point that must be worked towards AND it's something one does by one's self. Neither is it 'giving or loving.'
You choose.
[ 29. October 2014, 11:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's inappropriate because working for a 'prize' at the end of a 'race' is not giving or loving - it's a selfish reason to do good.
Again - this is only one type of race. Most of the people running the London Marathon raise money for charity, which is the only prize they receive at the end of it. It's still a race.
I feel like people who don't like the analogy are purposely restricting the definition of "race" for their own purposes.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot :
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
I agree. Equally the reincarnation version Gibran suggests could seem equally pointless: you live, die and are reborn to live and die and be reborn again to .... It only makes sense if life is worth living in its own right. And since you don't remember past lives, doesn't it only work if a single life is worth living?
And is anyone in Heaven going to ask God "So, what's the point of Heaven". If it's enough without it having a further purpose, why shouldn't this life be? And if there is an ultimate purpose to Heaven, what purpose is that and so on.
Purposes have to stop somewhere (like races ...).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree with George as well. The solution is found all around you - there are tons of people who don't believe in an after-life, and they carry on breathing, eating, loving, raising kids, following hobbies, arguing about ideas, or whatever.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I guess a number of shipmates have been to a humanist funeral.
What were your impressions?
The first one I went to, I thought was actually quite lovely as far as what was said went; The Humanist officiant was pleasant, sympathetic and kind. The tributes from family and friends were warm, heartfelt and sometimes humourous.
But I felt I was in a closed room with no open window - there was no 'relief', no hope.
It literally was 'all over'; everything was in the past, all was lost except memories.
It was unremitting sadness, hopeless grief, regret, despair, unspoken goodbyes, untaken (sic) opportunities.
It was desperate.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
If I didn't believe in an afterlife, I would focus on doing that which directly benefits me and my family, even if at the expense of others.
I make an effort to be more giving and more loving than I would be naturally because I want to be like Jesus, and He said after this life I'll get to hang out with Him, which sounds fantastic in my opinion.
If this life is all there is, one should do anything possible to make it last, even if that hurts other people. That people who don't believe in an afterlife don't give into that base desire, is (in my view) because God set eternity on our hearts whether we acknowledge it or not.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
]I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
Speaking for myself, I don't think it's pointless for atheists. But it's a bit odd for Christians. It seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity seems a bit bloodless without it, but no more 'realistic'; not unless you remove all the other supernatural elements too.
One problem with heavenless Christianity is that it undermines the notion of faith as a journey. We've had a bit of this is in the argument over whether faith is like a race, but the journey is a more common metaphor, IME. If there's no heaven is the Christian faith a journey without a destination? Some old-time Christians used to sing 'this world is not my home'; does this mean that the heavenless Christian will never be at home anywhere? Or is the heavenless Christian actually quite at home in this world?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If this life is all there is, one should do anything possible to make it last, even if that hurts other people.
Why?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If this life is all there is, one should do anything possible to make it last, even if that hurts other people.
Why?
To maximize one's own chances of survival.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
It is possible to do good for goodness sake rather than swinging wildly to Darwinism.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It is possible to do good for goodness sake rather than swinging wildly to Darwinism.
Which I already acknowledged in my second to last post. "Eternity on the heart of man..."
People do act in kindness but there is no reason that they should, if there is no belief in a higher power or afterlife. And most in the West if dropped into a warzone would give up their secular humanism in about 5 minutes anyway.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If this life is all there is, one should do anything possible to make it last, even if that hurts other people.
Why?
To maximize one's own chances of survival.
Well if you were born without empathy or your moral code allowed you to hurt others in the pursuit of happiness I can see that happening but otherwise it seems unlikely. I admit I've never met you seekingsister but I wonder if you are being a bit overly harsh about yourself.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And most in the West if dropped into a warzone would give up their secular humanism in about 5 minutes anyway.
Do you really think that's the case? Seems unlikely. I for one would be far too busy with practical concerns for theological/philosophical musings.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If this life is all there is, one should do anything possible to make it last, even if that hurts other people. That people who don't believe in an afterlife don't give into that base desire, is (in my view) because God set eternity on our hearts whether we acknowledge it or not.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and I think that's what a lot of non-believers in the afterlife do.
Of course I can't prove whether God has set eternity on my heart, or my atheist husband's heart or not!
It does also get a bit more complicated when looking at motivation. Do I do the right thing at least in part because it'll make me feel better, or I couldn't bear to leave what I think of as the right thing undone?
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
For me, the idea that she's still somehow out there somewhere (and yes I understand this is Platonic rather than Christian)
I'm sorry about your mum, but (1) still being out there somewhere is a Christian doctrine and (2) there needn't be an either/or dividing Platonic (in at least some aspects) and Christian.
Thank you.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
]Well if you were born without empathy or your moral code allowed you to hurt others in the pursuit of happiness I can see that happening but otherwise it seems unlikely. I admit I've never met you seekingsister but I wonder if you are being a bit overly harsh about yourself.
I'm not talking about happiness. I said survival for a reason. If I were in a desperate situation, without faith in Christ I don't see why I wouldn't commit a crime to get money to feed my kids. It's the rational thing to do.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, at the risk of reliving a thread from a couple of weeks back, even with faith in Christ I'd still steal before I let my children starve. I wouldn't see that as wrong; quite the opposite.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And most in the West if dropped into a warzone would give up their secular humanism in about 5 minutes anyway.
Do you really think that's the case? Seems unlikely. I for one would be far too busy with practical concerns for theological/philosophical musings.
That's exactly my point. It's easy to think about the value of each human being when there aren't human beings trying to take your life, liberty, or livelihood on a regular basis.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, at the risk of reliving a thread from a couple of weeks back, even with faith in Christ I'd still steal before I let my children starve. I wouldn't see that as wrong; quite the opposite.
I've acknowledged this point already as well.
Without faith in a higher power or an afterlife, there is no reason not to steal. With that faith, it's still extremely likely the person would do it, they just have a reason that they shouldn't.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, at the risk of reliving a thread from a couple of weeks back, even with faith in Christ I'd still steal before I let my children starve. I wouldn't see that as wrong; quite the opposite.
I've acknowledged this point already as well.
Without faith in a higher power or an afterlife, there is no reason not to steal. With that faith, it's still extremely likely the person would do it, they just have a reason that they shouldn't.
I'm not sure about that. My moral code tells me that letting children starve is worse than theft, and I can't see how my faith or otherwise in Christ changes that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, at the risk of reliving a thread from a couple of weeks back, even with faith in Christ I'd still steal before I let my children starve. I wouldn't see that as wrong; quite the opposite.
I've acknowledged this point already as well.
Without faith in a higher power or an afterlife, there is no reason not to steal. With that faith, it's still extremely likely the person would do it, they just have a reason that they shouldn't.
I'm not sure about that. My moral code tells me that letting children starve is worse than theft, and I can't see how my faith or otherwise in Christ changes that.
And some animals, including humans, have evolved so as to act with empathy and cooperation. Hence, stealing from another individual infringes that. Of course, it can be over-ridden, but I don't think it is erased.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure about that. My moral code tells me that letting children starve is worse than theft, and I can't see how my faith or otherwise in Christ changes that.
So you would starve, to ensure children in your city who are starving have enough food to survive?
Or do you just mean your own children, or children that you know?
There are a lot of lofty claims from Shippers about how they would do the right thing in extreme situations. Without a moral compass most people do what's best for them. I'm not saying it has to be Christ, it could be any religious belief. But if this life is it, then willingly suffering or making it worse to help someone else unrelated to you is totally illogical.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure about that. My moral code tells me that letting children starve is worse than theft, and I can't see how my faith or otherwise in Christ changes that.
So you would starve, to ensure children in your city who are starving have enough food to survive?
Or do you just mean your own children, or children that you know?
I don't know. My moral code tells me I should, regardless of whether there's life after death. And I don't know whether I'd have the strength to make that right choice, regardless of whether there's life after death. I don't see how it changes right and wrong.
quote:
There are a lot of lofty claims from Shippers about how they would do the right thing in extreme situations. Without a moral compass most people do what's best for them. I'm not saying it has to be Christ, it could be any religious belief. But if this life is it, then willingly suffering or making it worse to help someone else unrelated to you is totally illogical.
And yet people without a religious belief do have moral compasses that do tell them to take altruistic actions that may result even in their own deaths. Nor is it necessarily illogical; it's the choice of Spock in Wrath of Khan - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet people without a religious belief do have moral compasses that do tell them to take altruistic actions that may result even in their own deaths. Nor is it necessarily illogical; it's the choice of Spock in Wrath of Khan - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
I've acknowledged this now twice previously. I know people without belief behave this way and I have given my understanding of why that is.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
"because God set eternity on our hearts whether we acknowledge it or not"?
Do you have any evidence for that being the reason they act that way, despite they themselves being able to give a perfectly rational reason?
I prefer to believe what people tell me, short of good reasons to doubt them, myself.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
OK Karl - can you explain to me what the reason - not the feeling or emotion - behind making oneself worse off to help someone else, beyond personal or kinship ties, if there is nothing after this life and suffering in this life isn't replaced with something better in the future. There aren't many.
Of course people without faith do these things. But you seem to be making an error here - that because people do X, their reason for doing so must be consistent with their publicly stated belief system.
If someone who says "There is no life but this one" gives up their last scrap of food to save someone else - I would say that the act is so selfless and loving as to be inspired by something beyond the claim the individual is making. Something deep inside of him has compelled him to be sacrificial in a way that causes personal harm and possibly death. In my view that is what comes of us being made in God's image and at moments being able to see God in other people too.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The reason? As I already pointed out to you - Spock's reasoning - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.
I have a lot more time for the person who sacrifices themselves despite having no expectation of anything beyond death, than the one who does so because he does, to be honest.
I do not assume people's actions must be because of their stated ethical system, but when they say they are, and they are consistent with that ethical system, I see no reason to doubt them.
[ 29. October 2014, 15:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
OK Karl - can you explain to me what the reason - not the feeling or emotion - behind making oneself worse off to help someone else, beyond personal or kinship ties, if there is nothing after this life and suffering in this life isn't replaced with something better in the future. There aren't many.
My son (29) does this all the time. He's an atheist. He strongly believes that when we die, that's it - no after life, heaven or anything else.
He has only one pair of shoes, when I offer to buy him another he says, with genuine confusion 'why do I need another pair of shoes?'
He deliberately chose his profession (nurse) to help other people. He spends his spare time working for others and giving to others. He lives in a small flat (one room of a small flat in fact) and gives any extra money he has away.
He is using the same mobile phone he had when he was 16 - all numbers long since worn off.
He doesn't need a reason to be a loving, giving, generous, sensitive person - it's just the way he is.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not assume people's actions must be because of their stated ethical system, but when they say they are, and they are consistent with that ethical system, I see no reason to doubt them.
Well if God exists, He exists the same regardless of an individual's stated ethical system, right? And the afterlife too - whether or not you believe in it, if it exists then it exists.
If these things do exist then you should doubt such people who say they believe otherwise, because they are wrong.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If someone who says "There is no life but this one" gives up their last scrap of food to save someone else - I would say that the act is so selfless and loving as to be inspired by something beyond the claim the individual is making.
