UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Yeah, that's the big myth, right there.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs.
quote:Oh yeah. The Scriptures. I wondered when that would arrive, as a substitute for rigorous enquiry.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yeah, that's the big myth, right there.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs.
quote:It seems to me that, ordinarily, if one has the capacity to repent and believe, it must be done while one has that capacity.
Originally posted by Martin60:
When's that got to be done by?
quote:Well, seeing 'The Scriptures' are the only place you'll find anything about going to heaven and any kind of Christian faith, I'm afraid it's all you got - even with any enquiry, rigorous or otherwise!
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Oh yeah. The Scriptures. I wondered when that would arrive, as a substitute for rigorous enquiry.
quote:Indeed. The topic of this thread, though, is the criteria Jesus uses to cast His choices. This one to bliss, that one to torment. It is, I think, a valid question for anyone to ask, given its relationship to the meaning of life.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The traditional Christian view, of course, would be that entrance into the next life is all about the grace and love of Jesus Christ, rather than who is "good enough"
quote:Dear Mudfrog. Surprising as it may seem to you, I am a believer. I just want my faith consistent with my intellect, philosophy, theology, science, etc. I seek a coherent, comprehensive, consilient truth. I am hoping this discussion might lead that way.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Well, seeing 'The Scriptures' are the only place you'll find anything about going to heaven and any kind of Christian faith, I'm afraid it's all you got - even with any enquiry, rigorous or otherwise!
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Oh yeah. The Scriptures. I wondered when that would arrive, as a substitute for rigorous enquiry.
You seem to want an intellectual, philosophical, academically peer-reviewed and scientifically watertight remedy for your question.
quote:I knew you would 'go there'; and that's why in my reply to you I wrote "ordinarily, if one has the capacity to repent and believe..."
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's still unfair Boogie. Who chooses to be a psycho?
So Mudfrog, all Islam, all Hindoostan, all animists, Confucians, Buddhists, Neanderthals and the other billions who have lived for the past two hundred thousand years and the vast preponderance of at best nominal Christians throughout all of Christendom, they will have had their chance?
And Judgement is really eternally bad news unless you come from Sodom and Gomorrah?
quote:I agree it's unfair - but I can't think of anyone else who could conceivably be labelled 'bad'. We are all both good and bad.
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's still unfair Boogie. Who chooses to be a psycho?
quote:It may be a 'valid question' from our end of the telescope, but it's framed entirely from the way we think things ought to be, from our way of looking at things, not God's. It's expecting and demanding that he be like us, that he fit in with our presumptions. That's putting the universe the wrong way round.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Indeed. The topic of this thread, though, is the criteria Jesus uses to cast His choices. This one to bliss, that one to torment. It is, I think, a valid question for anyone to ask, given its relationship to the meaning of life.
quote:I apologise if I came over as unhelpful or combative.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Dear Mudfrog. Surprising as it may seem to you, I am a believer. I just want my faith consistent with my intellect, philosophy, theology, science, etc. I seek a coherent, comprehensive, consilient truth. I am hoping this discussion might lead that way.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Well, seeing 'The Scriptures' are the only place you'll find anything about going to heaven and any kind of Christian faith, I'm afraid it's all you got - even with any enquiry, rigorous or otherwise!
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Oh yeah. The Scriptures. I wondered when that would arrive, as a substitute for rigorous enquiry.
You seem to want an intellectual, philosophical, academically peer-reviewed and scientifically watertight remedy for your question.
Best wishes, PV.
quote:To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:It may be a 'valid question' from our end of the telescope, but it's framed entirely from the way we think things ought to be, from our way of looking at things, not God's. It's expecting and demanding that he be like us, that he fit in with our presumptions. That's putting the universe the wrong way round.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Indeed. The topic of this thread, though, is the criteria Jesus uses to cast His choices. This one to bliss, that one to torment. It is, I think, a valid question for anyone to ask, given its relationship to the meaning of life.
quote:Isn't there?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
Best wishes, PV.
quote:Yes, I would agree with much of this, but I still find it necessary to ask this most fundamental question in the OP. Is this supposedly Salvation act - basically, begging for God's help - the thing that gets us into heaven? If so, why? Does God want us diminished before He will accept us? Or, does He want people, who, come Judgement Day, will look Him in the eye, fearless and confident, and say, 'Now what was with the Amelakite genocide?'
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I apologise if I came over as unhelpful or combative.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Dear Mudfrog. Surprising as it may seem to you, I am a believer. I just want my faith consistent with my intellect, philosophy, theology, science, etc. I seek a coherent, comprehensive, consilient truth. I am hoping this discussion might lead that way.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Well, seeing 'The Scriptures' are the only place you'll find anything about going to heaven and any kind of Christian faith, I'm afraid it's all you got - even with any enquiry, rigorous or otherwise!
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Oh yeah. The Scriptures. I wondered when that would arrive, as a substitute for rigorous enquiry.
You seem to want an intellectual, philosophical, academically peer-reviewed and scientifically watertight remedy for your question.
Best wishes, PV.
All I am saying is that salvation - the 'act', if you like, of 'getting saved' is not an intellectual one - it's a simple, childlike trust in Christ. If it were no so, only philosophers and theologians would be saved.
Simple repentance and faith, however, can (and often does) lead to great depths of intellectual rigour over Scripture, doctrine and all the other fields of study around religion and ethics.
quote:But again, the traditional Christian view is that Jesus doesn't do this on the basis of "who is good enough".
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Indeed. The topic of this thread, though, is the criteria Jesus uses to cast His choices. This one to bliss, that one to torment. It is, I think, a valid question for anyone to ask, given its relationship to the meaning of life.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The traditional Christian view, of course, would be that entrance into the next life is all about the grace and love of Jesus Christ, rather than who is "good enough"
Best wishes, PV.
quote:Indeed not. I may be wrong, but as far as I recall, Christians believe believing Christians get promoted heavenward, at the end of days. Which takes me right back to the OP, and is getting circular. So, let us attempt to demolish this unedifying spiral and ask: what rational, theological or philosophical justification exists for such a belief?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:But again, the traditional Christian view is that Jesus doesn't do this on the basis of "who is good enough".
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Indeed. The topic of this thread, though, is the criteria Jesus uses to cast His choices. This one to bliss, that one to torment. It is, I think, a valid question for anyone to ask, given its relationship to the meaning of life.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The traditional Christian view, of course, would be that entrance into the next life is all about the grace and love of Jesus Christ, rather than who is "good enough"
Best wishes, PV.
quote:Ha Ha. You mean, like the church fathers?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Just make it up PV.
quote:Just so. But even given the universal context of God, and the necessarily partial one of humanity, our two concepts of justice must have some principles in common. They cannot be completely different, completely divisible. And so, to prove His competence, God requires to be accountable. For me, an unaccountable God with alien conceptions of Justice is a monster to be resisted, not an object deserving our devotion.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Isn't there?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
Best wishes, PV.
You don't think there is something about perspective? I experience the weather in a particular way at any given moment, but it is hard to say this is "the weather" in my town, county or country.
One can believe that God is just without understanding the full context within which he is operating or how any individual action is marked just. That's pretty obvious, I'd think.
quote:This is very confusing. It's not difficult at all to look out my window and say "it's cloudy" or "it's raining" or "the sun is shining." And to reasonably expect that other people in my town are experiencing pretty much the same thing.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You don't think there is something about perspective? I experience the weather in a particular way at any given moment, but it is hard to say this is "the weather" in my town, county or country.
quote:Yes, I accept all this. But I think there is a difference between doing good, where some have opportunities of scale others lack, and being good, where we all have equal opportunity. The distinction is between what one does, and what one is. My proposal is that we get judged on what we are.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The reason for reluctance to see moral behaviour connected directly with the afterlife is that we can't earn our way to heaven by doing good works. All kinds of people do good works, for all kinds of reasons, often selfish ones - and that might include those who are looking to earn a place in heaven.
quote:My point is that what we experience is not the totality of "the weather", what we understand by justice is not the totality of "justice". That's all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is very confusing. It's not difficult at all to look out my window and say "it's cloudy" or "it's raining" or "the sun is shining." And to reasonably expect that other people in my town are experiencing pretty much the same thing.
quote:This is very important, I think. It's one thing to be told, "You will be graded, and here are the rubrics according to which you will be graded. Behave accordingly, and you will get a good grade."
