|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Will God allow anyone to go to hell?
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
I'm only recently come on board, and confess I have not read right through this thread. However, I note the topic is "will God allow anyone to go to hell?"
Surely any creature with free will can refuse finally to accept love; and in a sense the fire of hell is the love of God experienced by those who reject it.
We have sort of been over this somewhere near the beginning of the thread, but I understand it's become quite a thick read, especially for a new guy/gal. So here's a synopsis (though I still encourage you, if you're interested in the topic, to take an hour or two and skim through the rest of the thread).
Basically, it's fine to assume that anyone can reject God's love. The issue, then, is whether or not God's love is good enough to be unrejectable. Meaning, will it be so irresistable (in the way that someone falls in love for another person) that no one will be able to reject such a perfect consuming good?
If not, then how can it be God who is the greatest ultimate good of all?
-Digory
(Pleasure to make your acquaintance, BM.)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Nice summary.
Welcome BM. It's always nice to have new people join.
[eta welcome]
[ 08. January 2006, 04:48: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
Thanks for your welcomes, JoyfulSoul and Professorkirke.Thanks also Professorkirke for your statement about the irresistibility of God's love. I think this may be the idea behind my Jesuit's and Greene's optimism about the vacancy of hell.
I will take time out to read the whole thread.
Meanwhile, I reflect that Lucifer did indeed resist.
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Freddy - in the light of some of your earlier comments can I clarify? Do you actually think that people in the afterlife will know whether they are in hell or in heaven? Or will most of us be pretty unsure?
If you think this will be discernible, do you think heaven will be a fairly disappointing place for many as whilst they are 'good' enough to get in, their freewill is still poorly controlled so they keep making at least some mistakes and they then reap what they sow.
Luigi
PS I'm pretty sure that if you are right I am going to hell. I certainly don't always avoid those things that you say mean the pharisees are condemned. And I can't see that changing in the future.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
...Lucifer did indeed resist.
Perhaps, but as you will see, this depends on your interpretation of the story of Lucifer as we know it.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Freddy - in the light of some of your earlier comments can I clarify? Do you actually think that people in the afterlife will know whether they are in hell or in heaven? Or will most of us be pretty unsure?
As I understand it, people in heaven know exactly where they are. They have a good understanding and perspective of the whole system.
People in hell, on the other hand, don't understand at all. They tend not to even believe that they are in the afterlife, since they don't believe there is such a thing.
As I understand it, the way it works is that sin robs us of understanding and perspective, whereas the opposite has the opposite effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If you think this will be discernible, do you think heaven will be a fairly disappointing place for many as whilst they are 'good' enough to get in, their freewill is still poorly controlled so they keep making at least some mistakes and they then reap what they sow.
I guess I am failing to communicate how profound heaven's happiness is. It would be impossible to be disappointed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "good enough to get in" but "freewill still poorly controlled".
The point is that people do exactly what they wish to do, and their joy is exactly commensurate with the quality of those wishes. No one is dissappointed except those whose desires center around selfish and worldly goals - because these actually don't produce joy and are mostly impossible to consistently fulfil. It's not about "getting in".
People in heaven do make mistakes, and their states are therefore not static but varied. They live a life, they improve, they have good and bad times. But their "bad" times are only bad in a relative sense, since their life as a whole is exceedingly joyful.
The thing about the next life is that existence there is spiritual, not material. Spiritual substance is completely and exactly responsive to people's inner states. So although the spiritual world appears just like this world, it is immeasurably better because of this feature. Everything operates in perfect synchronicity, so that the love in your heart is expressed in thousands of ways in everything around you. The rsult is a world that is astoundingly beautiful.
The spiritual world is therefore different for every person, exactly matching their inner world. Hell is both familiar and bleak for the person who is trapped by its allure.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
PS I'm pretty sure that if you are right I am going to hell. I certainly don't always avoid those things that you say mean the pharisees are condemned. And I can't see that changing in the future.
You murder people and devour widows houses? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Or do you merely appear righteous but inside are full of uncleanness and self-indulgence?
If so, join the club. I would guess that most of us are like that. I think that God looks at the whole person.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
...Lucifer did indeed resist.
Perhaps, but as you will see, this depends on your interpretation of the story of Lucifer as we know it.
That's right.
If ever there was a story without much basis this is it. An interpretation of a few verses taken completely out of context. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that people do exactly what they wish to do, and their joy is exactly commensurate with the quality of those wishes. No one is dissappointed except those whose desires center around selfish and worldly goals - because these actually don't produce joy and are mostly impossible to consistently fulfil. It's not about "getting in".
People in heaven do make mistakes, and their states are therefore not static but varied. They live a life, they improve, they have good and bad times. But their "bad" times are only bad in a relative sense, since their life as a whole is exceedingly joyful.
So if people in heaven make mistakes, do these mistakes affect others? I think Luigi's point is a good one--if heaven is just a more eternal extension of this life but with more hardened desires formed from our earthly existence, and if those people can still make mistakes, and if those mistakes can still affect other people, I can't see that it will be much of a "perfect place."
quote:
Or do you merely appear righteous but inside are full of uncleanness and self-indulgence?
If so, join the club. I would guess that most of us are like that. I think that God looks at the whole person.
Well... then... if Jesus told the Pharisees they'd end up in hell, and we're all just as bad as the Pharisees...
...huh?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Thanks for your patience, Demas. I really do appreciate what you have to say and you bring up really good challenges. Thank you for your conviction.
quote:
Unless you have seen the light and become a universalist ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) then you believe that not all people will ask God and be saved through God's love.
Both you and Mousethief seem to agree that God cannot or will not make you ask, that it is up to you as an individual. It is therefore a test, a barrier, a hurdle, an impediment to my salvation. You've made it clear that you consider it a very small impediment, but that none-the-less not everyone will overcome it.
Some people will not ask God, will not turn to the father, and thus will not be saved by him.