You ask for the "the reason - not the feeling or emotion" but the reason might be the emotion. I think people have often starved to save others. You say that is impossible without God, how do you know what human emotion is capable of? Is the cause of every unselfish act down to God? Where do you draw the line?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, at the risk of reliving a thread from a couple of weeks back, even with faith in Christ I'd still steal before I let my children starve. I wouldn't see that as wrong; quite the opposite.
Without faith in a higher power or an afterlife, there is no reason not to steal. With that faith, it's still extremely likely the person would do it, they just have a reason that they shouldn't.
As a side-note, traditional Christian morality has always said that it is permissible to steal to feed yourself, and obligatory to feed someone else. The idea that property rights take precedence over the preservation of life comes along with secularism.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
Suppose a genie appears and offers you a deal. You can have the time and resources you need to do anything you wish - climb Everest, learn to play chess to grandmaster standard, take a group of schoolchildren back in time to ancient Pompeii for an outing. Anything. The catch is that afterwards neither you nor anybody else involved will remember anything about it, nor will any other traces remain in the lives of anyone involved.
What would you pay for the deal?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If these things do exist then you should doubt such people who say they believe otherwise, because they are wrong.
There is a difference between "X exists" and "I believe X exists".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]My son (29) does this all the time. He's an atheist. He strongly believes that when we die, that's it - no after life, heaven or anything else.
He has only one pair of shoes, when I offer to buy him another he says, with genuine confusion 'why do I need another pair of shoes?'
He deliberately chose his profession (nurse) to help other people. He spends his spare time working for others and giving to others. He lives in a small flat (one room of a small flat in fact) and gives any extra money he has away.
He is using the same mobile phone he had when he was 16 - all numbers long since worn off.
He doesn't need a reason to be a loving, giving, generous, sensitive person - it's just the way he is.
tangentally, your son sounds like one of those ones who-- if my hunch/faith re the afterlife holds true-- will meet up with Jesus in the next life and say, "oh-- that was you? I never knew your name"... and Jesus will say, "but I knew yours".
Or some such thing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not assume people's actions must be because of their stated ethical system, but when they say they are, and they are consistent with that ethical system, I see no reason to doubt them.
Well if God exists, He exists the same regardless of an individual's stated ethical system, right? And the afterlife too - whether or not you believe in it, if it exists then it exists.
If these things do exist then you should doubt such people who say they believe otherwise, because they are wrong.
When people tell me what's going on in their own minds I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
Suppose a genie appears and offers you a deal. You can have the time and resources you need to do anything you wish - climb Everest, learn to play chess to grandmaster standard, take a group of schoolchildren back in time to ancient Pompeii for an outing. Anything. The catch is that afterwards neither you nor anybody else involved will remember anything about it, nor will any other traces remain in the lives of anyone involved.
What would you pay for the deal?
No, because much of the pleasure at the time is that of anticipating the remembrance of it and much of the pleasure afterwards is that of remembering it.
It's why we take photos.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
You ask for the "the reason - not the feeling or emotion" but the reason might be the emotion. I think people have often starved to save others. You say that is impossible without God, how do you know what human emotion is capable of? Is the cause of every unselfish act down to God? Where do you draw the line?
It's not me drawing the line.
And I'd like you to support your claim that starving to save others - and to note I've qualified repeatedly that this means outside of family - happens "often."
[ 29. October 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]My son (29) does this all the time. He's an atheist. He strongly believes that when we die, that's it - no after life, heaven or anything else.
He has only one pair of shoes, when I offer to buy him another he says, with genuine confusion 'why do I need another pair of shoes?'
He deliberately chose his profession (nurse) to help other people. He spends his spare time working for others and giving to others. He lives in a small flat (one room of a small flat in fact) and gives any extra money he has away.
He is using the same mobile phone he had when he was 16 - all numbers long since worn off.
He doesn't need a reason to be a loving, giving, generous, sensitive person - it's just the way he is.
tangentally, your son sounds like one of those ones who-- if my hunch/faith re the afterlife holds true-- will meet up with Jesus in the next life and say, "oh-- that was you? I never knew your name"... and Jesus will say, "but I knew yours".
Or some such thing.
Only if you believe that good works will earn you a place; in which case, how many good works do we need to do in order to gain a pass mark?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
OK Karl - can you explain to me what the reason - not the feeling or emotion - behind making oneself worse off to help someone else, beyond personal or kinship ties, if there is nothing after this life and suffering in this life isn't replaced with something better in the future. There aren't many.
My son (29) does this all the time. He's an atheist. He strongly believes that when we die, that's it - no after life, heaven or anything else.
He has only one pair of shoes, when I offer to buy him another he says, with genuine confusion 'why do I need another pair of shoes?'
He deliberately chose his profession (nurse) to help other people. He spends his spare time working for others and giving to others. He lives in a small flat (one room of a small flat in fact) and gives any extra money he has away.
He is using the same mobile phone he had when he was 16 - all numbers long since worn off.
He doesn't need a reason to be a loving, giving, generous, sensitive person - it's just the way he is.
I've known people like this. I suppose some Christians will say that it's impossible, and that they are covertly depending on God, or something like that. This sounds like the Christian equivalent of Dawkins - not even wrong.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've known people like this. I suppose some Christians will say that it's impossible, and that they are covertly depending on God, or something like that. This sounds like the Christian equivalent of Dawkins - not even wrong.
Oh dear.
Who is claiming that only Christians are nice enough to be nurses or live in small flats?
The son described sounds like a nice enough fellow but it's not the type of life-changing sacrifices Jesus was talking about.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've known people like this. I suppose some Christians will say that it's impossible, and that they are covertly depending on God, or something like that. This sounds like the Christian equivalent of Dawkins - not even wrong.
I'm confused - it sounds like you're saying that God can influence us only if we are aware of that influence, or only if we believe in God's existence, but that makes no sense to me. Am I misunderstanding you?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only if you believe that good works will earn you a place; in which case, how many good works do we need to do in order to gain a pass mark?
No, as I said, some people do the good works even 'tho they believe there is no place.
I have the same hope as cliffdweller for my son, of course. But none of us knows what comes in the hereafter, for ourselves or our loved ones.
We won't know until we get there.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
On the subject of being wonderfully moral, charitable, loving, generous, etc, etc, etc, I would want to affirm it in anyone - Christian, atheist, Buddhist - anyone. The Christian does not have a monopoly on compassion and selflessness; neither does it need divine inspiration or energy in order to live and act like that.
Jesus commanded that people should 'love one another as they love themselves' and this, I believe, is an active and practical love that is entirely within the ability of any human being to perform.
That is why it's not a 'ticket' to any kind of blessing here or afterlife hereafter. Behaving like a human will not will you a place in heaven.
But the same Jesus who reminded people that we are to love our enemies and our neighbours as ourselves is also the same Jesus who said,
"Love the Lord your God will all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind."
Firstly we have to make this God 'our' God and then we need to love him with every fibre of our undivided being. Even that will not earn us a place in heaven but if we are in a love relationship with God in Christ then even death will not break it and our love for him and his love for us will last for eternity.
That is something that people who reject the existence of God, let alone believe he loves them or they can love him, will and can not experience.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've known people like this. I suppose some Christians will say that it's impossible, and that they are covertly depending on God, or something like that. This sounds like the Christian equivalent of Dawkins - not even wrong.
I'm confused - it sounds like you're saying that God can influence us only if we are aware of that influence, or only if we believe in God's existence, but that makes no sense to me. Am I misunderstanding you?
I don't know, as I don't really understand what you're saying. And I'm not really sure what seekingsister is saying either about non-Christians or non-religious.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly we have to make this God 'our' God and then we need to love him with every fibre of our undivided being.
Impossible.
It's God's love which matters - not ours. The effort (thank God) is all His. God loved us first and waits for our return to Him, in this life or the next. He waits with great and undivided LOVE.
We humans can't even see or agree on who God is - we see, feel and experience a very subjective view, coloured by many experiences - especially early ones involving our own parents.
God does not penalise us because we can't see Him or love Him clearly and undividedly. 99% of the time that's not our fault anyway.
God's love for us 'saves' us - not the other way round.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only if you believe that good works will earn you a place; in which case, how many good works do we need to do in order to gain a pass mark?
No, as I said, some people do the good works even 'tho they believe there is no place.
I have the same hope as cliffdweller for my son, of course. But none of us knows what comes in the hereafter, for ourselves or our loved ones.
We won't know until we get there.
Erm, whilst we don't
know the details of what Heaven will be like - other than it is 'to be with Christ which is far better,' we do know the way to get there, what provision has been made to get there, and upon what basis those who will be there will be welcomed in. And number one is that they have a spiritual experience of Christ.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's not me drawing the line.
And I'd like you to support your claim that starving to save others - and to note I've qualified repeatedly that this means outside of family - happens "often."
So we're in the same boat, epistemologically speaking. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Each of us can find ways to dismiss inconvenient evidence or arguments.
It is possible I'm wrong though.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
God's love for us 'saves' us - not the other way round.
God's love does indeed save us - or rather, it has made provision through the atonement - but it must be reciprocated.
He did say that the greatest commandment is that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind (or strength).
I don't think I would like to tell him that I won't do it.
[ 29. October 2014, 16:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Only the cynic would deny that there is such a thing as disinterested goodness. ( Or a dyed in the wool evangelical)
It is possible even though Mudfrog would seek some ulterior motive for "good works".
Can we not sing?
My God, I love thee, not because
I hope for heaven thereby;
Nor yet because who love thee not
are lost eternally.
Not with the hope of gaining aught,
not seeking a reward,
but as thyself hast loved me,
O ever-loving Lord.
[ 29. October 2014, 16:22: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Only the cynic would deny that there is such a thing as disinterested goodness. ( Or a dyed in the wool evangelical)
It is possible even though Mudfrog would seek some ulterior motive for "good works".
Can we not sing?
My God, I love thee, not because
I hope for heaven thereby;
Nor yet because who love thee not
are lost eternally.
Not with the hope of gaining aught,
not seeking a reward,
but as thyself hast loved me,
O ever-loving Lord.
We can indeed and I did make it clear that Christians do not have the monopoly on good works or behaving like humans should.
All I am saying is that godless good works, and even Godly good works, are not enough to earn a place in heaven or be sufficient to merit his love.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know, as I don't really understand what you're saying. And I'm not really sure what seekingsister is saying either about non-Christians or non-religious.
I'll clarify my beliefs:
- we're all made in God's image
- eternity is set on the hearts of man - that is, we are aware there is more than this life even if we don't fully understand or acknowledge it
- acts of kindness or goodness can be done by anyone, they are not exclusive to Christians.
- an action that shows a truly sacrificial love (as in putting oneself in the way of harm or death) for others is God nature and not human nature. Because it's the God nature that knows there's something on the other side. Again such actions are not exclusive to Christians.
- those who have faith in Christ are assured of salvation (i.e. something nice in the afterlife). For everyone else - ? No idea.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know, as I don't really understand what you're saying.