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Let justice be done; but letting it be known to be done is quite as important. Otherwise, for us poor delinquents, anything goes. And what we get might not be justice at all, but whim, and how are we to tell the difference?
quote:All eminently reasonable and it's not that I disagree with it per se, but it's not me that's got to agree or disagree. I don't hold the keys to heaven and hell.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Indeed, Paul. But we can say something along the lines of: it is a fundamental principle of justice that it metes out an understandably just end. That those who receive justice, understand why their end is just. I cannot condone any idea of justice that thinks it above such a principle, which, to its subjects, would in such an instance seem arbitrary, and therefore not justice, at all. Let justice be done; but letting it be known to be done is quite as important. Otherwise, for us poor delinquents, anything goes. And what we get might not be justice at all, but whim, and how are we to tell the difference?
quote:a) I don't consider them poles apart. To be valid they necessarily need to be congruent or at least non-contradictory.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The line drawn between the polarized points of scripture and tradition is hardly the only geometry allowed Paul.
quote:
And why do we need more information or ANY revelation, whatever that is?
quote:How do I know who or what Christ is aside from information passed down to me via scripture and tradition?
Apart from in Christ?
quote:Okay, I like this, because it points up the contrast so beautifully. You appear to be imagining us as standing on a more or less equal footing with God--free either to grovel or to spit in his eye and walk away--full of self respect and free agency.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I would agree with much of this, but I still find it necessary to ask this most fundamental question in the OP. Is this supposedly Salvation act - basically, begging for God's help - the thing that gets us into heaven? If so, why? Does God want us diminished before He will accept us? Or, does He want people, who, come Judgement Day, will look Him in the eye, fearless and confident, and say, 'Now what was with the Amelakite genocide?'
I know which, if I were God, I would prefer.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Well I think that it's more that Christianity looks for an alternative, or addition, to the Jewish doctrine of repentance and faith. They believe, and I would tend to agree, that a personal act of repentance is enough to restore the divine image in which we were created. Faith in this context, is cleaving to God with all one's being. The idea that we're totally depraved and unable to even seek God's mercy is a hangover from Augustine's Manichean past, which was vigorously taken up by Calvin.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I simply think you are looking for an alternative to the Christian doctrine of repentance and faith.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We need a Savior.
quote:(Ignoring the fact that the inheritance that Jesus is speaking of is not heaven or at least not a heaven separate from a renewed earth)
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs.
quote:I don't see how that's morally just. No matter how morally bad you are, you don't deserve hell. No matter how morally good you are, you don't deserve heaven.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs. What else could be morally just?
quote:Well I would say that it clearly shows that Jesus, in keeping with his culture, believed that God would judge people's deeds. Indeed I don't see any other way it could be interpreted. Most of the quotes used to support a belief in eternal damnation come from Matthew, but they are all related to deeds, good or bad. In Romans 10:9 Paul writes "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." But saved from what? For Paul, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23) not eternal damnation.
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Would welcome any views on how these words of Jesus relate to the discussion in this thread.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't see how that's morally just. No matter how morally bad you are, you don't deserve hell. No matter how morally good you are, you don't deserve heaven.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs. What else could be morally just?
In any case, Christianity is not about justice but about mercy, which trumps justice.
I don't think salvation is confined to people who are Christians. I'm of the persuasion that thinks we may hope that all shall be saved. But I don't think justice has anything to do with it. The thought that the morally good go to heaven smacks to me of the cultists in Pratchett who are told that under the new government the deserving will get to ride in coaches...
"There was a thoughtful pause in the conversation as the assembled Brethren mentally divided the universe into the deserving and the undeserving, and put themselves on the appropriate side."
quote:Any time we tread on the sacred soil of discussing the Trinity, we are in grave danger (if not certainty) of hitting on some heretical doctrine or another). Knowing that, I would still say...
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
** In William Styron's novel (the movie does not do Styron's prose justice, one of the best 20th century novels), Sophie is given the choice on the railway platform which of her two children to send to the gas at Auschwitz, and which one to save. The choice is magnificently obscene and so is her life after, as she says (from my memory), later when at additional extremity: "fuck Gotte and all his hande work". I think she's correct to dismiss God entirely if the death of Jesus as man or child is a requirement of God to provide anyone deserving or otherwise with salvation. In the wonderland of faith, is it more obscene to hold that "everyone has won and all must have prizes" than to hold that God must have Jesus' blood? Unless the dodo is me, I say prizes for all.
quote:All right, go ahead and do it.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We need a Savior.
"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.(Micah 6:8)
Jesus said if you want mercy then show mercy. If you want forgiveness then give forgiveness unlimited. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Why isn't that enough?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we stress the separation of the persons of the Godhead, then the cross seems like the most horrific form of child-abuse.
But if we allow for greater unity in the persons of the Godhead, then it is something else altogether. As in the ancient biblical metaphor of Christus victor, it's not some angry, vengeful God demanding a blood sacrifice and not terribly choosy about where it comes from. Rather, it is a loving, sacrificial God who enters willingly into suffering and into death itself, in order to declare victory over both sin and death.
quote:Both testaments of Scripture say in many places that obedience is important, that faith is important, and that love is important, with little indication about how to reconcile the various passages. Personally, I'm only aware of Swedenborg's explanation as one that starts from Scripture, encompasses all three (obedience, faith, and love), and statisfies common sense. To try to summarize briefly:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
But I'm struggling because I'm one of those people who believes (I know, I know that word again) that faith in Christ is important too. Would welcome any views on how these words of Jesus relate to the discussion in this thread.
quote:That's having your cake, eating it, after you baked it too.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Any time we tread on the sacred soil of discussing the Trinity, we are in grave danger (if not certainty) of hitting on some heretical doctrine or another). Knowing that, I would still say...
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
** In William Styron's novel (the movie does not do Styron's prose justice, one of the best 20th century novels), Sophie is given the choice on the railway platform which of her two children to send to the gas at Auschwitz, and which one to save. The choice is magnificently obscene and so is her life after, as she says (from my memory), later when at additional extremity: "fuck Gotte and all his hande work". I think she's correct to dismiss God entirely if the death of Jesus as man or child is a requirement of God to provide anyone deserving or otherwise with salvation. In the wonderland of faith, is it more obscene to hold that "everyone has won and all must have prizes" than to hold that God must have Jesus' blood? Unless the dodo is me, I say prizes for all.
If we stress the separation of the persons of the Godhead, then the cross seems like the most horrific form of child-abuse.
But if we allow for greater unity in the persons of the Godhead, then it is something else altogether. As in the ancient biblical metaphor of Christus victor, it's not some angry, vengeful God demanding a blood sacrifice and not terribly choosy about where it comes from. Rather, it is a loving, sacrificial God who enters willingly into suffering and into death itself, in order to declare victory over both sin and death.
quote:Yes, I think you have put this all very well, indeed. The thing is, I am not talking about earning heaven, by doing good, or earning points. I am positing the idea that one achieves heaven, by being good. In this world, and the next. Virtue, it is said, is it's own reward, and I am somewhat influenced by the virtue ethic idea of eudaemonia, or flourishing of character, through the possession and exercise of virtue. It happens to be so in this life, that good people are happier. It is only consistent to think that it would happen so in the next.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
PV, I'm having a hard time knowing where to start. Boogie was right in pointing out that there is good and bad in everybody, and one consequence of that is to put the whole "do good and earn your way to salvation" right out of court. There simply isn't anybody out there who could meet that challenge. Unless you think God grades on a curve, and gives extra points for effort?