On what basis would someone not turn to God? If you say that someone might reject God out of pride and arrogance, for example, then you are really saying that some people fail to attain salvation due to their wickedness. Isn't this just works based salvation? But what other motive would there be to reject God?
I don't know if this analogy will work but I'm going to go for it anyway...
...Its like everyone is given a gift. This gift is not based on the state of their worthiness or worthlessness. In fact, it has nothing to do with them. Anyone can open it no matter if he or she is a murderer, hypocrite, religious, irreligious, violinist, drummer, straight, gay, Muslim, christian, athiest, alcoholic, addict, prostitute, or even an over-all nice person.
quote:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV)
What this means is that the gift is not based on the person's inherent weakness or evilness or hard-heartedness or arrogance or ignorance.
A person who choses the gift vs. a person who doesn't chose the gift - both of them are sinners. Salvation that ensues from the gift has nothing to with their inherent worthiness or unworthiness.
Does that help or have I missed what you were saying again ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )?
quote:
Are you certain that you have turned to God?
I just want to say that I'm a weird christian.
And I want to share an embarassing story.
Trust. Faith.
It's such a tricky thing, eh?
When I was 16, I was briefly trained to do door-to-door evangelism.
I only did it once and pretty much the only positives things I can think of was that I got to meet really strange, quirky people and got to learn one of those Valuable Life Lessons™.
We were taught a very rote script.
"Hi, we're conducting a survery about spiritual things. Would you mind if we took up some of your time to ask you a few questions?"
If the victim, er, respondent answered yes, we would continue:
"Great. First: Do you know for certain, 100% absolutely without a doubt that you'll go to heaven if you died today?"
The basic idea was that we thought that we were being helpful in helping people to give some reflective thought to their eternal destinations and life's direction. This isn't a bad idea in general, I think. I think it was the way we did this that was f*cking assine.
If this poor person expressed even the tiny-est amount of doubt, we would continue:
"Would you like to know how you can be certain with 100% absolutely no-doubts how you can go to heaven?"
And then we gave our gospel/evangelism speel. Puke-me, seriously.
I can remember giving out these rote answers and thinking, even at the time, that they didn't make much sense or give great comfort.
I've grown since that time and have learned that faith is not Knowing and Proclaiming Without A Doubt Absolutely 100%, but rather faith is something that exists in doubt. I have faith that God loves me and he loves homonoids and neanderthals, but I must confess that I don't know this without doubt as well. I think this world was created by God - who had a vision and purpose, but I don't know.
What really reassures me is that I've noticed that even Jesus, himself, was full of doubt and uncertainty and misgivings - especially in the garden ("If it were possible, remove this cup" ; "God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" & etc).
The point of this is that I'm okay with being uncertain - I guess that's my faith.
If God says that he has his arms open to me, I'm happy about that. And I'm okay with that.
I know, I know I'm nowhere near perfect. Luckily, my salvation has nothing to do with my state of perfection but rather everything to do with having faith in God. And faith pleases God.
quote:
Also, what does asking God entail?
Just that.
John the Baptist says that we must repent in order to receive the Son.
Then God comes and walks with us and will raise us in the last day.
Just like the story of the prodigal son. All he had to do was return and say that he was sorry for hurting his dad and messing up his life.
OR
You can be a dying thief next to a crucified man-God and ask him to remember you.
quote:
Mousethief argues above (as far as I understand it) that you should just do your best and hope that it is enough to count as 'turning to God', so that God can do the rest and save you.[
I think Mousethief is talking about living in faith. We live in the hope that we have received. We are responding to the goodness made known to us.
quote:
Personally I doubt that I will 'do my best' for the rest of my life. I certainly haven't so far. I am reminded of the young rich man, who had kept the commandments. Jesus deflates his pride by pointing out that even he hadn't done his best - he was unable to give all his money to the poor and follow Jesus.
I agree with you. I know that having a belief that Jesus is my Saviour doesn't magically make me perfect. I think, though, that our lives are about transformation - not immediate perfection. Luckily, our salvation is not based on our works but holding onto our faith that God cares for us and will save us despite ourselves.
quote:
So it is possible that my best efforts to 'turn to God' will not be enough - and I'm highly unlikely to be giving it my best efforts anyway.
It's not based on how badly you f*ck up life. We cannot earn our salvation, it is a gift that we can receive. It is not based on works but faith.
quote:
And if I understand you correctly, God cannot or will not make me turn to him - that initial turning or asking is up to me - so I can't just trust to God to save me.
You can trust that God has his arms open to you. I think that's huge.
quote:
So, I should either be confident that I will when needed 'turn to God' (but what is the basis for such confidence?) or I should be concerned about it.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
I just wanted to add one more thing to the fear/uncertainty/certainty thing going on.
quote:
If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
(1 John 4:15-18, NIV)
I just wanted to say that I, myself, am a pretty fearful person but this passage is pretty cool because it talks about love being made complete in us and driving out fear.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
So if people in heaven make mistakes, do these mistakes affect others? I think Luigi's point is a good one--if heaven is just a more eternal extension of this life but with more hardened desires formed from our earthly existence, and if those people can still make mistakes, and if those mistakes can still affect other people, I can't see that it will be much of a "perfect place."
Nothing and no one is perfect but God. Yes, angels make mistakes, and they affect others. But the mistakes are small, and the effects are small.
Interestingly, angelic imperfection is one of the reasons that God Himself was incarnated, and not merely some angel. Many angels are reported in the OT as having appeared to people, but they could not begin to do what only God can do.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Or do you merely appear righteous but inside are full of uncleanness and self-indulgence?
If so, join the club. I would guess that most of us are like that. I think that God looks at the whole person.
Well... then... if Jesus told the Pharisees they'd end up in hell, and we're all just as bad as the Pharisees...
Well, maybe not just as bad. Surely it's a matter of extent. Don't we all recognize our inner Pharisee? It is not all-or-nothing. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
He sent away the man who asked "What must I DO to be saved?" with yet another demand--there are always more demands that we must fulfill to gain our own entrance into the Kingdom.