I was misunderstanding you, but after reading your post more closely, I do understand - sorry.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So an atheist laying down on a grenade thrown in to a crowd is doing it for the afterlife?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
So we're in the same boat, epistemologically speaking. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Each of us can find ways to dismiss inconvenient evidence or arguments.
It is possible I'm wrong though.
I just found it an odd question. Where am I drawing the line on the fact that we have a touch of God in all of us, and that's the part of us that grasps the bigger picture about our existence? I mean - it's a thread that runs throughout the Christian faith. I haven't invented it on the spot today.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So an atheist laying down on a grenade thrown in to a crowd is doing it for the afterlife?
No, he's being a loving human being.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]My son (29) does this all the time. He's an atheist. He strongly believes that when we die, that's it - no after life, heaven or anything else.
He has only one pair of shoes, when I offer to buy him another he says, with genuine confusion 'why do I need another pair of shoes?'
He deliberately chose his profession (nurse) to help other people. He spends his spare time working for others and giving to others. He lives in a small flat (one room of a small flat in fact) and gives any extra money he has away.
He is using the same mobile phone he had when he was 16 - all numbers long since worn off.
He doesn't need a reason to be a loving, giving, generous, sensitive person - it's just the way he is.
tangentally, your son sounds like one of those ones who-- if my hunch/faith re the afterlife holds true-- will meet up with Jesus in the next life and say, "oh-- that was you? I never knew your name"... and Jesus will say, "but I knew yours".
Or some such thing.
Only if you believe that good works will earn you a place; in which case, how many good works do we need to do in order to gain a pass mark?
I don't happen to believe that good works earn us a place in heaven, but then I also don't believe our right beliefs earn us a place. I think those who enter the Kingdom do so for one reason and one reason only-- because Christ invites them in. Who he chooses to invite is, of course, entirely up to him. But his words on the subject were what reminded me so of Boogie's son:
quote:
Matt. 25:31-40: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So an atheist laying down on a grenade thrown in to a crowd is doing it for the afterlife?
No.
(Although to be honest, it's most likely they're doing it because they are a soldier or police officer.)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It depends whether you think 'the righteous' were righteous before they clothed the naked or whether clothing the naked made them righteous.
It seems to me that being made right with God by grace first, and then living a life of commitment and holiness is the prerequisite to heaven.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It depends whether you think 'the righteous' were righteous before they clothed the naked or whether clothing the naked made them righteous.
It seems to me that being made right with God by grace first, and then living a life of commitment and holiness is the prerequisite to heaven.
As I said, I think it's up to Jesus to say. But it seems to me, both in reading the NT and in observing my own life and those around me, that there are all sorts of journeys that bring one to Christ, and they're often circuitous with unexpected twists and turns. We don't all seem to follow the same path of first A then B.
Meanwhile, the whole point of the parable of the sheep & goats seems to be:
a. There will be some real surprises-- some pleasant, some unpleasant, re who gets in and who doesn't.
b. Jesus is the one who makes the call.
But I do find it interesting in the parable that it is the sheep as much as the goats who are surprised. That the sheep did not recognize Jesus when they were serving him. But-- interestingly-- Jesus knew them.
What that means in terms of some sort of rigid transactional "rule" about who gets in/who doesn't I don't know. I wonder if anything as huge and transcendent and wonderful as God's grace can ever be reduced to a set of transactional rules. But it does suggest we should have at least some humility before assuming we know.
[ 29. October 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It depends whether you think 'the righteous' were righteous before they clothed the naked or whether clothing the naked made them righteous.
It seems to me that being made right with God by grace first, and then living a life of commitment and holiness is the prerequisite to heaven.
Again, I don't think our actions make us righteous-- nor do our beliefs or professions of faith. Christ does. But when that happens-- as I said, I think it's up to Jesus to say. Can it happen w/o our realizing it at the time? Up to Jesus to say. But it seems to me, both in reading the NT and in observing my own life and those around me, that there are all sorts of journeys that bring one to Christ, and they're often circuitous with unexpected twists and turns. We don't all seem to follow the same path of first A then B.
Meanwhile, the whole point of the parable of the sheep & goats seems to be:
a. There will be some real surprises-- some pleasant, some unpleasant, re who gets in and who doesn't.
b. Jesus is the one who makes the call.
But I do find it interesting in the parable that it is the sheep as much as the goats who are surprised. That the sheep did not recognize Jesus when they were serving him. But-- interestingly-- Jesus knew them.
What that means in terms of some sort of rigid transactional "rule" about who gets in/who doesn't I don't know. I wonder if anything as huge and transcendent and wonderful as God's grace can ever be reduced to a set of transactional rules. But it does suggest we should have at least some humility before assuming we know.
[ 29. October 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... we have a touch of God in all of us, and that's the part of us that grasps the bigger picture about our existence
As you say, it is hardly a surprising comment on SoF. I can only interpret it in my own way and say there is more good in human nature than some would have us believe. How or why I don't know, but I am glad of it.
I'm afraid inverting claims and finding the inverse equally convincing is a bad habit of mine. Or perhaps expressing my sceptical response as if I were convinced of it is the flaw.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I do find it interesting in the parable that it is the sheep as much as the goats who are surprised. That the sheep did not recognize Jesus when they were serving him. But-- interestingly-- Jesus knew them.
I believe that to mean that they were righteous already - i.e. they belonged to God - but they hadn't recognised him in particular people.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I do find it interesting in the parable that it is the sheep as much as the goats who are surprised. That the sheep did not recognize Jesus when they were serving him. But-- interestingly-- Jesus knew them.
I believe that to mean that they were righteous already - i.e. they belonged to God - but they hadn't recognised him in particular people.
And you may in fact be right. But the text doesn't say that-- at all. In fact, the goats sound a lot more like the people who were sure they were the ones who belong to God. The only thing we can say for sure from the text is that Jesus is the one who makes the call.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. Specifically the belief that life without an afterlife is pointless. You may as well say that it's pointless to eat a meal because after a while the food will all be absorbed and you'll be hungry again. Or that it's pointless to try and save someones life because eventually they are going to die.
Suppose a genie appears and offers you a deal. You can have the time and resources you need to do anything you wish - climb Everest, learn to play chess to grandmaster standard, take a group of schoolchildren back in time to ancient Pompeii for an outing. Anything. The catch is that afterwards neither you nor anybody else involved will remember anything about it, nor will any other traces remain in the lives of anyone involved.
What would you pay for the deal?
If as you say all traces are magically removed from the memories and lives of everyone involved that would suggest that the genie casts a spell causing whatever happened not to have happened is that right?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose a genie appears and offers you a deal. You can have the time and resources you need to do anything you wish - climb Everest, learn to play chess to grandmaster standard, take a group of schoolchildren back in time to ancient Pompeii for an outing. Anything. The catch is that afterwards neither you nor anybody else involved will remember anything about it, nor will any other traces remain in the lives of anyone involved.
What would you pay for the deal?
The wonderful thing is you get it for free!
But it's hardly a fair analogy. A few people will remember me for a while. Some of those I've taught are using what they learned. Maybe one day someone will build on what was in my PhD (low probability that). Some of the causes I've supported may have been infinitesimally helped to achieve their aims. Some people have enjoyed the books I've sold them. And billions of others are contributing far more. And their contribution will feed into the next billion and so on.
OK in the long run we're all dead, One day there's no one left to remember any of it. So? If life in itself has no value why did God create it? He could have filled Heaven without all the bother of evolution.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But it's hardly a fair analogy. A few people will remember me for a while. Some of those I've taught are using what they learned. Maybe one day someone will build on what was in my PhD (low probability that). Some of the causes I've supported may have been infinitesimally helped to achieve their aims. Some people have enjoyed the books I've sold them. And billions of others are contributing far more. And their contribution will feed into the next billion and so on.
OK in the long run we're all dead, One day there's no one left to remember any of it.
Why is remembrance the key? Surely every good we do, not matter how small, is a betterment to others and ourselves. Not everyone has the ability or circumstance to affect large numbers of people. Do the good that you can because it is good, not for what reward may come.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He did say that the greatest commandment is that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind (or strength).
I don't think I would like to tell him that I won't do it.
I cannot understand your last sentence. Do you think that love is something that can be switched on and off? Do you actually believe that either one loves god because one chooses to do so or one doesn't love god because one chooses not to do so. Do you understand that it is not possible to love something which one doesn't believe exists? (And indeed, is often impossible to love something that one knows does exist). Many of us don't believe in your god for the same reasons that you don't believe in the thousands of other gods that have had their adoring followers throughout human history. Could you suddenly decide to start loving, with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, Odin or Athena, Ra or Ganesh?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Came across this quote from Alistair McGrath today:
quote:
"The Christian hope of Heaven raises our horizons and elevates our expectations inviting us to behave in the light of this greater reality. The true believer does not disengage this world in order to focus on Heaven but tries to make this world more like Heaven."
But it's not your world is it? Make that bit of it which affects only you in whatever image you choose. You don't have the right to impose your beliefs, however sincere and however well-intentioned, on the rest of us without gaining our consent - otherwise it isn't love - it's arrogance. If you're ever in doubt just try swapping out your belief for Islam or Scientology - do you think that an ISIS fighter has the right to try to change your world to match with his view of Heaven? And yes, his view of Heaven is silly - but he has as much evidence, and as much inner conviction, for it as you have for yours.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly we have to make this God 'our' God and then we need to love him with every fibre of our undivided being.
Impossible.
It's God's love which matters - not ours. The effort (thank God) is all His. God loved us first and waits for our return to Him, in this life or the next. He waits with great and undivided LOVE.
We humans can't even see or agree on who God is - we see, feel and experience a very subjective view, coloured by many experiences - especially early ones involving our own parents.
God does not penalise us because we can't see Him or love Him clearly and undividedly. 99% of the time that's not our fault anyway.
God's love for us 'saves' us - not the other way round.
This is interesting.
I tend to disagree with both of you. First, I don't think we make anything our's, we just learn a little, absorb a little love and try to pass it along.
Second, the premise of the thread, at least as it's molgated in my thoughts, is living 'as it' there's only the pass-along. And third, whether that's enough.
My answer seems to be that I hope for something, but also will be angry beyond anger that there is something, because it is so constantly withheld (crescendo here). Other than the little spark we can get from each other (decrescendo here).
During the baptisms I saw yesterday, when they tried to light the candle for one of the baptised, it put out the candle they were lighting it from. The priest called for a light, and there was light; a lay assistant, ever prepared, relit the candle, the flame of which was then successfully passed on. I found myself laughing all the way home afterwords. -- The thing's a divine joke. A pretty good one actually.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He did say that the greatest commandment is that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind (or strength).
I don't think I would like to tell him that I won't do it.
I cannot understand your last sentence. Do you think that love is something that can be switched on and off? Do you actually believe that either one loves god because one chooses to do so or one doesn't love god because one chooses not to do so. Do you understand that it is not possible to love something which one doesn't believe exists? (And indeed, is often impossible to love something that one knows does exist). Many of us don't believe in your god for the same reasons that you don't believe in the thousands of other gods that have had their adoring followers throughout human history. Could you suddenly decide to start loving, with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, Odin or Athena, Ra or Ganesh?