The whole points-earning contest model is a mistake to start with. The very word "salvation" implies that there is something you need to be saved from, something you can't manage for yourself.
If you want a better analogy, try something like a horrible car accident, and God is pulling us out of the crash. Or a mirror with a crack in it--one which will only spread as time goes on. That mirror isn't going to fix itself--only the glassblower can melt it down and recast it, whole again.
You seem to think that those who say "You must trust in Jesus to be saved" are therefore claiming some sort of moral superiority for those who do believe over those who do not. This is totally wrong. The statement is much closer to "you must allow the firemen to pull you out of the fire" or "you must allow the surgeon to save your life." There is nothing the least bit superior about those who trust in Christ, anymore than there is about the burn victim or stroke victim. The superiority, the glory, is all God's.
Indeed, the situation of the Christian is such a lowly one that it is common to see the so-called "dregs of society" latching on to Jesus--the poor, the drug users, the dysfunctional, the outcasts. It's much easier to break down and admit you need a Savior when you're out in the pigpen feeding the hogs. Those who still have illusions of "I can do it myself"--well, they have no need or wish for Jesus.
quote:So, this is a glass half-empty or half-full question. Yes, we have many things wrong in our societies, but we also have many good people beavering away, day and night, to try and resolve them. Maybe because of the impetus Jesus provided; I like to think so, anyway. So, I suggest, this work will be rewarded, by the development of moral stature, spiritual growth, good character, whatever you want to call it, and this will be the deciding factor in the last deployment of our souls.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Okay, I like this, because it points up the contrast so beautifully. You appear to be imagining us as standing on a more or less equal footing with God--free either to grovel or to spit in his eye and walk away--full of self respect and free agency.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I would agree with much of this, but I still find it necessary to ask this most fundamental question in the OP. Is this supposedly Salvation act - basically, begging for God's help - the thing that gets us into heaven? If so, why? Does God want us diminished before He will accept us? Or, does He want people, who, come Judgement Day, will look Him in the eye, fearless and confident, and say, 'Now what was with the Amelakite genocide?'
I know which, if I were God, I would prefer.
Cheers, PV.
So now I've got a question for you--have you ever heard of the medical term "anasognosia"? Anasognosia is what you have when a person is dreadfully impaired by some disease and yet insists that he is entirely well, happy, healthy, and good to go...
And this is the state of the human race without God.
Seriously, look around you. Climate change--but very little change in the hearts of people who caused it. Refugees everywhere. Nuclear politics. Inner city slums. Child abuse and elder abuse. Rape which is so prevalent that I daresay you know at least thirty victims yourself, if they were willing to tell you.
Is this a healthy species? I think not.
We need a Savior.
quote:You haven't addressed my point that no-one can be a 'good' person. We are all a confused mixture of good and bad.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am positing the idea that one achieves heaven, by being good. In this world, and the next. Virtue, it is said, is it's own reward, and I am somewhat influenced by the virtue ethic idea of eudaemonia, or flourishing of character, through the possession and exercise of virtue. It happens to be so in this life, that good people are happier. It is only consistent to think that it would happen so in the next.
quote:Exactly my belief.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe better to say all get to heaven, but the 'bad' hate it there!
quote:In that case -
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Exactly my belief.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe better to say all get to heaven, but the 'bad' hate it there!
Cheers, PV.
quote:Thanks but I'm not sure you need to go to Paul to find the idea of belief saving from death, as this occurs in Jesus own words esp. in John e.g. John 11:25..
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In Romans 10:9 Paul writes "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." But saved from what? For Paul, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23) not eternal damnation.
So you can take two separate ideas, one given by Jesus that good deeds save you from hell, and one given by Paul that belief in Jesus saves you from death, and synthesise them into a belief that belief in Jesus saves you from hell. Only that isn't what Scripture actually says. At best it's a flimsy interpretation of Scripture.
quote:I like that idea too, but I would go further. If total psychopaths are people with mental illness and not people who deliberately choose to do evil, why wouldn't they be able to remain too? And perhaps anyone who maltreated them to the extent that they became mentally ill should be the one to be allowed to die? In the end, only God knows the truth and God therefore is the only judge we can trust.
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about the 'bad' get a chance to repent, even in heaven (when they truly see God and truly see the harm of their 'badness') and those who don't, ie total psychopaths, are allowed to truly 'die' - cease to exist?
That's my belief (based on nothing except that I want it to be true!)
quote:I suspect that even the "bad" who despise goodness as weakness are broken in some way. It is some sort of mental illness- some sort of trauma or lack or whatever that caused them to be "tweaked" in that way. And I'm not sure that the "badness" in me isn't of precisely that sort-- that when I choose to sin, I'm not implicitly thinking precisely that to do good in this situation would be "weak" when I want to be "strong" (powerful, in control, masterful).
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, but I think that good people love goodness, and rejoice in it, and bad people hate it, and despise it as 'weakness'. Our heaven is what we make of it, how we approach it, how adequate we are in ourselves to perceive it's riches (the virtues of others, not least, God's) and value them correctly. But I do not think that the bad are irrevocably condemned into a situation they will hate, for all eternity. I think that, as soon as they have perceived the truth about themselves, and come to repentance, and received forgiveness, they will come to enjoy heaven, also. But always with a nagging regret for a misspent life.
Such would be a disposal I would see as 'just', anyway. It is, incidentally, this belief in a just God doing justice that persuades me of an afterlife, at all. We all know this world is not 'fair'. If God is just, He must have built a just system; so, at the end of time, there must be a just resolution. It seems we need the resurrection of souls to allow that to happen.
Cheers, PV.
quote:I suspect that's probably true-- which may be why Jesus' parables about the afterlife seem to suggest there will be a lot of (not necessarily happy) surprises in the final judgment.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The first step of Heaven is that we recieve full knowledge of exactly who we are. People who had been trying to confront that n their earthly life will have a much easier time of it than those who willfully avoided the self examination process.
quote:Allowed to die because they are so unhappy there and yet unable to change/adapt?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:I like that idea too, but I would go further. If total psychopaths are people with mental illness and not people who deliberately choose to do evil, why wouldn't they be able to remain too? And perhaps anyone who maltreated them to the extent that they became mentally ill should be the one to be allowed to die? In the end, only God knows the truth and God therefore is the only judge we can trust.
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about the 'bad' get a chance to repent, even in heaven (when they truly see God and truly see the harm of their 'badness') and those who don't, ie total psychopaths, are allowed to truly 'die' - cease to exist?
That's my belief (based on nothing except that I want it to be true!)
quote:Just so.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The first step of Heaven is that we recieve full knowledge of exactly who we are.
quote:I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life. At least the idea of a cosmic balance sheet in which our deeds are weighed, which can be tipped either way by one action has justice in it. But even there I don't believe in such a harsh God. Repentance is always available to cancel out wrongdoing and tip the scale in our favour. Psalm 51 says, "16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
quote:That last bit is very good, Kelly. It reminds me of the idea of the wounded healer, which is found in some areas of therapy.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That, and any happiness or self love based on illusion is not happiness or self love at all.
To take the example of the genuine psychopath-- "This is who you were. This is who you hurt. This is what you turned yourself into."
Hell.
"Also, this is what gigantic chunks of your brain were doing while this was going on. This is the backstage view of why you knew you couldn't stop yourself. And this is what you look,like healed. And this is what your victims look like healed. That is who you all really are."
Heaven.