Yay! Go PK ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:
But he asked the wrong question--when people calmed down and sat with Jesus, ate with him, or even just showed they believed in his saving power despite who they are or what they'd done, he told them--
"You have great faith."
That seems enormously profound to me.
Seems so to me too!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
Personally I doubt that I will 'do my best' for the rest of my life. I certainly haven't so far. I am reminded of the young rich man, who had kept the commandments. Jesus deflates his pride by pointing out that even he hadn't done his best - he was unable to give all his money to the poor and follow Jesus.
I agree with you. I know that having a belief that Jesus is my Saviour doesn't magically make me perfect. I think, though, that our lives are about transformation - not immediate perfection.
I agree. Who says we have to have done our very best? We need to love God and our neighbor. That's a pretty wide open condition. Our lives need to be an endeavor to help rather than hurt. It's about direction, not perfection.
Is anybody saying that they think they can be happy forever without ever having to give a flying fig for anyone but themselves? Isn't it clear that this kind of life is no fun?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Freddy - you have made it clear that you believe that some end up in heaven and some in hell. You believe there is a clear separation - even though you assert the separation is not about time or place. OK lets go with that. (I'll come back to the problem with direction in a moment).
The point I have been trying to make since about two pages back is this. Humanity, you accept, is a mixture of good and bad - we all have some pharisaical tendencies in us, which you concede - but, according to you, there comes a point at which we are divided into those deserving eternal reward and those deserving hell.
And that is my problem. No matter where that line is drawn, some will 'only just be good enough' and some will 'just fail to get into heaven.
This strikes me as massively problematic.
(Remember, it was you who argued that good people go to heaven and that most people in the world agree with your position.)
Incidentally, back in the days when I thought circles were there to be squared I used to argue that wherever the line was drawn I trusted God to draw it fairly. I know it is laughable but I was young and very naive.
Also, earlier in this thread you also contended that people go in a certain direction and that as they get older this direction becomes more set. Well I'm sorry but this isn't what I have found. Some people I know who were very self centered, by their own admission, have become much more compassionate in their 80s.
Asserting this seems silly, it is so obviously true of many people. The idea that people find it harder to change into good people as they get older is very patronising.
Which brings me to the question of direction. Again my life, like most other people I know, is a mixture of good and bad. If I die and I have been going in a selfish direction for 5 mins do I go to hell? What about if I've been going in that direction for a week, a month, a couple of years? It all strikes me as completely untenable.
You see we still can't navigate the problem effectively even when we switch horses in mid stream to 'it is the direction in which we are going' that really counts. (I don't think most people who believe in heaven or hell would agree with the idea that a mass murderer who is trying to reform is more worthy of heaven than someone who has just started slipping back from exemplary behaviour.)
It seems to me that horses need to be endlessly switched in order for the circle to be squared - to mix metaphors. When an argument needs to work this hard to defend itself, ISTO, it is better to just admit that the circle is a circle and accept that the shape we have in front of us isn't a square in disguise.
Luigi
[ 09. January 2006, 21:08: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
No matter where that line is drawn, some will 'only just be good enough' and some will just fail to be good enough. It is really very straightforward.
This strikes me as massively problematic.
I don't see any horses being switched here. By "direction" and "progress" I mean just what I have been saying all along. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
The point is that everyone is different, and the life they receive from God is exactly what they are able to receive. It may be more joyful or less joyful in endless variety, in exact accord with their own interests and choices.
You appear to be quite concerned about the invisible line that divides the good from the wicked. I don't seem to be saying anything that can help. Yet just about everything in life has aspects of these kinds of invisible lines and judgments. How do you decide what to eat or what job to take? How do you know if it is a good day or a bad one? Where is the line between happiness and sadness? Maybe these are really empty sets.
My point is that it is simplistic to divide people into happy and unhappy. Everyone is different and happiness is a very indivudal thing. Yet an important goal of civilization is to decrease suffering and increase happiness - so it is not an unknowable quantity.
To find happiness is to find heaven. To be unhappy is to be in hell. There is some kind of dividing line, but I wouldn't presume to label it. Few things in life have neat dividing lines, but it doesn't mean that distinctions aren't real or important.
Christianity is not about just making it over the line into heaven. Christianity is about believing in and doing the things that make a happy life for yourself and for those around you. Do we talk about just barely making it over the line and acheiving a happy day? Or how unfair it is that just because I didn't quite cross the line into contentment my day sucked? It just doesn't work like that.
If the spiritual world is a real world at all, it's not going to be a place with lines on the ground like maps and charts. In my neck of the woods it is easy to cross from Pennsylvania into New York without even knowing it. I don't think it will be much different in heaven. Not that angels will wander unknowingly into hell, but that one region will blend into another just as they do in this world.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity is about believing in and doing the things that make a happy life for yourself and for those around you.
Is it though? Surely that only applies if the things that Christianity teaches you to do are the things that make you happy anyway...
quote:
If the spiritual world is a real world at all, it's not going to be a place with lines on the ground like maps and charts. In my neck of the woods it is easy to cross from Pennsylvania into New York without even knowing it. I don't think it will be much different in heaven. Not that angels will wander unknowingly into hell, but that one region will blend into another just as they do in this world.
I imagine most of the people in the next realm will live pretty close to the border then ...
[ 09. January 2006, 21:43: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
So Freddy, would I be right in summarizing:
At death, the overall direction of your life is solidified.
?
Just wondered if that was a simplified version of what you were saying or not. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
So Freddy, would I be right in summarizing:
At death, the overall direction of your life is solidified.
I guess. That leaves room for change and improvement, but major u-turns would be unlikely.
As I understand it, the problem is that possessing a physical body in a time-and-space world facilitates spiritual change in ways that life in the spiritual realm do not.
The reason, again as I understand it, is that in the spiritual world everything is present or absent in direct relation to a person's spiritual quality. This makes life a pleasure, but it makes it difficult to effect serious reform.