Well first of all the quote isn't asking us to believe; it's asking us to love the God in whom we already believe:
Love the Lord your God. Jesus is speaking firstly to the Pharisees then to his other hearers and now to us.
Then what he is saying is that this God we have as 'ours' asks us to love him in a particular way - and it's not in an emotional, 'feeling' kind of way. To the Jews the heart was not the seat of emotions in the way we use it, it was the seat of our thinking. The soul was the seat of our personality, and the mind is the place where decisions and will are formed.
So when Jesus is saying we must love our God, he is saying love with the greatest intent, decisiveness and purpose. It is something we choose to do, to engage in.
I love Jesus because I have decided that that is what I should and need to do.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Then what he is saying is that this God we have as 'ours' asks us to love him in a particular way - and it's not in an emotional, 'feeling' kind of way.
.....So when Jesus is saying we must love our God, he is saying love with the greatest intent, decisiveness and purpose. It is something we choose to do, to engage in.
I love Jesus because I have decided that that is what I should and need to do.
Thanks for the explanation. My inability to believe in God must mean that I am unable to empathise but I think I can begin to see how it could make sense to an informed believer.
For me at least, one of the difficulties of understanding religious points of view is the constant need to explain and enhance what one feels ought to be simple. Within the religious context commonly understood words often seem to be used in uncommon (and therefore confusing) ways. Most English-speaking people would, I suspect, assume that love is an emotion (as in a strong feeling of affection ). You seem to be suggesting that it can also be a deliberately energetic, unremitting and sometimes uncomfortable (and presumably somehow rewarding) devotional effort. Is that getting close?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Then what he is saying is that this God we have as 'ours' asks us to love him in a particular way - and it's not in an emotional, 'feeling' kind of way.
.....So when Jesus is saying we must love our God, he is saying love with the greatest intent, decisiveness and purpose. It is something we choose to do, to engage in.
I love Jesus because I have decided that that is what I should and need to do.
Thanks for the explanation. My inability to believe in God must mean that I am unable to empathise but I think I can begin to see how it could make sense to an informed believer.
For me at least, one of the difficulties of understanding religious points of view is the constant need to explain and enhance what one feels ought to be simple. Within the religious context commonly understood words often seem to be used in uncommon (and therefore confusing) ways. Most English-speaking people would, I suspect, assume that love is an emotion (as in a strong feeling of affection ). You seem to be suggesting that it can also be a deliberately energetic, unremitting and sometimes uncomfortable (and presumably somehow rewarding) devotional effort. Is that getting close?
That's exactly right. Or as Jesus would say, 'you are not far from the Kingdom' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
One of the problems is because we are using English words to convey the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek original. So, for example, the single word 'love' in English covers my love for baked beans, my love for my cat, my sister, my wife and God.
In Greek there were 4 words to cover all that.
And then, once we have translated it into English, the language moves on and much of our religious thinking is still couched in the English of 1611 and words and concepts have changed a .;ittle.
So, yes, it is difficult sometimes for someone new to religious thinking to actually fully grasp what we're on about ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Seek and you will find.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
............(a)..So, yes, it is difficult sometimes for someone new to religious thinking to actually fully grasp what we're on about
............(b).. Seek and you will find.
(a) as a forty year salesman I can tell you that is not, long-term, a winning strategy. Try KISS - Keep It Short and Simple.
(b) the search was always for "truth/reality" - I don't have the ability to, as I see it, resort to self-deception to gain a goal that is probably an illusion. But I keep coming here in case someone has a line of reasoning that resonates.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
As a customer for over 40 years I would simply say that the packaging should be attractive and describe what's inside but one doesn't need to read the full instruction booklet until you've purchased the item.
To me the basic truth is there is a God who loves you and in Jesus provides the way to life.
The rest of the stuff is explored upon opening the box
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
But what does "a God who loves you" mean if you're saying that "love" doesn't mean the emotion that it means in every other context?
If "love" is so hard to understand, and indeed is misleading, do we need a new word? It's rather a shame, as I'd always liked the idea that God loved me. In an emotional sense, the way I understand "love". Shame if he doesn't, but loves me in a way that doesn't correspond to that understanding of the term at all.
I think the problem here is that you've told us what this "love" isn't, but not what it is.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
If God's love were mere sentiment it would only be good enough to write on a Christian get well card!
God's love is powerful, intentional, practical, holy, wrathful against sin, considered, affectionate but fearful (in the sense of awe-inspiring). His love is not just how he feels but how he acts, what he thinks, what he plans and intends and how he judges.
When people talk of God's love in the way that only suggests that he feels loving and kind and benign and therefore wouldn't hurt a fly, they ignore that his love can also be wrathful, just and judgmental.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Ah; there's my problem. Love isn't those things to me. Wrath, judgment etc. I associate with hate, not love. If I love someone, I forgive their failures. If I can't do that, if I cannot forgive, it's because my love isn't up to the task.
I think you do need another word, because if God's how you describe then "loving" is utterly misleading for me at least.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I agree Karl.
The only love from God which I find is the emotional kind. The kind which is still there in the darkest and most awful experiences. Who is still there even in the loneliest times. Who waits for us however far we go from God. That which can't be described in practical terms at all.
God certainly doesn't provide for us like a Father does (except in the broadest terms as in 'everything is provided by God' or 'God provides through other people')
So the hope that God loves us like a parent does really matters imo
I no longer provide anything for either of my sons, and I don't see them often, but I love them with an indescribable depth and think about them all the time. This is how I think of God's love for us all.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I am saying that love includes wrath. The opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy.
ISTM that the wrath of God is God's opinion about injustice, abuse, sin, - he detetsts it, he will not allow it to go free without it being punished, or the innocent being vindicated. It is because of God's wrath that redemption is offered to us.
Apathy would see God simply saying, 'meh I love you so why bother?' Instead, because God loves the world fiercely, strongly, passionately, and wants sin to be defeated, that's the reason for the incarnation and atonement - love must defeat evil and that comes from a position of strong opposition.
God's wrath is not temper or rage - it is a calculated opposition revealed in judgment. It's like a judge in a court of law - the judge isn't angry or in a capricious, violent mood, and yet he directs the force of law to be visited upon the condemned. So God's wrath isn't an outburst of anger.
If God's love did not include wrath then it would not be love at all for the innocent because he would simply be revealing himself to be apathetic and unwilling (or unable) to oppose and correct evil.
He maintains the right to judge - to judge in love doesn't mean to indulge the guilty it means to confront them and insist that justice is satisfied.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Aye, but there's the fundamental problem that God loves the innocent victim of evil but also the evildoer. Or so I have always been taught. Bringing an end to evil and punishing evildoers are two different things and doing the first does not actually require doing the second.
Do not think I don't get your point; if someone hurts my children I feel angry because of my love for them, but the point here is that my relationship with my children is not the same as my relationship with the person hurting them. God on the other hand is in the same relationship with both. When one of my children hurts another one I do not feel the same anger, but instead sadness. What action I take will be aimed at recognising the hurt done, but restoring and maintaining relationship with both. Where I have a problem applying this to God is that you and other traditionalists tell me that God's response to evil is to torment the evildoer for eternity in Hell. That seems pointless to me; if I disowned and rejected one of my children because of what they had done I would feel that my love for them had failed.
Which is what sort of forces me towards universalism, really, because God's love does not fail. It's not a "oh, that's OK, in you come!" sort of universalism. More a belief that ultimately God will reconcile all he loves - which I'm told is everyone, "The World" according the St John to himself. I suppose if someone absolutely insists on not being reconciled that's one thing, but that's not what traditional theology teaches. It teaches that most people will fry. Despite God apparently loving them.
[ 05. November 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bringing an end to evil and punishing evildoers are two different things and doing the first does not actually require doing the second.
Nicely put.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Karl wrote:
Which is what sort of forces me towards universalism, really, because God's love does not fail. It's not a "oh, that's OK, in you come!" sort of universalism. More a belief that ultimately God will reconcile all he loves - which I'm told is everyone, "The World" according the St John to himself. I suppose if someone absolutely insists on not being reconciled that's one thing, but that's not what traditional theology teaches. It teaches that most people will fry. Despite God apparently loving them.
Yes, the alternatives to universalism seem to include 'eternal conscious torment', for some people anyway, I don't enough if that means 'most'.
If it is most, that would be a kind of genocide, wouldn't it? Actually, it would be worse, since there is no end to it.
I assume a lot of Christians today shy away from that idea, understandably.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
enough = know.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl wrote:
I suppose if someone absolutely insists on not being reconciled that's one thing, but that's not what traditional theology teaches. It teaches that most people will fry. Despite God apparently loving them.
'Most people will fry'?
Surely that only applies if you are
1. A totally literalistic fundamentalist
2. A mediaeval Catholic
Why can we not have whatever the opposite of universalism is called without resorting to burning sulphurous lakes and pitch-fork wielding demons?
Hell is only symbolised by these images. I believe that only the redeemed will go to Heaven but I certainly do not think that Hell is literally a burning lake of fire.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Only.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Only.
Only what?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The redeemed.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Isn't that the definition of redeemed? That is, isn't it a tautology to say that only the redeemed will go to Heaven?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
W Hyatt: Isn't that the definition of redeemed? That is, isn't it a tautology to say that only the redeemed will go to Heaven?
To me, this isn't what 'redeemed' (or 'saved') means.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl wrote:
I suppose if someone absolutely insists on not being reconciled that's one thing, but that's not what traditional theology teaches. It teaches that most people will fry. Despite God apparently loving them.
'Most people will fry'?
Surely that only applies if you are
1. A totally literalistic fundamentalist
2. A mediaeval Catholic
Why can we not have whatever the opposite of universalism is called without resorting to burning sulphurous lakes and pitch-fork wielding demons?
Hell is only symbolised by these images. I believe that only the redeemed will go to Heaven but I certainly do not think that Hell is literally a burning lake of fire.
But then you've got a situation where God's love has failed for some people. I mean, God either has purposely chosen to condemn some people for no reason (because there are plenty of good non-Christians and bad Christians) or is not powerful enough to prevent them being condemned, going by that outcome. Neither kind of God is a God I would want to worship, let alone spend eternity with.
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks?
I mean, I do believe in the saving work of Christ - but I can't bring myself to believe that God's love is somehow not powerful enough to redeem everyone, or that God has chosen to condemn some people but created them and given them friends and family and lives regardless. That's not because I'm a heathen liberal, it's because those options stink of misanthropy. If God loves everyone enough to die a painful death for us, I'm not seeing how He doesn't love everyone enough to be able to redeem them.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
LeRoc: quote:
W Hyatt: Isn't that the definition of redeemed? That is, isn't it a tautology to say that only the redeemed will go to Heaven?
To me, this isn't what 'redeemed' (or 'saved') means.
Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
W Hyatt: Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
I'm not sure if I have a complete soteriology (I'm a liberal after all ), but how I think about it is that our egoism — our sin if you like — enslaves us. Being able to let go of that liberates us.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As a customer for over 40 years I would simply say that the packaging should be attractive and describe what's inside but one doesn't need to read the full instruction booklet until you've purchased the item.
To me the basic truth is there is a God who loves you and in Jesus provides the way to life.