Maybe the permanent aspect of Hell is a holy wound- a permanent scar, if you will, that informs your continued spiritual evolution. Because I think we keep evolving.
quote:So, I find the time to get to answer this point, which is well made. Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad. The worst of sinners is liable to have some saving grace! I am talking more of a tendency to selfless-, or selfish-ness. Whether one's preference is for virtue or vice.
Originally posted by Boogie:
You haven't addressed my point that no-one can be a 'good' person. We are all a confused mixture of good and bad.
quote:I do not find, even with the qualifications, that most people tend towards one or other extreme.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad.
quote:Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! The analogy is at fault. It implies a) that everyone involved has total unpressured free will to do this or that, as they please; b) that they can then be fairly evaluated on those choices as easily as a spreadsheet comes up with a result; c) that sin can be quantified; d) that repentance is a semi-magical thing-in-itself rather than a state of an individual-in-relationship-to-someone-else; e) that God actually WANTS to condemn anybody, which is probably the worst mistake of the lot. (Someone who got himself crucified to save us all is not in the least wishful to see us end up in hell.)
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life. At least the idea of a cosmic balance sheet in which our deeds are weighed, which can be tipped either way by one action has justice in it. But even there I don't believe in such a harsh God. Repentance is always available to cancel out wrongdoing and tip the scale in our favour.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
quote:1. Yep I'm there too
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. I've got all on dealing with my own sins and short-comings - through God's grace - than bothering myself with speculating about who is or isn't going to be saved. That's God's call, not mine.
2. As a wise RC priest once said to me, 'We have no idea what happened to the Rich Young Ruler. He may have been among the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost for all we know ...'
quote:It may be judgementalism. I prefer to call it discrimination, another word that gets a bad press. Nevertheless, we can, and should, discriminate between the moral characters of a Hitler and a Gandhi, between a Pol Pot and a Dalai Lama. Not to do so is no virtue, just an abdication of moral responsibility.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I do not find, even with the qualifications, that most people tend towards one or other extreme.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad.
I think that the only thing that comes of dividing people into good and bad is judgementalism.
quote:Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! ..
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
To misquote somebody or another, "Against absolute refusal, God himself struggles in vain."
quote:No, with respect you DON'T understand. This has nothing to do with begging. It also has nothing to do with fairness. It has EVERYTHING to do with being in a dangerous situation and suddenly a rescuer turns up to get you out of it. If you choose to beg him, that's your affair. It's not necessary or required. All that's needed is that you permit him to help you, and stop insisting that you're perfectly fine as you are, thanks very much, please go away now, would you?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
I won't have it.
Cheers, PV.
quote:You don't seem to have followed Lamb Chopped's excellent analogy.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! ..
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
To misquote somebody or another, "Against absolute refusal, God himself struggles in vain."
quote:I won't speak for Lamb Chopped, but several of us here have argued for the possibility of universal salvation. I personally do not believe that "verbal profession of faith" is necessarily the primary requirement (if any) for salvation. But I do believe Jesus is. Whether we believe in him or not, whether we call on his name or not, I believe salvation comes thru Jesus.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
quote:I'd say it is exactly the analogy Lamb Chopped was using. And yes, it will break down. But I think it's a much better metaphor than the "rule breaking/punishment" motif.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At times like this, I incline to the view that the Orthodox hold, that sin is a disease that needs to be cured rather than simply transgression that needs to be punished ...
That's not incompatible with the analogy Lamb Chopped has used, of course. Like any analogies, though, it can only be stretched so far.
quote:Martin an others will jump in to object shortly, but I am partial to a somewhat radical form of Wesleyanism (Open Theism) which would posit that the "poison" was not given to you by God. God did not create the evil in this world (including natural evil); it was part of the "corruption of creation" that occurred in the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang or whatever). Along with all of creation, we await the coming "recreation" or restoration of heaven & earth.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
No, a better analogy is, someone gives you a slow acting but 100% deadly poison. Then the people who
claim he did that offer you hundreds of versions of an "antidote" some clearly contradictory with no way to test if any of them work.
quote:I did not. But some people said that we cannot avoid sin. And that we absolutely depend on God for "Salvation".
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
quote:But we don't really know what "God" wants how can we make a free decision about it?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for universal salvation, I hope so, I really do hope so. My problem is that I have insufficient evidence to conclude that it really WILL be that way. So much depends on the free will of the people God loves and wants to save. If it were entirely up to God, certainly all would be saved. But he has given us the dignity of true choice--and if it is possible to choose at all, it is surely possible to choose the opposite of what God wants.
quote:Because your God is like the nasty boy who tortures ants. He created a perfect world. allowed it to go wrong and blames us for being born into his own mess. He then throws us a lifeline, but if we are unable to grasp it, for whatever reason, our default position is to be tortured for eternity. And some people call this good news? It's a psycho-manipulative horror story! If Christ died on the cross for our salvation. If this was God's way of correcting His earlier mistake, I can only accept it if it includes all the banished children of Eve. But it could be simpler. God could simply forgive us. It isn't like a doctor watching the spread of cancer. God makes the rules and can give unlimnited mercy if He wants.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
quote:Ikkyu--
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I did not. But some people said that we cannot avoid sin. And that we absolutely depend on God for "Salvation".
So they seem to be claiming that God made us absolutely dependent on him and if left to our own devises we will fail 100% of the time.
And the outcome of failure seems to be eternal damnation or at least something we need to be "saved" from. This varies with the person making the claim.
If I was an omnipotent parent given the choice and the means of designing my own children. And I went ahead and designed them utterly dependent on me, and incapable of making the right decision unless they asked for my help. And on top of that I placed them in a dangerous place in which they are going to be making those decisions all of the time. And then I gave them no easy way of finding out who I am or how to obtain my help.
What would you think of me?
[snip]
But we don't really know what "God" wants how can we make a free decision about it?
I base that statement on the fact that for example Christians don't agree on what God wants among themselves. Adding other forms of belief into the mix makes it even harder to decide what "God" wants.
So what kind of "True choice" is that?
quote:I understand this to mean that anyone who really wants to know will not be left forever in the dark, however it may feel at the moment.
So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." (John 7:16-17)
quote:This IS unlimited mercy, man! He's died for you, he's washed away all your sins, he's sent messengers to your very door, he's calling your name. What more do you expect of him? That he should strip you and everyone else of our free will and human dignity?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Because your God is like the nasty boy who tortures ants. He created a perfect world. allowed it to go wrong and blames us for being born into his own mess. He then throws us a lifeline, but if we are unable to grasp it, for whatever reason, our default position is to be tortured for eternity. And some people call this good news? It's a psycho-manipulative horror story! If Christ died on the cross for our salvation. If this was God's way of correcting His earlier mistake, I can only accept it if it includes all the banished children of Eve. But it could be simpler. God could simply forgive us. It isn't like a doctor watching the spread of cancer. God makes the rules and can give unlimnited mercy if He wants.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
quote:Please tell us what is the dignity of true choice? For many Christian groups that means believe what we tell you to believe or be damned for eternity. This damnation can extend to unbelievers, those with a different interpretation of Christianity, and those from any of the world's many faiths. Given all the variations in human thought, history and culture on this planet, God truly gave us a very narrow gate by which to avoid his wrath. Only a remnant of a remnant can get in. I think the whole rotten edifice sucks big time. A God who loves everything He has made, or why would He make it, must hold that creation in His loving embrace for eternity to be worthy of anyone's worship.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But he has given us the dignity of true choice
quote:You know I've never met anyone who hates God. Many people don't believe He exists. And why should they? It may be just as easy to believe we're an evolved animal on a tiny speck of dust with no significance. Many people think the Christian story is a fairy tale. But again, they don't hate God. What you're really saying is that anyone who doesn't believe the same as you hates God and must be damned for it. If we have the free will to think and act for ourselves, our rational minds may not accept the Christian story. That's what you and many Christians are describing as "hating God." I don't buy your logic on that.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If they are free to love God, they are also free to hate him.