In the spiritual world, things that are very different from what you love and believe simply don't come near enough to have any effect. In the material world, however, many different kinds of influences can be in close proximity, and you can choose among them. This means that there is conflict in this world, but the conflict can sometimes have a beneficial effect.
But who knows?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
annecdote7
Apprentice
# 9533
|
Posted
Like BM, I'm a newcomer to this thread, and I haven't read the whole thing, so perhaps this has been covered.
So honestly, I don't think the answer to this question matters as much as how this answer affects your life and your walk. So a brief exercise:
If the answer is no one goes to hell, does that
a)make you relax about the frantic modernist mechanical aspects of evangelism, but instead frees you to love your neighbor without an agenda?
or
b)make you feel like giving up your faith because there's no point in following Christ (which can be hard here on earth)?
If the answer is yes, people go to hell, does that
a) make you feel like you need to be more present in the world, loving them into the kingdom?
or
b) make you angry at God for injustice - or - make you feel like you would pour from a half-full cup just to get the numbers up?
Not that you will either fall into a or b. I just chose these reactions as a) probably desirable and b) probably not desirable reactions to the two answers. I'm sure there are many more reactions that are possible.
The point is though, the answer isn't the end.
Posts: 37 | From: VT | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Anne I actually was thinking of starting a new thread on this type of topic, as in "Okay so you have your beliefs about heaven/hell--how does that affect what you do?" It's a good question.
However, I think this type of question is a ways down the road for most Christians, who wouldn't even dream of considering the possibility that God may not send anyone to hell. That's what saddens me, honestly.
By the way, has everyone here met Anne(cdote7)? She's been lurking for a while and now she's taking the board by storm... haha. She's one of those "I'm Oh So Proud To Be From Vermont"ers but I think we can all forgive her for that. (Just thought I would draw attention to her entrance and embarrass her a bit.)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Hi Joyfulsoul,
I've been thinking about the best way to respond to your post, because I don't think that I've managed to get my point across.
Can I ask you to re-read professorkirke's post here?
Umm, let me go back a step.
Looking at the world from a Calvinist perspective for a moment, we can see that salvation is entirely the business of God. God chooses the Elect, and in his sovereign power moves their hearts so that they repent and believe in Christ and thus are saved. The Elect cannot resist this grace. The unfortunate people who are not chosen cannot choose to repent and believe because they are slaves to sin. Personally, I believe this theology to be incompatible with the loving God revealed in Christ.
Your non-Calvinist viewpoint introduces a new factor into this scheme - the idea that salvation, to be effective, must be a cooperative exercise between God and us. God cannot save us without us turning to him, without us accepting his gift.
That is, you are arguing that there is something we must do in order to be saved. You describe this something as turning to God, accepting the freely offered gift of grace, of repenting and having faith.
But you are not a Universalist, so you don't believe that all will do that something.
So who is it that will not accept the freely offered gift of grace?
Why would you not accept it?
What reason could there be?
If that reason is because the person is somehow less moral (ie full of pride, arrogance etc) than we are back to the old idea that the good go the heaven and the bad to hell. If that reason is something else, then how can we say that God's judgement is just?
By making our faith our action and not the action of a sovereign God, something we can choose to have or not to have, you make having faith a work that must be done before we can reach heaven.
People who are good at having faith succeed, those that aren't fail.
Does this make more sense?
PS Welcome to the Ship, Annecdote7!
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
What reason could there be [for not accepting God's freely offered gift]?
Perhaps no reason? In the sense that I don't think valuing reason is an intrinsic human characteristic. Or not a spiritual one anyway. Reason seems to be a function of the way our mind works. My guess would be that's a product of both genetic and environmental factors, an accident of our becoming.
So maybe some people just happen to not like what God likes, and anything he offers just grates with them.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
What reason could there be [for not accepting God's freely offered gift]?
Perhaps no reason? In the sense that I don't think valuing reason is an intrinsic human characteristic. Or not a spiritual one anyway. Reason seems to be a function of the way our mind works. My guess would be that's a product of both genetic and environmental factors, an accident of our becoming.
So maybe some people just happen to not like what God likes, and anything he offers just grates with them.
Perhaps, Dave. It's a good point. But then, let's not use the terms "Heaven" and "Hell" anymore. Let's use "God's Place" and "That Other Place." Because if people are in "Hell" because they just don't like God and would prefer to not be around him (God as the Annoying Friend?), then I would doubt that Hell would be quite as painful and unbearable as we usually suppose. So perhaps calling it "That Other Place" would be more fitting.
Also, this notion presupposes that God created beings that don't like him. Or else he created beings with the capacity to grow into beings that just don't like him. Not a conscious choice, mind you, but just something that could happen to somebody. That doesn't resonate with me.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
let's not use the terms "Heaven" and "Hell" anymore. Let's use "God's Place" and "That Other Place." Because if people are in "Hell" because they just don't like God and would prefer to not be around him (God as the Annoying Friend?), then I would doubt that Hell would be quite as painful and unbearable as we usually suppose.
Or not have "That Other Place" at all. I don't see there's any rational basis for talking about 'places' outside spacetime, only 'eternity'. Why should an essence of being, a human spirit perhaps, have to be 'kept alive' when it is incompatible with what as far as we can tell is the ground of being in eternity, this creator we call God? I don't see it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Or not have "That Other Place" at all. I don't see there's any rational basis for talking about 'places' outside spacetime, only 'eternity'.
Now you're getting to the heart of it.
I think what we're really talking about is relative degrees of contentment, fulfilment, inner peace, satisfaction, delight, and similar emotions. Do these really vary from person to person? Is there anything that we can do to affect these things? Will they always vary or are the variations temporary? Can we permanently harm our ability to feel them?
I agree that this is more realistic than talk about "heaven" and "hell".
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think what we're really talking about is relative degrees of contentment, fulfilment, inner peace, satisfaction, delight, and similar emotions. Do these really vary from person to person? Is there anything that we can do to affect these things? Will they always vary or are the variations temporary? Can we permanently harm our ability to feel them?