The rest of the stuff is explored upon opening the box
For me, simply describing what is alleged to be inside is not enough. Even reading the full instruction book is not a guarantee that the contents match the promise. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of a-pig-in-a-poke.
Your basic truth requires a belief in what you call "God", the existence of what you define as "love", "Jesus" (as in not just a mere mortal) and "life" (another word with a perfectly good and well understood meaning which I suspect is not what you mean). There doesn't seem, to me, to be any justification for your beliefs as I understand/imagine them. I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke - and that's what I can't find. As to exploring after purchasing and opening the box - I know that one answer is believe and the confirmation will follow - that's what was promised to me nearly 60 years ago - but it didn't. A combination of habituation and confirmation bias could explain why it might work for some - but that, to me, is just exploiting one's own human nature to justify an initial irrational action.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke
That's boring.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
But then you've got a situation where God's love has failed for some people. I mean, God either has purposely chosen to condemn some people for no reason (because there are plenty of good non-Christians and bad Christians) or is not powerful enough to prevent them being condemned, going by that outcome. Neither kind of God is a God I would want to worship, let alone spend eternity with.
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks?
I mean, I do believe in the saving work of Christ - but I can't bring myself to believe that God's love is somehow not powerful enough to redeem everyone, or that God has chosen to condemn some people but created them and given them friends and family and lives regardless. That's not because I'm a heathen liberal, it's because those options stink of misanthropy. If God loves everyone enough to die a painful death for us, I'm not seeing how He doesn't love everyone enough to be able to redeem them.
I've had this conversation on another thread somwhere.
What you're talking about is control. Surely love is an offer and not a compulsion?
What kind of love controls the destiny of another person without that person's aquiescence or loving response?
A love that demands that it wins every time is not love. The strength of God's love is that it has defeated the power of sin - not that it has defeated the freewill of the sinner. Love is seen in the possibility of redemption and the possibility of rejection. That is not a failure because the victory was won. The appropriation of that victory into the life of the believer is not in the control of the Almighty and neither is its rejection.
Love does not insist on its own way - even if that means that the offer of love is turned down.
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
[ 05. November 2014, 22:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke
That's boring.
If, with no real corroboration, I told you that you could leap out of a tenth floor window and float unharmed to the ground would you jump because not to do so would be boring?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Mudfrog, you and I may disagree on some things, but in this, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Mudfrog, you and I may disagree on some things, but in this,
I'll add my as well.
But-- or further-- (I'm not really sure if I'm simply further explicating your argument or disagreeing with it in part... you decide) to respond to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I would agree, but say the last chapter is not yet written. We're probably not even at half-time. I am completely open to the possibility that God's love will ultimately win over every heart and that indeed, "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord".
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
The hope that Love ultimately wins does not negate present pain and suffering at all.
The hope that everyone will, in time, repent and turn to God does not mean that there is no pain and anguish.
Jesus wept over pain and injustice - there is still more than enough to weep over today.
Free will has been given from the beginning of the universe - that is obvious. But God reconciling all to Himself is a long term hope. The hope that God accepts all and all will accept Him. I believe that if they don't (waaay after death) then they will be allowed non-existence as an alternative. ie, they will still have a choice.
It was very unsurprising that the Jewish authorities rejected Jesus - he preached a gospel which didn't require their carefully constructed edifices, rules and regulations at all!
[ 06. November 2014, 06:02: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
W Hyatt: Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
I'm not sure if I have a complete soteriology (I'm a liberal after all ), but how I think about it is that our egoism — our sin if you like — enslaves us. Being able to let go of that liberates us.
He is the redeemer - we don't redeem ourselves.
He offers this redemption - we don't have to take it. Those who do not accept redemption are left enslaved.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Mudfrog, you and I may disagree on some things, but in this,
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
Quelle surprise
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
The hope that Love ultimately wins does not negate present pain and suffering at all.
The hope that everyone will, in time, repent and turn to God does not mean that there is no pain and anguish.
Jesus wept over pain and injustice - there is still more than enough to weep over today.
Free will has been given from the beginning of the universe - that is obvious. But God reconciling all to Himself is a long term hope. The hope that God accepts all and all will accept Him. I believe that if they don't (waaay after death) then they will be allowed non-existence as an alternative. ie, they will still have a choice.
It was very unsurprising that the Jewish authorities rejected Jesus - he preached a gospel which didn't require their carefully constructed edifices, rules and regulations at all!
Firstly I would say that Jesus did not weep over pain and injustice.
quote:
Luke 19:41-44 English Standard Version (ESV)
Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Jesus wept for their lost opportunity and for their rejection of him and for their ultimate destruction because of it.
And yes, Jesus was scathing about their infinitesimal regulations, but he didn't preach against the Torah.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, he wasn't terribly complimentary about the laws on Divorce, as I recall. And he didn't insist on its application, as in the woman caught in adultery. Good thing too, really, if God was really into stoning people to death for adultery (and indeed the strict application of a number of bits of the Torah, to be honest) I imagine he'd get on well with the chaps in the Taliban.
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
Of course, the Calvinists have an answer for this, and it's a rather nasty one IMV, but your invocation of the free will argument suggests to me that you're not a Calvinist
[ 06. November 2014, 09:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: If, with no real corroboration, I told you that you could leap out of a tenth floor window and float unharmed to the ground would you jump because not to do so would be boring?
I'm afraid it's nothing that dramatic either. If by some miracle you would choose faith again, chances are your body wouldn't end up splattered on the floor.
Perhaps you could compare it with going on a party or on a voyage. You don't know beforehand what it's going to be, but sometimes that might enhance the adventure.
quote:
Mudfrog: He is the redeemer - we don't redeem ourselves.
To be honest, I'm not terribly concerned with who does the redeeming — Christ, us, or a combination of both. It's not some kind of competition to see who gets the credit.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
I know of no-one like that. It seems a bit bizarre to me; I accept that you know them, but I speak from my own experience and absolutely, no, I don't.
quote:
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
Again, I know people who aspire to these virtues, but they don't necessarily even believe God exists, let alone have any kind of religious motive for holding these values. And they of course vary in their commitment to and living of those values, as do we all.
quote:
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
I can only talk about all the non-believers I know, all of whom are non-believers because, well, they don't believe
I do on the other hand know a quite a number who'd want to believe, if only they could. But they can't.
[ 06. November 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
The biggest group of former Christians I know are LGBT people who were taught that their faith and their sexuality are incompatible - it was either get married to someone of a different gender or leave the church.
So not really a free choice.
I do know others who just stopped believing, and I would say that most Christians know someone like that. But I wouldn't say that they made choices that took them away from Jesus - in the majority of cases, it was the church's actions that made them stop believing.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While I know people who have left Christianity for this reason, I also know some who left for a desire to live a worldly life that became inconsistent with Christianity. Not because they had ceased to believe, but because something else became more attractive than a relationship with God.
I would suggest your experience is limited.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While I know people who have left Christianity for this reason, I also know some who left for a desire to live a worldly life that became inconsistent with Christianity. Not because they had ceased to believe, but because something else became more attractive than a relationship with God.
I would suggest your experience is limited.
Maybe it is. But it's tangential; the point is still that there are many people whose lack of faith is not as a result of their choosing not to follow a Christ who they believe exists, but as a result of their not finding themselves able to believe in him. Most of my family, for starters. And while we can argue the toss about what proportion of ex-Christians are in one category or the other, the great bulk of people who have never been Christians are, IME, almost entirely composed of those who are sceptical of the truth claims of Christianity in the first place.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity. For instance, I know someone who promised completely to her husband, but did not want a legal marriage. Let me be clear that they were not avoiding the commitment. She told anyone who was interested (including the pastor of her church) that she considered herself married in the eyes of God. Her church did not accept that anything that was not made legal was real--odd for a church of libertarians, I thought--so she left the church. She feels rejected and somewhat betrayed by the institution now, and even though she wants to attend services, will only enter churches when she knows no one will come to try to get her to join.
She's still a Christian though. The people who I know who are interested in religion--at least one of them attends church every week--but don't believe would all very much like to. Some of them try to...
[ 06. November 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity.
I mean "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]."
If the person is not having a relationship with God through Scripture or prayer (even if not attending church), or trying to change or repent, then in my view that person is not a Christian. Even if they accept that Christianity is true or the most likely religion to be true.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity.
I mean "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]."
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
And what on earth are they doing that's so much fun?
[ 06. November 2014, 13:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
No, not at all. And I know lots of people who have left Christianity. Most people who want to live a ~worldly life~ are perfectly fine reconciling that with their Christianity.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being.
I suspect that people who stop trying to have a relationship with God are more people who never really did have faith and have decided to stop faking it. My friend who doesn't really believe but goes to church regularly doesn't tell most people that she doesn't believe, for instance.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
Because you don't know anyone like this, they don't exist? Try "The Parable of the Sower" for a start.
And no it's not my interpretation, it's things that people have actually told me. People raised in Christian homes who still accept Christianity is true (or probably true), but prefer not to live as Christians because they'd rather not feel bad for doing things that they know they ought not be doing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
Because you don't know anyone like this, they don't exist? Try "The Parable of the Sower" for a start.
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
Especially if they've been taught that the consequences of ignoring said being might be eternally uncomfortable. Makes no sense, therefore I find it hard to believe that the world is crawling with such people.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
I didn't say that.
They don't want to be convicted that they way are living is wrong, so they hide - like Adam and Eve in the garden.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
I didn't say that.
They don't want to be convicted that they way are living is wrong, so they hide - like Adam and Eve in the garden.
Well, call me as thick as a whale omelette, but that does sound exactly like what Gwai described. Perhaps you could explain the difference between Gwai's description and "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]" because I'm buggered if I can distinguish between them in any way that holds water.
[ 06. November 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While there are always exceptions to all or none statements, Karl is more correct than not. Jails, for example, are full of redeemed people. People don't run away from Christianity when they've done bad things, they run to it, and twist the idea of redemption so they can exculpate themselves from much sense of who they've actually harmed. Heaven being their everlasting reward etc.
The jailhouse parable is that they had their time in the desert where they hurt people and abused their bodies, but now they've been washed in the blood of the lamb, with their sins all washed away and while it's supposed to be the straight and narrow thereafter, reoffense statistics tell the real story. It's all terribly self-centred, and pays minimal attention to anyone else. Which is a root of my objection to the focus on heaven, and the contention of the need to live as if there ain't one.
Perhaps it's hard for people to live principled lives unless they get paid to do it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The biggest group of former Christians I know are LGBT people who were taught that their faith and their sexuality are incompatible - it was either get married to someone of a different gender or leave the church.
So not really a free choice.
Same here - though our benefice has two 'inclusive' churches - but many LGBT Christians have been in evangelical churches and don't find our churches attractive because we are 'liberal and so not 'real' Christians.
Also, our style of worship is a bit on the 'high' side for the and we don't do happy clappy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I would think that the long term decline of Christianity in countries such as the UK, is not because people are thinking, 'well, I know it's true, but I want to do some serious bad stuff', but rather out of growing indifference, or in some cases, active disbelief. My family were a mixture of the two.