quote:Good question. Most Christians believe in some sort of punitive afterlife that can only be avoided through having a sufficient understanding and acceptance of Christian theology at the moment of death. Why do they attribute such behavior to their God?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
quote:Have you considered the possibility that God may be at least as merciful as you are?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for universal salvation, I hope so, I really do hope so. My problem is that I have insufficient evidence to conclude that it really WILL be that way. So much depends on the free will of the people God loves and wants to save. If it were entirely up to God, certainly all would be saved.
quote:Between Hitler and the Dalai Lama, no doubt.(*) But what about Hitler, and the Polish or German Mr Johann Average reasonably moral citizen, good people, whom you would like to have a beer with, who watched the cattle trucks go into Auschwitz as he sat and drank his beer?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:It may be judgementalism. I prefer to call it discrimination, another word that gets a bad press. Nevertheless, we can, and should, discriminate between the moral characters of a Hitler and a Gandhi, between a Pol Pot and a Dalai Lama. Not to do so is no virtue, just an abdication of moral responsibility.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that the only thing that comes of dividing people into good and bad is judgementalism.
quote:You should hate that edifice. But that's all it is-- an edifice. It's not God. It's not even Christianity, or at least, not the whole of Christianity.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Please tell us what is the dignity of true choice? For many Christian groups that means believe what we tell you to believe or be damned for eternity. This damnation can extend to unbelievers, those with a different interpretation of Christianity, and those from any of the world's many faiths. Given all the variations in human thought, history and culture on this planet, God truly gave us a very narrow gate by which to avoid his wrath. Only a remnant of a remnant can get in. I think the whole rotten edifice sucks big time. A God who loves everything He has made, or why would He make it, must hold that creation in His loving embrace for eternity to be worthy of anyone's worship.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But he has given us the dignity of true choice
quote:I tried to post this yesterday (BT Infinity upgrade ...) in response to the false dichotomy causing the OP:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That, and any happiness or self love based on illusion is not happiness or self love at all.
To take the example of the genuine psychopath-- "This is who you were. This is who you hurt. This is what you turned yourself into."
Hell.
"Also, this is what gigantic chunks of your brain were doing while this was going on. This is the backstage view of why you knew you couldn't stop yourself. And this is what you look,like healed. And this is what your victims look like healed. That is who you all really are."
Heaven.
Maybe the permanent aspect of Hell is a holy wound- a permanent scar, if you will, that informs your continued spiritual evolution. Because I think we keep evolving.
quote:Well, that was all enlightening. But please do not presume to tell what I do, and do not, understand, on the basis of this attenuated medium of intercourse. Your admission that your model of salvation is amoral is telling, I think. That is where the difference between us lies.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:No, with respect you DON'T understand. This has nothing to do with begging. It also has nothing to do with fairness. It has EVERYTHING to do with being in a dangerous situation and suddenly a rescuer turns up to get you out of it. If you choose to beg him, that's your affair. It's not necessary or required. All that's needed is that you permit him to help you, and stop insisting that you're perfectly fine as you are, thanks very much, please go away now, would you?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
I won't have it.
Cheers, PV.
You seem to think that there are degrees of danger from sin, and that a minor "case" of sin is less dangerous than a major one. This is absolutely NOT the case when we're talking about ultimate fate/salvation. (It makes a difference in our human world--for example, in the court system. But that's not what we're discussing here.)
Take an analogy. If you're being eaten by an anaconda, it really doesn't matter whether the snake has swallowed you up to the knee or up to the neck. You're going the same route sooner or later. Unless someone turns up to get you out of your mess.
What you need to understand is that from this perspective, Christian salvation is fundamentally amoral. It has nothing to do with fairness or deserving at all. The 99% evil and the 1% evil are all of us in the same danger. God comes to rescue all of us on the very same basis--"Let me help you."
And in the world, some of the 99%-ers hear the voice of their rescuer and let him. So do some of the 1%ers--the folks who only have a foot or so in the anaconda. Regardless of how far gone they are, God kills the snake and gets them out of there. Nobody stops to ask precisely how much of you had been swallowed already. Nobody cares. The only thing God cares about is that you need him, and he wants to help.
And similarly, in this world some people hear the voice of their rescuer and fold their arms (which are inside the anaconda at this point!) and say politely, "Thanks very much, but I really don't need or want any help, thank-you-all-the-same." (Yeah, I know it's an absurd image--but so is allowing sin to eat you alive when God is trying to help you escape.)
Some of the refusers will be 99%ers--people everyone identifies as horribly evil. Some of them will be 1%ers--people everybody identifies as "saints." Some of them will be ordinary folks like you and me, "good old Joes" like you mention. Their degree of sin means absolutely nothing. If they take the offer of rescue, rescued they are. If they flat out refuse it ("no thanks, I'm quite comfortable here in my snake")--well, their ultimate end will be the same, regardless of what degree of evil they started out with.
quote:A gift arbitrarily given is no gift at all, more of a gamble as far as the recipient is concerned.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
quote:I suppose one guess deserves another!
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:A gift arbitrarily given is no gift at all, more of a gamble as far as the recipient is concerned.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
A person who receives no comfort or sign from God may as well stop asking and gamble that all this Christian stuff is nonsense anyway.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
quote:The problem with this is that the definition of "truly wanting to be with God" varies widely depending on what seems to me to be mostly personal opinion. Christians can't even agree on a definition of God! Maybe if you make it vague enough they might agree but if you try to add in what "God" wants you will get very different answers. So what God should I want to be with?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[snip]
Nobody, but nobody, is going to hell who truly wanted to be with God instead.
quote:Well, if we are agreed God is good, and morality is good, it is but a small leap of deduction to get to the idea that God is moral. Furthermore, that what He wills is moral. Furthermore, since God is omniscient, that what God wills is (objective) morality.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, and there's where we differ. I am not looking for a practical scheme of salvation, to be made up by myself or others, in order to bring about some theoretical good in the world. I am interested in knowing what actually exists--what God has set in place--and I am not at all concerned whether it promotes moral behavior or not. There are plenty of other ways to motivate moral behavior without me fauxing one up and calling it salvation.
Besides, surely it is a sad thing when someone only behaves morally because he/she wants to be saved?
Morality ought to be its own reward.
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
quote:The thing is that heaven is utterly and outrageously disproportionate to any difference in degree to which a human being could be objectively moral. The differences between human beings are finite; heaven is infinite.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
It seems entirely consistent to me to think that God will reward us according to the degree to which we conform to His will. The degree to which we are (objectively) moral.
quote:Many atheists manage to contribute to global moral progress. They do so without thinking that they're earning rewards from God. If atheists can contribute to global moral progress without thinking that they are thereby earning rewards from God, I think Christians and other believers might be able to manage it too.
What is not helpful to global moral progress, though, is some idea that human ethical endeavour is superfluous, or irrelevant, because it won't matter to God one whit, as He delivers His verdict on us.
quote:Your view of salvation is consistent and rational, but isn't IMHO particularly Christian, or consistent with Scripture.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]Well, if we are agreed God is good, and morality is good, it is but a small leap of deduction to get to the idea that God is moral. Furthermore, that what He wills is moral. Furthermore, since God is omniscient, that what God wills is (objective) morality.