That's the whole basis of our discussion, isn't it Freddy?
Will any of us not like God after we die?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think what we're really talking about is relative degrees of contentment, fulfilment, inner peace, satisfaction, delight, and similar emotions. Do these really vary from person to person? Is there anything that we can do to affect these things? Will they always vary or are the variations temporary? Can we permanently harm our ability to feel them?
That's the whole basis of our discussion, isn't it Freddy?
Will any of us not like God after we die?
Yes, Digory, that is the question.
I think that it will depend on whether we are happy or not. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Demas, I'm just posting a short reply (hopefully I will have time later to continue this thought).
God loves us as we are. As sinners, as saints - as "human beans" as the Borrowerers might say. (Ie, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."). We can never earn his approval because he already loves and cares for us. Period. Okay, that doesn't quite right - but what I'm trying to say is that God already likes us, now, however/whatever we are now - with all the good and bad choices mixed up in between. We have intrinsic value and worth to him that is not based on what we do or how we act.
It is only for our benefit that we respond (hence the way this thread title is worded) because God already loves us. His love and good pleasure already exist for us (no matter where we are in life - whether we are selfish, no matter what religion one is a part of - atheist, hindu, muslim, jedi-worshipper, satanist, etc - no matter what lifestyle choices either - hedonistic, gluttonous, selfish, wasteful, greedy, malicious, egotistical, sexual laviciousness, or addictions we have fed) and we can never lose this good pleasure of God (e.g. "I take no pleasure in the death of even the wicked"). In some ways, I see that part of our purpose in life (to response to annecdote7) is to share with people the love of God that already exists for them no matter what.
So to sum up, if I can, God already loves us and accepts and favors and even likes us (as we are). Nothing can change his love for us (as far as I can tell).
I hope this helps.
[ 10. January 2006, 19:30: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
So Joyful, to give you something to bounce off of later tonight if you so choose--
God loves us as we are, and in that love he gives us our option to be with him after death, or to choose against him in thinking we can make ourselves happy.
Next Question: What is it about a person that would make him/her choose against God after death? (Wrapped up in The Freddy/Kirke Question of "Will any of us not like God after we die?")
Possible Answers:
1) They were created differently, and so intrinsically are predisposed to disliking God/choosing against him (nature argument).
2) They have been affected by their surroundings in such a way that has affected their heart, rendering it spiteful, bitter, angry, untrusting, etc. and thus it will not choose God in the end (nurture argument).
3) They have been given choices to make, and based on these choices, their heart has been formed to what it will choose in after death. Some then, inevitably, will end up with hearts that choose against God.
I think (3) is the answer most people go for, alongside of some effects from (2). But even with (3), how can anyone be certain how their choices are affecting them? I can't see being held eternally responsible for our choices now when we don't really fully understand how those choices will affect us later on.
And what is it, exactly, that makes some people make good choices and others make bad choices? This questions gets us right back to the beginning, leaving us really with only option (1) or (2), both of which make God out to be less than loving, IMO.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think (3) is the answer most people go for, alongside of some effects from (2). But even with (3), how can anyone be certain how their choices are affecting them? I can't see being held eternally responsible for our choices now when we don't really fully understand how those choices will affect us later on.
I would question this. These aren't random choices. People do know how most choices affect them.
Humans worldwide are in 90% agreement as to what constitutes good and bad behavior. The choices that build heaven in your heart are the same ones that make you a good student, a productive employeee, a decent citizen, spouse and friend. People everywhere are aware of these things almost regardless of where and how they are raised. This is not to say that there are not large and significant differences.
If you are a good citizen of your country, a good spouse, friend, family member, employee or employer - and if in your heart you actually mean to be this way - you will also be a good citizen of heaven.
I'm not saying that it is easy to know what our true intentions are. I'm saying that there isn't much mystery around what constitutes "good choices."
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And what is it, exactly, that makes some people make good choices and others make bad choices? This questions gets us right back to the beginning, leaving us really with only option (1) or (2), both of which make God out to be less than loving, IMO.
Yes, 1 or 2 make God less than loving. So 3 is better.
Why some people choose one way and others differently is that they are genuinely free. They can choose whatever path appeals to them.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think (3) is the answer most people go for, alongside of some effects from (2). But even with (3), how can anyone be certain how their choices are affecting them? I can't see being held eternally responsible for our choices now when we don't really fully understand how those choices will affect us later on.
I would question this. These aren't random choices. People do know how most choices affect them.
Humans worldwide are in 90% agreement as to what constitutes good and bad behavior. The choices that build heaven in your heart are the same ones that make you a good student, a productive employeee, a decent citizen, spouse and friend. People everywhere are aware of these things almost regardless of where and how they are raised.
Fine, granted. However, just because people accept the idea of what makes someone a good citizen on earth doesn't mean they truly understand that those choices affect their eternal destiny, and what exactly that means. If you believe that life ends at death, and that you are destined for some sort of annhilationism, then the gravity of your choices on earth could drop significantly in those people's eyes. Yet they are still held eternally accountable for these decisions made without a clear understanding of their eternal consequences?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And what is it, exactly, that makes some people make good choices and others make bad choices? This questions gets us right back to the beginning, leaving us really with only option (1) or (2), both of which make God out to be less than loving, IMO.
Yes, 1 or 2 make God less than loving. So 3 is better.
Why some people choose one way and others differently is that they are genuinely free. They can choose whatever path appeals to them.
Well that's the question, isn't it? Why does the good path appeal to some and not to others? Perhaps my choice is genuinely free but where do my desires come from? Are they not placed there by God in the first place?
That's why, to me, choice (3) is a false option, or an illusion. Under the belief of hell there is only choice (1) or (2), IMO.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
However, just because people accept the idea of what makes someone a good citizen on earth doesn't mean they truly understand that those choices affect their eternal destiny, and what exactly that means. If you believe that life ends at death, and that you are destined for some sort of annhilationism, then the gravity of your choices on earth could drop significantly in those people's eyes. Yet they are still held eternally accountable for these decisions made without a clear understanding of their eternal consequences?