In the cases of specific ideas like hell, they just began to seem bizarre, if not ludicrous, to many people.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Apologies in that I've been told not to go into dead horses in Purg - but had forgotten and was reacting to another post - and also to the suggestion from seekingsister that people leave because of 'sin'.
If people leave because of apathy, it's a gradual thing owing to circumstances - work, kids etc.
But there are others, in the dead horse category, for whom leaving involved a lot of pain, most of it unnoticed by other churchgoers.
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
leo wrote:
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
That last point is interesting, as I've known a ton of people in my life, who have spiritual and religious interests, but they seem to regard Christianity, or at least, what you call 'routine church life' as too limited in some way. Maybe they are making excuses, I'm not sure. 'Church life' has a kind of gruesome ring to it for me.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
See that to me is very No True Scotsman - you can't ditch the bad Christians just by saying they're not really Christians. Of course you can do all those things and be a Christian, none of those things define Christianity. Christianity is about being redeemed by Christ, not how often you go to church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
"I'm not a Christian now" would be adequate - no need to nail one's colours to a new mast.
quote:
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
Well indeed. There are many people who do not do those things you describe, or at least do them willingly - children, for example, but we still consider them part of the church, even if they don't at this stage own the faith themselves individually.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Apologies in that I've been told not to go into dead horses in Purg - but had forgotten and was reacting to another post - and also to the suggestion from seekingsister that people leave because of 'sin'.
If people leave because of apathy, it's a gradual thing owing to circumstances - work, kids etc.
But there are others, in the dead horse category, for whom leaving involved a lot of pain, most of it unnoticed by other churchgoers.
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
A lot of that resonates with me. I do find routine church life to often be boring and naive. I don't know if seekingsister would see that as being due to sin, but to me it's like being bored at school because you're not being challenged - it's not me thinking I'm better than everyone else, I just need a challenge and I'm not getting it.
However, that's my experience of more high church environments, and it does make me miss the challenge of more Reformed-influenced churches. So I'm not sure what that says.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
snip..
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks? ...
snip
I've had this conversation on another thread somwhere.
What you're talking about is control. Surely love is an offer and not a compulsion?
What kind of love controls the destiny of another person without that person's aquiescence or loving response?
A love that demands that it wins every time is not love. The strength of God's love is that it has defeated the power of sin - not that it has defeated the freewill of the sinner. Love is seen in the possibility of redemption and the possibility of rejection. That is not a failure because the victory was won. The appropriation of that victory into the life of the believer is not in the control of the Almighty and neither is its rejection.
Love does not insist on its own way - even if that means that the offer of love is turned down.
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
Pomona expressed it better. But love me with all your strength heart and mind or spend an eternity of conscious suffering in hell is not "free will" , especially if its hard to determine which version of god to love, even in this thread there is a wide variety of choices for god.
And also since the evidence in favor of god's existence is at the very least not obvious.
About "choosing to believe". I was a catholic until High School not only by upbringing or by attending catholic school but I really did believe. I went to church every Sunday and prayed every day. I was confirmed while in High school not shortly after first communion like I see it done now at least in Phoenix.
I did believe and when I was loosing my faith I tried very hard to keep it. I actually attended a weekend retreat to decide if I had a vocation for the priesthood. (Now I see it as my dying faith's last ditch effort, ALL or nothing)
In retrospect the main reason at that time was that belief in Hell seemed less and less rational and just. Also I had started studying other religions and found things in them that I really liked. Then I started reading the Bible (Try to make sense of Revelation in High School without a degree in Theology and without using LSD, It can't be done)
It all seemed man made to me. The Bible was clearly written by men.
This was deeply uncomfortable because I liked the
way I felt when I did have faith. But the cat was out of the bag. All the Kings horses Could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. All I have seen since then has only confirmed my unbelief.
So I find it offensive when people claim that faith is a "choice". I guess they do it to justify why god can send unbelievers to Hell for not believing. I also find it funny when they use arguments such as "deep down inside you really believe". Or if I do a "good" deed it MUST come from god. Well, maybe anything can be said to come from god given the many possible definitions of god.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
A lot of that resonates with me. I do find routine church life to often be boring and naive. I don't know if seekingsister would see that as being due to sin, but to me it's like being bored at school because you're not being challenged - it's not me thinking I'm better than everyone else, I just need a challenge and I'm not getting it.
I'm talking about things that anyone - liberal or conservative, evangelical or high church - would consider to be sins. I gave examples - infidelity and crime. Many people in good faith cannot keep going to church and doing the Christian motions when they know what they really want to do, is something that's not compatible with a good Christian life. So they drop the Christian life even if they still believe deep down that it's the right path. They can't or won't follow that path, for whatever reason.
Some people wish to say "Well that's someone who has lost their faith" but it's not as if they don't actually believe in God. They just don't care to have a relationship with Him.
It seems to me the universalist position goes along with the idea that no one would ever reject God if given the choice - even once on the other side. That doesn't jibe with my experiences and I wonder what makes universalists feel that this is actually the case for most people. Humans are quite good at rejecting love and being self-destructive in their personal relationships, so I'm not sure why their spiritual relationships would be any different.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So I find it offensive when people claim that faith is a "choice". I guess they do it to justify why god can send unbelievers to Hell for not believing. I also find it funny when they use arguments such as "deep down inside you really believe". Or if I do a "good" deed it MUST come from god. Well, maybe anything can be said to come from god given the many possible definitions of god.
For some people it is a struggle to believe. I'm married to a person like that. He wasn't raised in any religion and while he can see the value of faith objectively, it doesn't do anything for him. This is not someone I see as rejecting God. He doesn't know God at all so there's nothing to reject.
But there are people who do know about God and faith and then reject it, not only for loss of faith but because of desire to live a life that contradicts that religion's teachings. To me that's a pretty different category.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
My problem with this definition is that is self-referential. Let me invent an example using a definition of "sin" that avoids any specific dead horses.
Let's say that I've discovered the joy of cotton-polyester blend clothing, but my church has a strict belief that this violates the OT law forbidding mixed fabrics. I have a different interpretation of that passage (that it applies to sewing two types together, where they may shrink at different rates) so I don't believe blended fibers are sinful.
This makes it uncomfortable to continue attending this particular church, so I stop, and later join with others who hold similar views on fabrics in a different church.
This mean I'm no longer a Christian? From the point of view of the first church, I've left to live in sin (according to their beliefs), and I no longer attend (their) church or fellowship with other Christians (like them). If that means that I'm no longer a Christian, and those in my new church aren't either, then I no longer attend a Christian church.
But from my perspective, I am still a Christian who attends a Christian Church, fellowships with other Christians, and I am not living a sinful life as I define it.
While there may be some people who actually do leave the church to "lead a sinful life", I suspect it is far more common that they have prayed, studied the Bible, and came to the conclusion that their behaviors are not sin: they leave the particular church because of a difference in belief and interpretation as to what constitutes a sin (or related issues or other problems at the church), rather than from an intent to sin. Some of them may end up at other churches (if there are ones nearby that share their interpretations). Others may be so emotionally shattered and damaged by the actions of the first church that they are not yet recovered enough to attend another. That doesn't mean they don't sill consider themselves Christian.
So perhaps the problem is when "people draw lines a lot more clearly" effectively becomes "you are only a Christian if you meet our definition". One thing I've learned in my time reading the Ship is to let folks decide for themselves what labels they want to apply to themselves and their beliefs: if someone says they are a Christian, then I'll take their word for it, even if there are some aspects of their beliefs that don't, to me, seem compatible with my view of Christianity.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Let's say that I've discovered the joy of cotton-polyester blend clothing, but my church has a strict belief that this violates the OT law forbidding mixed fabrics. I have a different interpretation of that passage (that it applies to sewing two types together, where they may shrink at different rates) so I don't believe blended fibers are sinful.
This makes it uncomfortable to continue attending this particular church, so I stop, and later join with others who hold similar views on fabrics in a different church.
This mean I'm no longer a Christian?
No it doesn't mean you're not a Christian, because in this situation the person finds other Christians and just fellowships elsewhere.
I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian, but still believes in God. In my mind that's not a Christian anymore.
And to clarify - I reject nearly all of the beliefs of the church I grew up in, but the people who grew up in that same environment are the ones who have expressed this "I'm sure God is real but he's asking too much of me so I would rather not deal with being a Christian at all" sentiment. And because I know where they are coming from, I can assure you that such an attitude exists. And perhaps is more common on conservative Christian cultures compared to Europe.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
originally posted by Quetzcoati: quote:
Yes, the alternatives to universalism seem to include 'eternal conscious torment', for some people anyway, I don't enough if that means 'most'.
If the reward of adhering to the morality of the gospel is an eternal life of ease (heaven), then there has to be the opposite, a punishment, for those who fail that test. If 'eternal conscious torment' seems too extreme perhaps there could be something less vicious; say 'Limbo'?
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So I find it offensive when people claim that faith is a "choice". I guess they do it to justify why god can send unbelievers to Hell for not believing. I also find it funny when they use arguments such as "deep down inside you really believe". Or if I do a "good" deed it MUST come from god. Well, maybe anything can be said to come from god given the many possible definitions of god.
For some people it is a struggle to believe. I'm married to a person like that. He wasn't raised in any religion and while he can see the value of faith objectively, it doesn't do anything for him. This is not someone I see as rejecting God. He doesn't know God at all so there's nothing to reject.
But there are people who do know about God and faith and then reject it, not only for loss of faith but because of desire to live a life that contradicts that religion's teachings. To me that's a pretty different category.
If you loose your faith you are not rejecting god. That would be contradictory. You can't reject something you don't believe exists.
The people you describe might not be leading what you deem a "Christian" life but if they are as you describe they are still believers. People don't always do what they think its in their best interest for many reasons. Maybe low self esteem? People can be self contradictory that way. A god that punishes troubled people like that is not very kind or just.
I suspect some of those actually don't believe at all but are afraid to say so because of the stigma against atheists.
But there are large numbers of people without low self esteem who genuinely have no belief in god.
And for them it has nothing to do with being allowed to do whatever they want. I certainly don't need the threat of Hell to encourage me to do what I think its right.
Actually when I had faith I was never afraid of god or eternal punishment. Those things never figured in why I chose to do things. When one is young and living a reasonably comfortable existence, its easy to believe nothing bad will ever happen to you. It was actually contemplating eternal punishment for others that I stopped believing.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Let's say that I've discovered the joy of cotton-polyester blend clothing, but my church has a strict belief that this violates the OT law forbidding mixed fabrics. I have a different interpretation of that passage (that it applies to sewing two types together, where they may shrink at different rates) so I don't believe blended fibers are sinful.
This makes it uncomfortable to continue attending this particular church, so I stop, and later join with others who hold similar views on fabrics in a different church.
This mean I'm no longer a Christian?
No it doesn't mean you're not a Christian, because in this situation the person finds other Christians and just fellowships elsewhere.
I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian, but still believes in God. In my mind that's not a Christian anymore.
And to clarify - I reject nearly all of the beliefs of the church I grew up in, but the people who grew up in that same environment are the ones who have expressed this "I'm sure God is real but he's asking too much of me so I would rather not deal with being a Christian at all" sentiment. And because I know where they are coming from, I can assure you that such an attitude exists. And perhaps is more common on conservative Christian cultures compared to Europe.