It seems entirely consistent to me to think that God will reward us according to the degree to which we conform to His will. The degree to which we are (objectively) moral.
quote:There's a difference between saying ethical behavior isn't the determination of one's eternal destiny and saying "it doesn't matter one whit". I believe one's ethical behavior matters a great deal-- to this life. The way we live here and now, on this earth, is going to determine to a large degree, what our life here on earth is like. There is some logic to "as you sow, so shall you reap". Our relationships, our hearts, our souls, are shaped by the habits we engage in, and the attitudes we nurture.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]
What is not helpful to global moral progress, though, is some idea that human ethical endeavour is superfluous, or irrelevant, because it won't matter to God one whit, as He delivers His verdict on us.
quote:Do you not understand the difference between going below justice and going above it?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, we have a God who is good. We have justice as a good thing. We have a God who is just, as a direct consequence. And yet we are supposed to think that He forgoes this justice, this goodness, at the most vital point, to us anyway, when He is disposing of our souls. No wonder people have a problem believing in Him, when He is portrayed in such a cavalier fashion.
It may be nice for a Christian to think he has a get-in-for-free ticket to heaven. I just question whether things that are nice to think are things that are necessarily true.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Maybe you think that you can stand in the Final Day on the strength of your own righteousness and morality. I bloody well don't. I'm putting all my hope in God's mercy, because I know myself to be a deeply flawed human being, much in need of mercy and more than happy to take it.
Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?
quote:Let me ask you a question. If you love the true God under a false name, do you think it matters to him?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:The problem with this is that the definition of "truly wanting to be with God" varies widely depending on what seems to me to be mostly personal opinion. Christians can't even agree on a definition of God! Maybe if you make it vague enough they might agree but if you try to add in what "God" wants you will get very different answers. So what God should I want to be with?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[snip]
Nobody, but nobody, is going to hell who truly wanted to be with God instead.
Westboro Baptist "God"? , Amish "God?, Allah? Hashem? What If I hope to be reborn in the Pure Land? Namu Amida Butsu!!
Does that make a difference?
quote:This is the relationship the pre-exilic Jews including King David had with God. It is the ONLY constructive relationship we can have with Him and I strive for it. Christianity has become overly concerned with personal salvation. So it imposes beliefs, rules and prohibitions and claims them to be necessary to salvation. I think the message Jesus left us is to love God and neighbour in the present moment in trust and hope and leave the rest to Him. Read the Lord's Prayer sometime.
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
God should be trusted, loved, honoured etc for God's sake and not for any reward. What happens after our death is in God's hands and God can be trusted.
quote:You may have heard of the concept of splitting, whereby some people see no nuances but (in your case) good and bad people. Most people would recoil from this simplistic division of humanity. Presumably you think that say the difference between the "least good" person in heaven and the "least bad" person in hell is . . what?
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't.
quote:This implies that beliefs cannot be validly morally judged. Like the main ideas of Nietzsche, including the superiority of the oppressor, and the legitimacy of enslaving the weak. Or anti-semitism. Or any other obnoxious belief.
Irrespective of their beliefs.
quote:Well what's wrong with subjecting all to a process of purgation resulting in all eventually coming to a state of goodness. In fact this is what many universalist christians believe, effectively replacing hell with purgatory, so that any pain is reformatory and all eventually come to salvation. Why is that immoral?
What else could be morally just? What else could be consistent with the notion of a just and impartial arbiter of the moral, and disposer of souls, this allegedly good God, who loves all mankind, not just a conveniently agreeable segment of them?
quote:I like this too. It reminds me of Shadrack, Meshach, and Abendego just before they had that amazing encounter with "one like a son of God":
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
God should be trusted, loved, honoured etc for God's sake and not for any reward. What happens after our death is in God's hands and God can be trusted. This is the truth that lies behind judgment, heaven, hell and anything else one might want to throw in this direction.
quote:
If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” Dan. 3:17-18
quote:Like Anteater I’m coming to this thread rather late, so I apologise if my remarks have already been covered.
So, it's not the most original of thoughts, but it is a deep-seated conviction of mine.
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs. What else could be morally just? What else could be consistent with the notion of a just and impartial arbiter of the moral, and disposer of souls, this allegedly good God, who loves all mankind, not just a conveniently agreeable segment of them?
quote:Is it really that straightforward? In the story of the
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that on the first question New Testament teaching is pretty clear that whether we like it or not the attainment of a sufficient level of moral uprightness to enter heaven is not possible for anyone. That seems evident in both the teachings of Jesus and the epistles.
quote:And so would I. I have, earlier in this thread, made that clear. But just to repeat myself, in a different format:
Originally posted by anteater:
PV:
I'm late to this thread, so feel free to ignore me.
quote:You may have heard of the concept of splitting, whereby some people see no nuances but (in your case) good and bad people. Most people would recoil from this simplistic division of humanity...
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't.
quote:I guess it is possible to argue from the story of the Sheep and Goats that entry into heaven or hell is the product of an act of moral merit or demerit on the part of an individual, irrespective of other actions in a lifetime of moral decision-making. It is, however, difficult to see how the life, death, resurrection and merits of Christ, which Christians consider central to their understanding of salvation and sanctification, have anything to do with this passage.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that on the first question New Testament teaching is pretty clear that whether we like it or not the attainment of a sufficient level of moral uprightness to enter heaven is not possible for anyone. That seems evident in both the teachings of Jesus and the epistles.
Jammy Dodger: Is it really that straightforward? In the story of the
sheep and the goats (which I quoted upthread) simply helping those in need appears to be a sufficient level of moral uprightness to be welcomed into the kingdom.
quote:Well said. I agree.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Personally, I agree with Origen that judgement is necessary and should not be avoided, but is essentially a matter of diagnosis preceding healing and restoration. I confess to universalist tendencies but entertain the right of an individual to remain outside the father’s house by choice.
quote:Even when these are that same Christ's very own words on the subject?
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It is, however, difficult to see how the life, death, resurrection and merits of Christ, which Christians consider central to their understanding of salvation and sanctification, have anything to do with this passage.
quote:Personally I have never heard this interpretation. I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret Jesus' statement more widely.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Furthermore, is it questionable whether this passage is meant to have a general application in which “the least of these my brethren” is a reference to any person in need either then or subsequently. The story was part of a discourse addressed specifically to the disciples during the crisis of Easter Week, the context of which is set-out in the opening verses of Matthew 24, and not to a wide disparate congregation. One is given to understand, therefore, that NT scholars are mostly of the opinion that “the least of these my brethren” is a specific reference to the disciples, who will be subject to fates similar to their master (Matthew 24: 9-12). It is probable that Matthew (alone) included these words in his gospel because the persecution of the apostles had become a reality.
quote:Funnily enough I agree that this does not necessarily mean salvation by works but I was just trying to make the point that surely we can't disregard Jesus' own words on a subject.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
in event it is difficult to conclude that it sets out the modalities of a final judgement, and is a shaky foundation on which to build a soteriology of justification by (just) works.
quote:Don't disagree with your conclusions but I think there is a strong element of "judgment" in the NT in the sense of God "setting everything right" (as I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread IIRC)
Originally posted by Kwesi:
To my mind, and one doesn’t think it at all original, the paradigm of the NT is not that of a court of law in which God is the Judge and justice is impartially administered with a plea of mitigation from Jesus, the defending counsel, but of a family in which God is the Father and Jesus is the Elder Brother who represents the father and has a mission to reintegrate a dysfunctional family called humankind (John 3:17). The family paradigm with its emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation does not preclude questions of justice but is one in which justice is subordinate to the overall objective. Personally, I agree with Origen that judgement is necessary and should not be avoided, but is essentially a matter of diagnosis preceding healing and restoration. I confess to universalist tendencies but entertain the right of an individual to remain outside the father’s house by choice.
quote:I think you will find, even today, there are plenty of Christians who subscribe to the idea that Christians (of their own type) get to go to heaven, and everyone else is hell-bound. You need only post on American boards to discover this for yourself.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Which culture? Iron Age?
quote:I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
in event it is difficult to conclude that it sets out the modalities of a final judgement, and is a shaky foundation on which to build a soteriology of justification by (just) works.
quote:LOL, I disagree with this. I don't see a way to define a person as being good other than doing good.