Yes, it is true that if people don't realize that these kinds of things affect their eternal destiny it doesn't seem quite fair. It does seem to change the equation quite a bit.
When you think about it, though, how much difference does it really make? If I am an egotistical, calculating jerk, my life is likely to have a number of unpleasant features. How much inner peace can you have if this is what you are like? On the other hand, the well-intentioned, hard working, and genuinely thoughtful person, on balance, has a good chance of enjoying life with people that he or she loves and who love him or her. Of course it doesn't always work out that way, which is why we talk about "ending injustice."
The life that these people experience after death does not creep out of the corners and surprise them. It is the life that they have been living all along.
They are not "held accountable" for things they never realized. They simply live their life, and it works or doesn't work in much the same way that it always worked or didn't work - or rather how it would have worked or not worked if life was actually fair. If they then realize things that they hadn't realized before, this is part of it. But the catch is that people there, even more than here, realize only what they wish to realize.
The point is that eternal life is a continuation of normal life, not a dramatic new scenario with radically different rules.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why some people choose one way and others differently is that they are genuinely free. They can choose whatever path appeals to them.
Well that's the question, isn't it? Why does the good path appeal to some and not to others? Perhaps my choice is genuinely free but where do my desires come from? Are they not placed there by God in the first place?
That's why, to me, choice (3) is a false option, or an illusion. Under the belief of hell there is only choice (1) or (2), IMO.
Why is a genuinely free choice, for which a person is genuinely responsible, not a viable option? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I know that all power comes from God, but can't God give you the power to make the choice? God places you in an environment, both spiritually and naturally, where there are competing desires and choices available. He then gives you the ability to choose among them. Isn't this the way that it seems to most people?
To some extent I do feel helpless in the face of my desires, but my employer pretty clearly thinks that I have the ability to do actual work regardless of what I feel like doing.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
If you believe that life ends at death, and that you are destined for some sort of annhilationism, then the gravity of your choices on earth could drop significantly in those people's eyes. Yet they are still held eternally accountable for these decisions made without a clear understanding of their eternal consequences?
I don't think it works like this. I suspect the vast majority of us use benefits in this life as the sole criteria for our choices. Any eternal consequences are entirely speculative. Faith in a creator simply adds another factor into the equation.
Anihilationism is a loaded, perjoritive term. It only makes sense when considered against some eternal life we know nothing about. We die. What might lie beyond is only rumour, stories, theories that some of us find make sense of things in this life we don't otherwise understand. Let's not be thinking it's any more than that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Why does the good path appeal to some and not to others? Perhaps my choice is genuinely free but where do my desires come from? Are they not placed there by God in the first place?
Apologies if this is a bit incoherent but my answers to such questions aren't fully formed even in my own head.
I think that anybody who considers suffering in the context of a belief in omnipotent God must come to one of two conclusions.
1. Essentially Calvinism and a fully determined universe. Suffering happens because the overall greater and eternal good - whatever that may be - either cannot come about without it, or comes about most effectively because of it.
2. God permits things to happen that are against his direct will - permits bad things, evil things, things which cause suffering and so on, again for the sake of a greater good. To distinguish this from #1, I mean that God must in a sense take his hands off the reins.
Interestingly, often the greater good is seen to be that God is glorified (in the eyes of the witnesses? Angels and saved humans?) in #1, yet that makes little sense to me when considering an atrocity. Perhaps it's my corrupted moral sense, but I cannot see that God is glorified when a child dies painfully, or a Holocaust is committed. However, if things like that take place as a consequence of #2, and God goes on to redeem or overcome even such horrors in the end then, he is glorified in my eyes at least beyond my ability to express in words.
I don't believe that I am the way I am (I hope nobody faints with shock at the suggestion that I am significantly less than perfect) because God chose to make me the way I am, with all my bad intentions and failings and selfishness and nastiness and so on, but rather that he gave creation the freedom to produce me this way for the sake of a good greater than the harm I have done and will do as a consequence. The greater good may be the glory that will be seen when he redeemed/redeems creation and creatures in spite of our failings, and the love that that consequentially inspires. I don't know. I trust that such a good exists though, and the reason I trust is an outgrowth of what I believe about Christ.
All this leads me to say that I if the universe is not entirely deterministic, in which God does not micro-manage every subatomic particle, then I find no logical necessity for it to avoid producing people who by their nature cannot ever be brought to a heavenly state without removing this freedom that seems to be important enough to God that he permits the suffering it causes. However, I also have no reason to believe that it necessarily will produce such people particularly taking into consideration my theistic and not deistic beliefs. I'm agnostic but hopeful on universalism.
Anyone still awake will have spotted a certain prototheory of identity in that - that we have to change and grow, be formed if you like, rather than be zapped into something radically different, which would involve the obliteration of the original person. If this is so, then it's worth mentioning that even if Hell ultimately turns out to be empty, the process of becoming Heavenly might be more Hellish for some than for others.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
2. God permits things to happen that are against his direct will - permits bad things, evil things, things which cause suffering and so on, again for the sake of a greater good. To distinguish this from #1, I mean that God must in a sense take his hands off the reins.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Very nice.
I call this the doctrine of permission. Evil is permitted for the sake of a greater good. That is, in the long run it is better to allow some suffering to occur so that more suffering can be prevented.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I suspect the vast majority of us use benefits in this life as the sole criteria for our choices. Any eternal consequences are entirely speculative. Faith in a creator simply adds another factor into the equation.
Anihilationism is a loaded, perjoritive term. It only makes sense when considered against some eternal life we know nothing about. We die. What might lie beyond is only rumour, stories, theories that some of us find make sense of things in this life we don't otherwise understand. Let's not be thinking it's any more than that.
I think you might be making it more complicated than it is. When you die, either you maintain consciousness, or you don't. There are innumerable complexities bound within each of those options, but they are still the only two options.