My problem with this is the emphasis on 'living a good Christian life'. Is that not a purely works-based thing?
Most people who are doing what I would consider to be un-Christian things are very happy to go to church and consider themselves Christians. Many of those people are in church leadership. I may think they are acting in a non-Christian way but it's not for me to decide whether they are or not.
Someone's a Christian until they say they're not, and it's not for others to make windows into people's souls.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: If, with no real corroboration, I told you that you could leap out of a tenth floor window and float unharmed to the ground would you jump because not to do so would be boring?
I'm afraid it's nothing that dramatic either. If by some miracle you would choose faith again, chances are your body wouldn't end up splattered on the floor.
Perhaps you could compare it with going on a party or on a voyage. You don't know beforehand what it's going to be, but sometimes that might enhance the adventure.
Chances? - as far as I can see there's no reason to suspect any outcome other than a funeral (a jam sandwich vicar? - we think it might be mixed red fruit). A party/voyage is a temporary, fun thing which will probably leave no long lasting effects other than the warm memories stimulated by some 'photos.
Where we differ is that I see the consequences as being serious rather than frivolous. Doing Christianity properly, as I understand it (and as I suspect you also do), involves total commitment and the investment of substantial amounts of time, effort and cash. I think I can use those investments in ways which make a (modest) positive contribution to our world and, on balance, I don't think superstition does that. (And there are many honourable individuals who are religious and make a mixed, possibly sometimes net positive, contribution - there is not necessarily a cause/effect relationship).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: A party/voyage is a temporary, fun thing which will probably leave no long lasting effects other than the warm memories stimulated by some 'photos.
I was going to take a temporary, fun trip to Brazil 21 years ago. I haven't gone back yet.
quote:
HughWillRidmee: Doing Christianity properly, as I understand it (and as I suspect you also do), involves total commitment and the investment of substantial amounts of time, effort and cash.
That's what you're afraid of?
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
However many definitions and doctrines are quoted, only God knows who is a Christian and who is not.
Discussing the exact nature and relationship of the persons of the Trinity doesn’t bring you closer to God, does it?
Following the Way that Jesus taught his disciples leads to salvation from materialism, egotism, hatred, prejudice, judgement of others...
After a lifetime of learning to follow that Way, I am quite confident that the Mystery which is God is always present, as a spirit, wherever I am – not sitting on a throne with Jesus sitting at his right hand, not in the form of a much larger than life Middle Eastern potentate.
And if there is a life after death, which I don’t assume (all cultures have hoped for one, and imagined it in their own terms) – that could be great; the thought of eternity could be terrifying but maybe time would cease to exist.
Some shipmates might not regard me as a Christian but that’s okay. Some of the congregation I belong to probably have similar views to mine and some not, but they just get on with living the Way of Jesus. We don’t have gatekeepers (‘If you don’t accept all our interpretations of scripture we don’t want you.’)
What more is needed?
GG
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The people you describe might not be leading what you deem a "Christian" life but if they are as you describe they are still believers. People don't always do what they think its in their best interest for many reasons. Maybe low self esteem? People can be self contradictory that way. A god that punishes troubled people like that is not very kind or just.
I suspect some of those actually don't believe at all but are afraid to say so because of the stigma against atheists.
It's not what I deem. I have to take a bit of offense at the suggestion that I'm going around determining who is a Christian and who isn't. If someone tells me "I still believe in God but I'm not a Christian" then that's what I'm taking them at. And that's what I'm talking about.
In your understanding of Christianity, as long as you believe in God, you don't have to read Scripture, pray, fellowship with other Christians, serve and care for the needy? The belief in itself is sufficient for a relationship with Jesus, even if you don't do any of the things he asks of His followers?
Doesn't Scripture say "even the demons believe?"
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
My problem with this is the emphasis on 'living a good Christian life'. Is that not a purely works-based thing?
You've used quotes but as I never said that, who are you quoting?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
SS- it's a paraphrase of what you said earlier. One does not have to use your exact words to report back what you said. If you think the paraphrase is inaccurate, then say why, but this "I never said that!" thing you do has marred more than one thread in which I've engaged with you.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
SS- it's a paraphrase of what you said earlier. One does not have to use your exact words to report back what you said. If you think the paraphrase is inaccurate, then say why, but this "I never said that!" thing you do has marred more than one thread in which I've engaged with you.
No Karl, it's a bad faith attempt to misrepresent what I'm saying.
Let me quote myself:
quote:
I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian, but still believes in God. In my mind that's not a Christian anymore.
If you can tell me how that's saying I'm "putting an emphasis on living a good Christian life" or being "works-based" as opposed to "I'm trying to identify what a Christian life is at its bare minimum" - I'm all ears.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Pomona paraphrased "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." as "(not) living a good Christian life" which seems fair enough to me.
She then went on to say that that seemed to be works based to her. Fair enough. You are too quick to accuse posters of bad faith whenever they explore the implications of what you have said.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think the answer is very simple. It's not up to us to decide who is a Christian and who isn't.
If they say they are, then they are.
I hesitate to say it at all these days as 'Christian' is often seen as misogynist and homophobic, sometimes with good reason.
If asked I say "What do you mean by 'Christian'?" If they say 'Following Jesus and His teachings' I agree that I'm a Christian. Otherwise I say "NO - I don't believe any of that!"
Most Christians in the press tend to be the Irish Bakery kind ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
A million miles from what I believe.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pomona paraphrased "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." as "(not) living a good Christian life" which seems fair enough to me.
How is that fair? I'd give people 1%! I pray to God sometimes - cool, OK. I go into churches to light candles and contemplate. Alright! I serve the poor in my community. Awesome! If someone doesn't even do any of these small things that are part of a Christian life by even the most liberal standards possible AND they say they are not a Christian, then I don't see how they are.
If anything it seems Pomona and perhaps yourself are keen to identify anyone who thinks God exists as a Christian believer, and it doesn't ring true with people I know and my own experiences as a person who for 10 years actively avoided Christian worship, prayer, the Bible etc. while never completely giving up a basic belief in God. It didn't make me a Christian because I didn't have a relationship with Christ.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pomona paraphrased "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." as "(not) living a good Christian life" which seems fair enough to me.
How is that fair? I'd give people 1%! I pray to God sometimes - cool, OK. I go into churches to light candles and contemplate. Alright! I serve the poor in my community. Awesome! If someone doesn't even do any of these small things that are part of a Christian life by even the most liberal standards possible AND they say they are not a Christian, then I don't see how they are.
You are spectacularly missing the point. The only point I'm making at the moment is that "(not) living a Good Christian life" is a valid paraphrase of your "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." - where you accused Pomona of misquoting you and bad faith.
The underlying theology I am not addressing at all at the moment - just the flaky debating tactic of accusing others of "bad faith" the moment they start examining what you've said if they dare to paraphrase it.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are spectacularly missing the point. The only point I'm making at the moment is that "(not) living a Good Christian life" is a valid paraphrase of your "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." - where you accused Pomona of misquoting you and bad faith.
Karl, I'm sorry, but I'm not missing the point.
It's an invalid paraphrase because there is no evidence that I ever defined the Christian life, be it good or bad, as anything more than faith AND some effort to have a relationship with God through prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, or service. I didn't quantify it - that you have to pray this often, go to church this often, etc.
To call this works-based is either in bad faith, or a really major case of reading incomprehension. It was an inappropriate paraphrase and when Pomona comes online I expect her to defend it.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Someone's a Christian until they say they're not, and it's not for others to make windows into people's souls.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think the answer is very simple. It's not up to us to decide who is a Christian and who isn't.
If they say they are, then they are.
I understand the sentiments behind saying this, but find problematic some of the conclusions one ends up with.
Certain African evangelicals of my acquaintance have always insisted that Blaise Compaore, the just-ousted president of Burkina Faso, was definitely God’s gift to his country. Why? “Because he’s a (Pentecostal) Christian”. The fact that he was corruptly holding onto power and embezzling millions of dollars in one of the world’s poorest countries didn’t seem to alter their opinion much.
Now, maybe Mr Compaore really does have a deep personal faith. Or maybe he’s just paying lip-service to evangelical churches because it’s politically advantageous. Either way, I think it’s perfectly right and proper to stand up and say “Mr. President, corruption and embezzlement are not Christian behaviours. If you really are a Christian, you need to stop this, and if you don’t, I’m going to assume you’re not one.”
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
However many definitions and doctrines are quoted, only God knows who is a Christian and who is not.
Discussing the exact nature and relationship of the persons of the Trinity doesn’t bring you closer to God, does it?
Following the Way that Jesus taught his disciples leads to salvation from materialism, egotism, hatred, prejudice, judgement of others...
After a lifetime of learning to follow that Way, I am quite confident that the Mystery which is God is always present, as a spirit, wherever I am – not sitting on a throne with Jesus sitting at his right hand, not in the form of a much larger than life Middle Eastern potentate.
And if there is a life after death, which I don’t assume (all cultures have hoped for one, and imagined it in their own terms) – that could be great; the thought of eternity could be terrifying but maybe time would cease to exist.
Some shipmates might not regard me as a Christian but that’s okay. Some of the congregation I belong to probably have similar views to mine and some not, but they just get on with living the Way of Jesus. We don’t have gatekeepers (‘If you don’t accept all our interpretations of scripture we don’t want you.’)
What more is needed?
GG
A very sagacious post. Something similar happened to me; it dawned on me a few years ago, that God is here.
This seems to throw the cat among the pigeons; in particular, what is the point of religions? There is the old joke that if religion is the solution, what is the problem?
Of course, if God is here, there are still things which religions might accomplish, such as providing bonds between people, providing a fuller picture of God's actions, and so on.
I suppose also, that God might be here, but I might not be, and so on. In other words, there might still be an alienation between me and God, although usually, the idea that God is here is supposed to overcome that, since here is all there is, and it is filled (and fulfilled) by God.
Hmm. Difficult to really address this on a forum.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are spectacularly missing the point. The only point I'm making at the moment is that "(not) living a Good Christian life" is a valid paraphrase of your "I'm talking about someone who does 0% of the things that in the most generous sense one would expect of a Christian." - where you accused Pomona of misquoting you and bad faith.
Karl, I'm sorry, but I'm not missing the point.
It's an invalid paraphrase because there is no evidence that I ever defined the Christian life, be it good or bad, as anything more than faith AND some effort to have a relationship with God through prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, or service. I didn't quantify it - that you have to pray this often, go to church this often, etc.
To call this works-based is either in bad faith, or a really major case of reading incomprehension. It was an inappropriate paraphrase and when Pomona comes online I expect her to defend it.
Can I suggest then that instead of going off about misquoting and bad faith, you should have said something like "Pomona, I think you misunderstand me. What I mean is..."
Assuming the worst of people doesn't really make for constructive debate.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Someone's a Christian until they say they're not, and it's not for others to make windows into people's souls.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think the answer is very simple. It's not up to us to decide who is a Christian and who isn't.
If they say they are, then they are.