PilgrimVagrant: Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
quote:Fair enough. My response, however, was in response to Jammy Dodgers reference to the story of the Sheep and Goats.
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
quote:Okay, more confusion.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
The alternative, conventionally Christian view on salvation seems to be a thing about what one believes, and knows, and comes through belief to know. It is essentially a cognitive, epistemological view, and it is one I can't see as being consistent with the idea of a just disposition of our wayward selves, and therefore a just God, however convenient for Christians to believe in it.
So there we have it; which is the best alternative for humanity to be judged on? What we do, what we know, or what we are?
Cheers, PV
quote:I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
quote:How about love and forgiveness? Do you agree that love and forgiveness are more moral than justice?
However, if conventional Christianity has a better idea, I am more than willing to entertain it.
quote:And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Okay, more confusion.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
PV, we understand you mean being good, or growing into goodness, or becoming a good person, or however you want to ontologically phrase it. The point is, this is not possible. Not to any sin-infected human being, not to any reasonable standard of goodness. It's like polishing a deeply flawed diamond, one where the flaw goes so deep the stone is almost in two pieces. You can polish all you like, but there's no fixing that.
[code]
quote:On the contrary, they are mutually consistent. One can be a highly effective parish priest, bringing succour to his flock and educating them in critical ways with each Sunday sermon, and still a paedophile. The fact that one tends to blackness in one, sexual dimension, does not necessarily entail that one tends to black in all dimensions.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
If goodness and badness are multidimensional then it must be possible for someone to be simultaneously very good and very bad, or some other complication that means that judgements about whether someone is mostly good will be largely meaningless. You can say that someone is honest and dutiful, but callous and self-righteous. But to sum that up to good overall but inclined in minor details to sin - that's not doable.
What makes something a minor detail anyway? If people like you and me who are basically good commit a sin, it must be a minor detail?
quote:Yes, I agree with most of this.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My 2 cents echoes some of what's already been said:
Salvation and even justice, in the biblical sense, are not about rewarding good or punishing evil. They are both about restoration-- about setting things right. The one spiritual truth we can all empirically observe is that things are Not Right. If we didn't know that already, we learned that last night with the horrific news of yet another school shooting here in the US.
Things are not right. And that misalignment is found in each of us. Sometimes the misalignment may seem insignificant to us-- perhaps we have a tendency (quickly squelched) to rejoice at the suffering of rival, or a tendency to envy those who are advanced when we are not. Small things. Other times the misalignment is so significant that we can only call it evil-- 200 African girls kidnapped and sold into slavery. Each of us is in a different place along that trajectory from near-saint to near-demon, for a host of reasons from environment or family or past to free choice or pride or stubbornness.
Wherever we are on that trajectory, there are things we can do on our own that will move us away from evil and toward the good. But we-- and the world we live in-- can never be fully restored, fully "set right" without a Savior.
That is God's desire for each of us, and for the world we live in. He desires us to be fully restored and set right, to live the life we were intended to live. Again, we may do things on our own to move in that direction. Or we may do things in the power of the Spirit by recognizing our need for a Savior. The people who are trying to get there on their own might very well be further along the trajectory than the person who is attempting to get there thru the power of the Spirit. But ultimately, full restoration comes only thru Christ (IMHO).
I don't think that necessarily or even probably means the only who are fully set right in the restoration-- the New Heaven and New Earth-- are those who verbally confess allegiance to Christ in this life. But I believe the only way anyone gets there is thru the grace of Jesus Christ. That grace is a big grace, which just might be big enough to include everyone, regardless of where they are on the trajectory or whether or not they recognize him or call him by name.
But I think that's what justice and salvation mean in the Bible-- not getting what you deserve, not reward or punishment, but setting right.
quote:I'm not sure that if I object that as far as I can see point A and point B are inconsistent, it's really a rebuttal to repeat point B.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:On the contrary, they are mutually consistent.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
quote:You're still not getting it. There IS no one good, no, not one. And I dare you to ask any of the people you've mentioned if they consider themselves to be good. They are, after all, the only ones with direct access to their own interior lives.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
The problem Christians have with the idea of goodness being central to salvation is generally, I find, twofold. Firstly, they don't like the idea that they need to be good, and secondly they don't like the idea that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness.
So, in direct contradiction to the thrust of your argument, I say it is not necessary to be Christian to be good, any more than it is necessary to be good to be Christian. These are, as statisticians might have it, independent variables. And if they are independent, then (to ram the point home) surely a just God will seek His company in Heaven from the best the world has to offer, rather than a somewhat smug subset of it.
Again, a rational argument, evidence based, would serve your cause better than a flawed analogy about flawed diamonds.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Then perhaps it is your notion of justice which needs adjustment. Human justice is anything but infallible, individual human beings hold different ideas of what it means, and it is demonstrable that societal notions of "just" and "unjust" have changed within recent memory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
quote:Well, from my point of view, of course, you are the one who seems willfully determined 'not to get it!' I have repeatably argued that goodness and badness exist on gray-scales. It may well be that God is the only being that exists in pure white on all dimensions. Nevertheless, that does not disbar the rest of us from being mainly good, or somewhat good, or passably good, in any or all of these dimensions.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:You're still not getting it. There IS no one good, no, not one. And I dare you to ask any of the people you've mentioned if they consider themselves to be good. They are, after all, the only ones with direct access to their own interior lives.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
The problem Christians have with the idea of goodness being central to salvation is generally, I find, twofold. Firstly, they don't like the idea that they need to be good, and secondly they don't like the idea that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness.
So, in direct contradiction to the thrust of your argument, I say it is not necessary to be Christian to be good, any more than it is necessary to be good to be Christian. These are, as statisticians might have it, independent variables. And if they are independent, then (to ram the point home) surely a just God will seek His company in Heaven from the best the world has to offer, rather than a somewhat smug subset of it.
Again, a rational argument, evidence based, would serve your cause better than a flawed analogy about flawed diamonds.
Cheers, PV.
The question is not what a person looks like from the outside. The question is what he or she IS.
I've never met a person I considered saintly (and there are a lot of these, Christian and non-Christian!) who did not have a strong sense of his/her own wrongdoing. And I will do them the compliment of taking their own self-assessments for truth. They are not being falsely modest. When the saints accuse themselves, they are speaking the truth--the same truth that the whole human race faces about ourselves.
When will you see that I am NOT claiming goodness for Christians only? Christians, just like non-Christians, are deeply flawed and in need of a Savior. The only case in which your examples of Gandhi, eastern teachers, etc. makes a difference is in the purely external human estimation of goodness as it appears to other humans. That's fine if you're running a popularity contest, but it's not going to cut it for any of us--Christian or not--in the divine court.
You seem to greatly dislike analogies. I am not sure why. I regret if they cause you some form of mental pain, but I find they are generally a useful aid in communication--if not to you, then to others who are reading the thread.
quote:Indeed. I would draw a clear demarcation between a) my perception of justice; b) the greater human consensus about justice; and c) God's conception of justice, otherwise called objective Justice, with a capital 'J'. Nevertheless all these different ideas around justice must have some common trait, or the word justice would not denote them all.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Then perhaps it is your notion of justice which needs adjustment. Human justice is anything but infallible, individual human beings hold different ideas of what it means, and it is demonstrable that societal notions of "just" and "unjust" have changed within recent memory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
quote:Kwesi, I love you! Thank you for the consideration you have given my thoughts!
Originally posted by Kwesi:
PilgrimVagrant, I’m intrigued by your framework, but would like to see it developed and clarified.