If I believe that consciousness continues, and then try to act accordingly (even if I have other more immediate motives), vs. someone who believes consciousness does not continue, and then acts accordingly, it would be unlike God, IMO, to allow both of us to receive the same results after death.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't believe that ... God chose to make me the way I am, with all my bad intentions and failings and selfishness and nastiness and so on, but rather that he gave creation the freedom to produce me this way for the sake of a good greater than the harm I have done and will do as a consequence. The greater good may be the glory that will be seen when he redeemed/redeems creation and creatures in spite of our failings, and the love that that consequentially inspires. I don't know.
Giving creation the freedom to produce us the way we are--that's an interesting concept. So God allows environment to affect us, making some of us more selfish and nasty than others.
OR, perhaps he allows it to make us all quite selfish and nasty. And the greatest good of all is when he reaches down and plucks us all out of our tangled deceit to bring us into perfect union with him again.
quote:
...if the universe is not entirely deterministic, then I find no logical necessity for it to avoid producing people who by their nature cannot ever be brought to a heavenly state without removing this freedom that seems to be important enough to God that he permits the suffering it causes.
Even though you are self-proclaimedly selfish and nasty, I assume you believe that you are not selfish and nasty enough to have a nature that "cannot ever be brought to a heavenly state," right? That's not an attack, but just an interesting note--nobody ever discusses these types of things by saying, "I'm going to Hell, but it's for God's glory--some of us have to do it, right?" (That's just a playful way of getting at what I mean, so I hope you all understand. )
Anyway, where is God's salvation in all of this? Is it just in the fact that he has given us choice? That would seem a very individualistic, self-empowerment type of universe. "God's salvation lies in my ability to choose my OWN destiny, without God getting in the way!"
For what it's worth, I am hoping and praying every day for God to "get in the way" of my life. Lord knows I need him to.
quote:
...it's worth mentioning that even if Hell ultimately turns out to be empty, the process of becoming Heavenly might be more Hellish for some than for others.
Amen Amen Amen to that. Hellish perhaps, but personal and perfectly completed by the God of Mercy, Grace and Reconciliation. (Picture Aslan on the hill with Edmund. I am positive that it was not a pleasant conversation.)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that eternal life is a continuation of normal life, not a dramatic new scenario with radically different rules.
Well, with how many of us seem to get things right here on earth, "heaven" should be thoroughly depressing! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Perhaps it's not hell that will be empty...
quote:
I know that all power comes from God, but can't God give you the power to make the choice? God places you in an environment, both spiritually and naturally, where there are competing desires and choices available. He then gives you the ability to choose among them. Isn't this the way that it seems to most people?
Gives me the ability to choose among them based on what, though? Based on a) my inner desires and b) my environmental surroundings. (a) were placed there by God, right? And I was placed in (b) by God as well! So God has given me my choices already, indirectly, has he not? If not, where do my inner desires come from?
Perhaps they come from a broken spirit that is prone to sin since the fall. That's not any better. Or perhaps they simply come from our perception of the world, which is unclear, confused, and incomplete because we cannot see things from God's perspective.
I don't understand how "God gives us complete control over our own destinies" is good news, not in the slightest.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Anyone still awake will have spotted a certain prototheory of identity in that - that we have to change and grow, be formed if you like, rather than be zapped into something radically different, which would involve the obliteration of the original person.
Heaven as Stepford?
That's actually quite a fear of mine ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Even though you are self-proclaimedly selfish and nasty, I assume you believe that you are not selfish and nasty enough to have a nature that "cannot ever be brought to a heavenly state," right? That's not an attack, but just an interesting note--nobody ever discusses these types of things by saying, "I'm going to Hell, but it's for God's glory--some of us have to do it, right?" (That's just a playful way of getting at what I mean, so I hope you all understand. )
I'd better say right now that I'm reasonably sure only God can be certain of a person's eventual salvation.
However, when I consider this uncertainty deeply enough to scare the pants off me, it occurs to me that just because we lack certainty doesn't mean there are not indications - although it's a dangerous game to play, I could say that I have hope because I want to be saved and trust God to bring about what I can't. It seems possible to me that some people might not, might really mean it and will never change their minds, but currently I'm not actually one of them. So I have hope.
quote:
Anyway, where is God's salvation in all of this? Is it just in the fact that he has given us choice? That would seem a very individualistic, self-empowerment type of universe. "God's salvation lies in my ability to choose my OWN destiny, without God getting in the way!"
No, quite the opposite I'd say. Freedom in the way I'm using the word today is not salvation but if you like, the ability to be what we are, which makes both the problem and its solution possible. I could take my "thinking" on this further but it would get a bit mystical and off-topic.
quote:
For what it's worth, I am hoping and praying every day for God to "get in the way" of my life. Lord knows I need him to.
You're not on your own, but isn't it interesting that your current nature is such that you want God in your life? Your nature, imperfect as I suspect it is (no offence), is such that you want to become more Heavenly.
quote:
Hellish perhaps, but personal and perfectly completed by the God of Mercy, Grace and Reconciliation. (Picture Aslan on the hill with Edmund. I am positive that it was not a pleasant conversation.)
I'm bemused when people describe a conversion experience such as Wesley's strangely-warmed thing, or a sudden change of heart as to what life's all about, as a Damascus road event. I doubt St Paul particularly enjoyed being blinded and then told that the Christians he'd been persecuting so thoroughly, were right.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Heaven as Stepford?
That's actually quite a fear of mine ...
That's kind of the point of what I was saying. If all God wanted was a Saint that looked perfectly like you, he could make one and have a convenient lightning bolt leave nothing behind of the current Marvin but a pair of smoking boots.
On the other hand it seems to me that bringing Saint Marvin of Mars eventually into existence requires a process whereby your identity is retained, and I can't see a brain transplant fitting with that very well.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
If I believe that consciousness continues...