I understand the sentiments behind saying this, but find problematic some of the conclusions one ends up with.
Certain African evangelicals of my acquaintance have always insisted that Blaise Compaore, the just-ousted president of Burkina Faso, was definitely God’s gift to his country. Why? “Because he’s a (Pentecostal) Christian”. The fact that he was corruptly holding onto power and embezzling millions of dollars in one of the world’s poorest countries didn’t seem to alter their opinion much.
Now, maybe Mr Compaore really does have a deep personal faith. Or maybe he’s just paying lip-service to evangelical churches because it’s politically advantageous. Either way, I think it’s perfectly right and proper to stand up and say “Mr. President, corruption and embezzlement are not Christian behaviours. If you really are a Christian, you need to stop this, and if you don’t, I’m going to assume you’re not one.”
The problem here is that this is still in the No True Scotsman arena. His profession v. behaviour is simply a matter of degree in difference to an "acceptable" sinning Christian. It is certainly possible for him to be a believer and still behave as he does. If you opine he is a poor Christian, then you have good grounds. To claim he is no Christian is without grounds, ISTM.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
My problem with this is the emphasis on 'living a good Christian life'. Is that not a purely works-based thing?
You've used quotes but as I never said that, who are you quoting?
Well I'm actually quoting you from a few pages back, but I'm using inverted commas not speech marks. It's not a quote.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Seekingsister, since I missed the edit window - it's neither bad faith nor lack of reading comprehension. Just because you don't quantify how many times someone has to go to church etc doesn't mean it's not a works-based perspective. It's still basing how much personal faith someone has on outward actions, which may not be an accurate guide. I'm also not saying that anyone who has some belief in God is a Christian, I'm just saying that people are allowed to self-define and call themselves Christians and it has very little to do with you. I don't think that anyone who has some belief in God is a Christian, but many people can have faith in Christ's redemption (quite a different thing) and not do all those things you listed. People are capable of having a deep inner faith without much of an outer faith.
At least within Trinitarian, creedal Christian denominations, it's not up to others to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. That's between God and the individual.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
A lot of that resonates with me. I do find routine church life to often be boring and naive. I don't know if seekingsister would see that as being due to sin, but to me it's like being bored at school because you're not being challenged - it's not me thinking I'm better than everyone else, I just need a challenge and I'm not getting it.
I'm talking about things that anyone - liberal or conservative, evangelical or high church - would consider to be sins. I gave examples - infidelity and crime. Many people in good faith cannot keep going to church and doing the Christian motions when they know what they really want to do, is something that's not compatible with a good Christian life. So they drop the Christian life even if they still believe deep down that it's the right path. They can't or won't follow that path, for whatever reason.
Some people wish to say "Well that's someone who has lost their faith" but it's not as if they don't actually believe in God. They just don't care to have a relationship with Him.
It seems to me the universalist position goes along with the idea that no one would ever reject God if given the choice - even once on the other side. That doesn't jibe with my experiences and I wonder what makes universalists feel that this is actually the case for most people. Humans are quite good at rejecting love and being self-destructive in their personal relationships, so I'm not sure why their spiritual relationships would be any different.
'Good Christian life' highlighted in italics by me because I'm not great at editing quotes. I knew you had said it, and this is what was in my mind when I posted. So um yes, you did say it. Sorry what you actually posted doesn't back you up there.
That looks awfully works-based to me. I mean how do you quantify a good Christian life? I know what I would define it as would be different to what many on this board would.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Pomona - how is not commiting crime or cheating on your spouse a works-based theology?
I'm sorry but if you are saying you don't actually think some things are sins, and that some people can't take Communion with a straight face while engaging in these things, then you are indeed in a very liberal branch of the church.
I think anyone can be a Christian no matter what they are doing, as long as they still try to have a relationship with God. I was talking about the feelings of the people I know who are not in church due to things going on their personal lives - who think they are not living a "good Christian life" so would rather drop it.
Nothing in what you have quoted supports any claim that I am emphasizing a "good Christian life" nor that I am a works-oriented legalist.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Please point to where I said I don't believe anything is a sin? I never said that and it's not what I believe. Your posts clearly emphasise 'a good Christian life'. You may wish to deny it, but it's there. I quoted what I did to show that you had said something you denied saying.
Yes, cheating on your wife is a sin (committing crime surely depends on what it is - I mean if you break an unjust law then that's clearly not sinful). But sinning doesn't make you not a Christian. I would say the idea of a God who takes away salvation at a whim is an unhelpful one. Unless you think you can be Christian enough to be saved but not enough to call yourself a Christian? That's what I'm talking about - the idea that there's a human-decided level of sin beyond which you can't call yourself a Christian. That doesn't square up with the Gospel IMO. For a start, oppressing the poor is a rather bigger sin but I don't see you saying that George Osborne cannot be considered a Christian.
Also whether or not I view something as a sin doesn't stop others from thinking that it's not a sin. That was rather my point - what is a sin varies so much amongst Christians. I mean, to use an extreme example, a polygynist Christian would not consider having multiple wives to be sinful, even though most Christians would. That's NOT saying that it's not a sin, just that actually there are plenty of people who sin and consider themselves Christians and take Communion etc because they do not consider themselves to be sinning.
The people you talk about are surely to be pitied because they think they're only worth something to God if they're perfect? 'I'm committing xyz huge sin so it's not worth it' is a really sad perspective to have. I have encountered some people like that, but funnily enough only those who have been disfellowshipped or otherwise left very conservative churches over things that very few Christians would consider sinful. I mean, Dead Horses stuff as mentioned but also things like women who want to work outside the home. If you (general you) teach that certain types of people are not really Christians, you get very close to people who say Catholics are not Christians etc.
I hope that's clarified my position somewhat? I think I misunderstood some of your points, and vice versa. Also I am coming from a perspective of churches IME being more sinning than sinned against.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
However many definitions and doctrines are quoted, only God knows who is a Christian and who is not.
Discussing the exact nature and relationship of the persons of the Trinity doesn’t bring you closer to God, does it?
Following the Way that Jesus taught his disciples leads to salvation from materialism, egotism, hatred, prejudice, judgement of others...
After a lifetime of learning to follow that Way, I am quite confident that the Mystery which is God is always present, as a spirit, wherever I am – not sitting on a throne with Jesus sitting at his right hand, not in the form of a much larger than life Middle Eastern potentate.
And if there is a life after death, which I don’t assume (all cultures have hoped for one, and imagined it in their own terms) – that could be great; the thought of eternity could be terrifying but maybe time would cease to exist.
Some shipmates might not regard me as a Christian but that’s okay. Some of the congregation I belong to probably have similar views to mine and some not, but they just get on with living the Way of Jesus. We don’t have gatekeepers (‘If you don’t accept all our interpretations of scripture we don’t want you.’)
What more is needed?
GG
A very sagacious post. Something similar happened to me; it dawned on me a few years ago, that God is here.
This seems to throw the cat among the pigeons; in particular, what is the point of religions? There is the old joke that if religion is the solution, what is the problem?
Of course, if God is here, there are still things which religions might accomplish, such as providing bonds between people, providing a fuller picture of God's actions, and so on.
I suppose also, that God might be here, but I might not be, and so on. In other words, there might still be an alienation between me and God, although usually, the idea that God is here is supposed to overcome that, since here is all there is, and it is filled (and fulfilled) by God.
Hmm. Difficult to really address this on a forum.
One of our clergy's opening prayer on Sunday begins with something like this "God has been with us in many ways and in many places during the week. But now we are gathered as a family of God's people..."
GG
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Galloping Granny wrote:
One of our clergy's opening prayer on Sunday begins with something like this "God has been with us in many ways and in many places during the week. But now we are gathered as a family of God's people..."
That's a very nice prayer; I suppose I came to see the second bit as optional.
Well, I don't think God's presence is conditional on me or my activities. On the other hand, humans are rather Pavlovian, so they react well to a system of reward and punishment!
Also, perhaps we find God's presence intolerable, so we think of distractions.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I don't think God's presence is conditional on me or my activities.
I completely agree, but I also think that my awareness of his presence and the effect it has on me is conditional on me and my activities.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I don't think God's presence is conditional on me or my activities.
I completely agree, but I also think that my awareness of his presence and the effect it has on me is conditional on me and my activities.
Yes, a very interesting topic, but probably going beyond the remit of this thread.
There is a tradition of self-annihilation or self-abnegation in various religions, including Buddhism also, although not with a view to finding God.
Simone Weil writes about this in interesting ways, but I am forgetting the detail; killing the self basically.
"We must consent through love to cease to be anything, so that God can become everything again."
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Galloping Granny wrote:
One of our clergy's opening prayer on Sunday begins with something like this "God has been with us in many ways and in many places during the week. But now we are gathered as a family of God's people..."
That's a very nice prayer; I suppose I came to see the second bit as optional.
Well, I don't think God's presence is conditional on me or my activities. On the other hand, humans are rather Pavlovian, so they react well to a system of reward and punishment!
Also, perhaps we find God's presence intolerable, so we think of distractions.
The second bit does indicate why this bunch of people have come to this place on a particular morning.
Surely the whole heaven and hell thing arises out of the human conviction that virtue should be rewarded and evil punished, and it doesn't always seem to happen in this life.
GG
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Galloping Granny wrote:
One of our clergy's opening prayer on Sunday begins with something like this "God has been with us in many ways and in many places during the week. But now we are gathered as a family of God's people..."
That's a very nice prayer; I suppose I came to see the second bit as optional.
Well, I don't think God's presence is conditional on me or my activities. On the other hand, humans are rather Pavlovian, so they react well to a system of reward and punishment!
Also, perhaps we find God's presence intolerable, so we think of distractions.
The second bit does indicate why this bunch of people have come to this place on a particular morning.
Surely the whole heaven and hell thing arises out of the human conviction that virtue should be rewarded and evil punished, and it doesn't always seem to happen in this life.
Having trouble with a weak signal; sorry if this gets repeated.
GG
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Galloping Granny
Fair enough. My sardonic comment about Pavlov was because I was thinking about rewards and punishments amongst animals. As with many other things, such as empathy, animals seem to have anticipated us. Some of them exhibit a sense of fairness, and punish infringements; virtue and vice!
However, we should certainly not get into another stramash about animal proto-morality.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I'm having trouble with the concern about "works based Christianity". I think "grace based Christianity" is over-rated and over-emphasized. I think it enables purportedly Christian leaders, to be demonstrably cruel in their policies, with the comfort that God isn't very worried about what they do. Even those who are avowed atheists are caught up in our social, historical and cultural milieu that enables feeling okay about themselves when they behave abominably. I'm thinking of everything from direct lies that promote the killing of people in wars and the speculation by bankers which wiped out savings and jobs for starters. Works matter. Shouldn't people be damned for them as well as saved through them? Adam was.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
I saw a truck today for a business whose name included the adjective "Christian" and it occurred to me that no one expects it to be a reference either to the quality of the owners' faith or to the merit of the work done, but rather to the principles by which the owners claim to conduct their business, presumably things like honesty, integrity, and service. It seems to me that the distinction between grace-based and works-based Christianity has served its historical purpose.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
What plumber would Jesus call?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0