As I understand it you posit people as either good or bad in an ontological sense, and it is this state which determines their classification as sheep or goats and ultimate destination: heaven or hell. In practise, however, you argue that individuals perform good and bad acts of varying degrees of goodness and badness, and the proportions of predominantly good acts and perdominantly bad acts varies from one individual to another.
What I would like to know is:-
1.How an individual is or becomes ontologically good or bad: is it innate or acquired?
2.Is there a relationship between good and bad acts and an individual’s ontological state?
3.Do good and bad acts have anything to do with God’s judgement on an individual?
quote:Let me try again.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:On the contrary, they are mutually consistent. One can be a highly effective parish priest, bringing succour to his flock and educating them in critical ways with each Sunday sermon, and still a paedophile. The fact that one tends to blackness in one, sexual dimension, does not necessarily entail that one tends to black in all dimensions.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
If goodness and badness are multidimensional then it must be possible for someone to be simultaneously very good and very bad, or some other complication that means that judgements about whether someone is mostly good will be largely meaningless. You can say that someone is honest and dutiful, but callous and self-righteous. But to sum that up to good overall but inclined in minor details to sin - that's not doable.
What makes something a minor detail anyway? If people like you and me who are basically good commit a sin, it must be a minor detail?
Cheers, PV.
quote:It's very important, but indirectly so.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Where does grace fit into that scenario? Or does it?
quote:Respectfully, I disagree.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:It's very important, but indirectly so.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Where does grace fit into that scenario? Or does it?
The idea is that the invasion of the Holy Spirit transforms us, but does not, in and of itself, save us. What it does is convert us to the right attitude, a healthy love of virtue, and visceral dislike of sin. But from there on, it is up to us to make what we can and will of the grace of God in our own lives.
Being a 'saved' or 'born again' Christian is therefore, not a guarantee of eternal bliss, just an advantage of mindset towards this end.
Cheers, PV
quote:It leaves the model qualified out of existence I think.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, you can be very bad in some dimensions, and very good in others. Where that leaves one on a more simple, one dimensional scale of good and bad, is not for me to say. That's God's call. And I suspect He has more sophisticated ways of dealing justice than we can know. Perhaps each dimension is dealt with separately.
So what? How does this affect the model?
quote:(What grounds other than ethical could justice be distributed on?)
As for love overriding justice; well, no. Justice, a good thing, is the proof of love. Without the love, there would be no justice. If God didn't love us, it wouldn't matter to Him how He dealt with us; perhaps He would have handsome favourites, or prefer folk-dancers to anyone else, or insist on real-estate agents for company.
But justice distributed on ethical grounds, well, that makes His love immanent and relevant, in a way no arbitrary preferences could.
quote:Yes, I'm sure that everyone on this thread understands this and in fact agrees with it. Including me. You are flogging a dead horse.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Well, from my point of view, of course, you are the one who seems willfully determined 'not to get it!' I have repeatably argued that goodness and badness exist on gray-scales.
quote:Now define "passably good." In a discussion of salvation, that's the only definition that is relevant. It is also the only point in your paragraph that anybody on thread disagrees with (see "flogging a dead horse," above.) If you think anyone is arguing for 100% evil in any human being, you are mistaken.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
It may well be that God is the only being that exists in pure white on all dimensions. Nevertheless, that does not disbar the rest of us from being mainly good, or somewhat good, or passably good, in any or all of these dimensions.
quote:I find your assumption most interesting. Upon what do you base your idea that evolution has anything to do with a move toward unselfishness (or for that matter, in the opposite direction)? You write as if we were all originally selfish slime (or whatever) and are moving progressively closer to complete altruism. I see no logical connection at all between evolution and moral behavior, and would be interested to know where you find this connection.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
We cannot expect to be wholly good; and nor should we. We evolved out of slime. It will take us time to shed our innate tendencies to selfishness; and I am talking geological time, epochs and eons, not days or weeks. The fact that we are good at all, in any respect whatsoever, is already a miracle. And a miracle, moreover, not confined to this religion or that; it seems to be a human trait, this goodness, though we may ethnocentrically ascribe it to other animals, also. Whatever, it would be unjust for God to ignore it, come judgement time.
quote:Regarding analogies, you are teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. I'm a rhetorical scholar. If you took my analogies to be proof of anything, I can only say they were not intended as such. They were intended as aids to understanding--as the illustrations you mention. Whether the fault lies with my writing or your reading I am not in a position to judge.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
As for anologies; I do not wholly dislike them; I am simply careful with them. They have a place, as an illustration of an argument. But they are not a replacement for an argument, and should not submitted as such. An analogy, a parallel, is not a train of thought, just the recognition of a pattern that may, or may not, bear close similarity to some more difficult topic. The danger is to understand the analogy, and then think you have automatically understood the difficult topic. You have to show, with an analogy, what the difficult argument is, what the analogy is, and why the analogy is relevant to the difficult argument. It is not good enough just to say; my position is proposition X, and analogy Y is self evident, and therefore X must be true. You have to rigorously determine that analogy Y is like proposition X, before Y has any purchase on X, whatsoever. This is so much extra work, it is probably more effective simply to prove X from first principles, anyway, and see Y as nothing more than an interesting diversion.
Cheers, PV.
quote:That depends entirely on what you perceive Christ's work to be.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's another issue with the idea that God should reward goodness and punish badness wherever it exists, Christ's work being unnecessary. The border between good and evil runs through every human heart (except Christ's).
quote:Now add in The Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (yes him) and his theological point which I summarize as "if you put imperfect people into heaven then they will turn it into hell" The illustration he used was over population. I suspect that today he would have chosen climate change as his example. We are to be perfected and this includes, but not necessarily confined to, sin. I suggest that this necessity for becoming perfect should be offered to those of use that are moving up St.Bernard's ladder, along all the necessary Christian aids and teaching.
From An Online Orthodox Catechism.
One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov).
quote:This.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...or God works as long as it takes for everyone and everything to be safe, and well, and Home...
quote:In your response to my questions you seem to be saying that the character or soul or an individual is born with a bias towards the bad: a state of selfishness, and for selfish reasons it is attracted to virtue as a means of satisfying its desires to the maximum. In your terms “virtue” is an action designed to better the fulfilment of selfish desires. Virtuous acts, therefore, are not “good” acts in a moral sense, but actions that reinforce the original state of “selfishness”. Our spirits, then, cannot be improved by such “virtuous” acts, rather the reverse. Similarly, “bad” acts in your schema are such because they hinder the achievement of our desires or deliver them less efficiently.
As regards becoming good or bad; in the world according to PV, the character, or soul, stands in relationship to it's thoughts, words and deeds. It has, in it's original state, a tendency to selfishness for itself, and a desire for selflessness, for others. It wants to have it's cake, and eat it, too. It wants to be allowed to be greedy, but for others to service that greed. Sooner or later, we realise the world can't work that way; if everyone was selfish, no-one's greed would be serviced. So we invent virtue, and the genius idea of each servicing each others need, to the extent that is good for them, and no further.
quote:You then go on to use virtue in a different sense as an act which “leaves the world better”, and bad acts as “sinful acts” that leave the world worse. Such acts respectively strengthen or weaken the spirirt in its ability to bear the presence of God. This framework is very different from your original schema which has nothing to do with making the world better or worse but the efficacy of acts in fulfilling selfish desires. If then the soul in its original (ontological?) state is “ a tendency to selfishness for itself”, how can such an entity be directed towards actions that enable it to survive the beatific vision? How in your terms can it become morally “good” or meritorious?
My current thinking is that God does not, and does not need to directly to judge our acts. Our acts have consequences, for ourselves and others. A virtuous act leaves the world better, and sinful act, worse. A virtuous act leaves our spirit stronger, a sinful act, weaker. All God needs to do, therefore, is assess our spirits, and what better way to do that, than allow us to approach Him to the extent that we can bear?