Thing is, we've got no basis for believing consciousness continues after death. Perhaps we become, or have the potential to become, an eternal being. But saying it's like consciousness, even by analogy, is I think bound to be misleading. It implies we can know what we can't.
quote:
... and then try to act accordingly (even if I have other more immediate motives), vs. someone who believes consciousness does not continue, and then acts accordingly, it would be unlike God, IMO, to allow both of us to receive the same results after death.
We have no way of knowing this. I can't imagine a God who 'allows us to receive results' based on any choice we've made, only one who is creating the universe in such a way that who we become might not be lost. I suspect this depends on all the influences that determine our values at death, the best indicator of which I'd have thought will be what's important to us in this life.
I don't see there can be any God-given gold standard against which we can measure ourselves for fitness for eternity. But if who we've become at death would like it there, I can imagine a God kind of welcome, a 'glad you could make it', from the creator.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
For what it's worth, I am hoping and praying every day for God to "get in the way" of my life. Lord knows I need him to.
You're not on your own, but isn't it interesting that your current nature is such that you want God in your life? Your nature, imperfect as I suspect it is (no offence), is such that you want to become more Heavenly.
This is a great observation. It seems to me that it would be helpful to be able to account for this desire in such sinners as we are.
As Digory asks:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Gives me the ability to choose among them based on what, though? Based on a) my inner desires and b) my environmental surroundings. (a) were placed there by God, right? And I was placed in (b) by God as well! So God has given me my choices already, indirectly, has he not? If not, where do my inner desires come from?
In my book, one thing that accounts for this is the "Doctrine of Equilibrium". This states that God always maintains a balance of spiritual influences on every person so that they can freely choose to be better or to be worse.
This doesn't mean that people are equally good, equally bad, or equally able to do anything. Everyone and everyone's situation is unique. It merely means that however bad your situation is, the freedom to improve spiritually can never be taken away.
This means that the sinner always has the option and the ability to stop sinning, or at least to move in that direction.
Another doctrine that accounts for the sinner's desire to improve is the "Doctrine of the Remnant".
A common feature of Old Testament prophecies is that a remnant will always be left through whom the Lord can work (Micah 2.12). The idea is that positive experiences, thoughts, information, and emotions are carefully preserved by God in the human mind. They don't dissipate but remain, and are able to serve as a basis for future choices, desires, and actions. Some people may have very few of these due to terrible circumstances, but no one has none.
It seems to me that these two "doctrines" help to answer the seeming conundrum of God having placed you in your situation, which then dictates your life choices, which God then judges you for.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
All this leads me to say that I if the universe is not entirely deterministic, in which God does not micro-manage every subatomic particle, then I find no logical necessity for it to avoid producing people who by their nature cannot ever be brought to a heavenly state without removing this freedom that seems to be important enough to God that he permits the suffering it causes.
This seems a reasonable argument, but why should a benevolent God permit absolute free will, even unto damnation (or The Other Place, or whatever?) I given my children sufficient autonomy that they can, e.g., fall over and hurt themselves in the garden, but I don't let them play in the traffic. Surely there has to come a point when God says ``OK, enough is enough, stop pissing about and get into Heaven with everybody else'' ?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
On the other hand it seems to me that bringing Saint Marvin of Mars eventually into existence requires a process whereby your identity is retained, and I can't see a brain transplant fitting with that very well.
Indeed not. I'm just conscious that such a process, however long and gradual, would nevertheless not leave much (if anything) that was recognisable as the Marvin that once inhabited this world.
In other words, the 'perfect saint who happens to look like me' would still have come to be, just by a series of small changes rather than one big one.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic about the whole thing...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I give my children sufficient autonomy that they can, e.g., fall over and hurt themselves in the garden, but I don't let them play in the traffic. Surely there has to come a point when God says ``OK, enough is enough, stop pissing about and get into Heaven with everybody else'' ?
This is a good point. I think God does this, but not to the point of determining that everyone must obey Him.
As I understand it, God prevents the worst evils from happening. He prevents humanity from destroying itself. He provides that nothing can happen unless some good can come of it. Other things simply don't happen. That's my belief anyway.
This would be like letting your children have quite a bit of autonomy, but not letting them wander into traffic. Humanity has much more autonomy, of course. It also doesn't seem as though there are any restraints on us wandering into traffic. But I think they are there, and that this is what Divine Providence is about.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Freddy - can't respond in detail now but I wondered if you thought the passage....
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
...is also a passage that refers to the heaven and hell divide that occurs after this life?
Luigi
[ 11. January 2006, 20:31: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jesusfreakgal
Apprentice
# 10883
|
Posted
I am not sure if anyone mentioned this, but IMO Matthew 7:21-23 say to me quite clearly that not everyone is going to get into heaven. The verses say: "21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" I have also heard people say that yes some people will go to heaven, but not forever. As far as I know, that idea is not in the bible.
JFG
--------------------
JFG
Posts: 47 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Freddy - can't respond in detail now but I wondered if you thought the passage....
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
...is also a passage that refers to the heaven and hell divide that occurs after this life?
It is usually thought of that way, I guess, Luigi:
quote:
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
This would give the impression that few go to heaven, if you take it that way.
But I think it means merely that the easy and obvious thing to do is often not the best way to go.
It does seem to people as though it is narrow and difficult to always put effort into what you do, to try to be helpful and kind to other people, to sacrifice your own time and interests for others, to behave yourself sexually, to try not to drink or eat too much, to exercise, etc.
I think that this is the message, which also means that the way to heaven seems narrow and difficult, since the way to heaven is to do these things.
But I think the truth is that trying to do these things actually makes life easier - so that obedience to God is really the lighter burden.
The connection is made more strongly in the parallel passage in Luke, where the initial question is about whether few or many are saved:
quote:
Luke 13:22 And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ 26 then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ 27 But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. 29 They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.”
I don't know that the message here is obvious, but it seems to me that this is saying that you can't be a "worker of iniquity" and enter heaven.
I don't think that it is about relative numbers.
How do you see it?
[ 11. January 2006, 21:11: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
