 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
»
|
Ship of Fools
»
» Oblivion
»
Imagine there's no heaven (nor hell, nor anything after you're dead) (Page 5)
|
|
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Imagine there's no heaven (nor hell, nor anything after you're dead)
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Only.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Only.
Only what?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The redeemed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
W Hyatt: Isn't that the definition of redeemed? That is, isn't it a tautology to say that only the redeemed will go to Heaven?
To me, this isn't what 'redeemed' (or 'saved') means.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Karl wrote:
I suppose if someone absolutely insists on not being reconciled that's one thing, but that's not what traditional theology teaches. It teaches that most people will fry. Despite God apparently loving them.
'Most people will fry'?
Surely that only applies if you are
1. A totally literalistic fundamentalist
2. A mediaeval Catholic
Why can we not have whatever the opposite of universalism is called without resorting to burning sulphurous lakes and pitch-fork wielding demons?
Hell is only symbolised by these images. I believe that only the redeemed will go to Heaven but I certainly do not think that Hell is literally a burning lake of fire.
But then you've got a situation where God's love has failed for some people. I mean, God either has purposely chosen to condemn some people for no reason (because there are plenty of good non-Christians and bad Christians) or is not powerful enough to prevent them being condemned, going by that outcome. Neither kind of God is a God I would want to worship, let alone spend eternity with.
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks?
I mean, I do believe in the saving work of Christ - but I can't bring myself to believe that God's love is somehow not powerful enough to redeem everyone, or that God has chosen to condemn some people but created them and given them friends and family and lives regardless. That's not because I'm a heathen liberal, it's because those options stink of misanthropy. If God loves everyone enough to die a painful death for us, I'm not seeing how He doesn't love everyone enough to be able to redeem them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
LeRoc: quote:
W Hyatt: Isn't that the definition of redeemed? That is, isn't it a tautology to say that only the redeemed will go to Heaven?
To me, this isn't what 'redeemed' (or 'saved') means.
Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
W Hyatt: Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
I'm not sure if I have a complete soteriology (I'm a liberal after all ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), but how I think about it is that our egoism — our sin if you like — enslaves us. Being able to let go of that liberates us.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As a customer for over 40 years I would simply say that the packaging should be attractive and describe what's inside but one doesn't need to read the full instruction booklet until you've purchased the item.
To me the basic truth is there is a God who loves you and in Jesus provides the way to life.
The rest of the stuff is explored upon opening the box ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For me, simply describing what is alleged to be inside is not enough. Even reading the full instruction book is not a guarantee that the contents match the promise. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of a-pig-in-a-poke.
Your basic truth requires a belief in what you call "God", the existence of what you define as "love", "Jesus" (as in not just a mere mortal) and "life" (another word with a perfectly good and well understood meaning which I suspect is not what you mean). There doesn't seem, to me, to be any justification for your beliefs as I understand/imagine them. I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke - and that's what I can't find. As to exploring after purchasing and opening the box - I know that one answer is believe and the confirmation will follow - that's what was promised to me nearly 60 years ago - but it didn't. A combination of habituation and confirmation bias could explain why it might work for some - but that, to me, is just exploiting one's own human nature to justify an initial irrational action.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke
That's boring.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
But then you've got a situation where God's love has failed for some people. I mean, God either has purposely chosen to condemn some people for no reason (because there are plenty of good non-Christians and bad Christians) or is not powerful enough to prevent them being condemned, going by that outcome. Neither kind of God is a God I would want to worship, let alone spend eternity with.
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks?
I mean, I do believe in the saving work of Christ - but I can't bring myself to believe that God's love is somehow not powerful enough to redeem everyone, or that God has chosen to condemn some people but created them and given them friends and family and lives regardless. That's not because I'm a heathen liberal, it's because those options stink of misanthropy. If God loves everyone enough to die a painful death for us, I'm not seeing how He doesn't love everyone enough to be able to redeem them.
I've had this conversation on another thread somwhere.
What you're talking about is control. Surely love is an offer and not a compulsion?
What kind of love controls the destiny of another person without that person's aquiescence or loving response?
A love that demands that it wins every time is not love. The strength of God's love is that it has defeated the power of sin - not that it has defeated the freewill of the sinner. Love is seen in the possibility of redemption and the possibility of rejection. That is not a failure because the victory was won. The appropriation of that victory into the life of the believer is not in the control of the Almighty and neither is its rejection.
Love does not insist on its own way - even if that means that the offer of love is turned down.
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
[ 05. November 2014, 22:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I would like some better reason than a vendor's word before buying the poke
That's boring.
If, with no real corroboration, I told you that you could leap out of a tenth floor window and float unharmed to the ground would you jump because not to do so would be boring?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Mudfrog, you and I may disagree on some things, but in this, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'll add my as well.
But-- or further-- (I'm not really sure if I'm simply further explicating your argument or disagreeing with it in part... you decide) to respond to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I would agree, but say the last chapter is not yet written. We're probably not even at half-time. I am completely open to the possibility that God's love will ultimately win over every heart and that indeed, "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
The hope that Love ultimately wins does not negate present pain and suffering at all.
The hope that everyone will, in time, repent and turn to God does not mean that there is no pain and anguish.
Jesus wept over pain and injustice - there is still more than enough to weep over today.
Free will has been given from the beginning of the universe - that is obvious. But God reconciling all to Himself is a long term hope. The hope that God accepts all and all will accept Him. I believe that if they don't (waaay after death) then they will be allowed non-existence as an alternative. ie, they will still have a choice.
It was very unsurprising that the Jewish authorities rejected Jesus - he preached a gospel which didn't require their carefully constructed edifices, rules and regulations at all!
[ 06. November 2014, 06:02: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
W Hyatt: Then I'm wrong about it being a tautology. What do those terms mean to you?
I'm not sure if I have a complete soteriology (I'm a liberal after all ), but how I think about it is that our egoism — our sin if you like — enslaves us. Being able to let go of that liberates us.
He is the redeemer - we don't redeem ourselves.
He offers this redemption - we don't have to take it. Those who do not accept redemption are left enslaved.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Mudfrog, you and I may disagree on some things, but in this,
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
Quelle surprise
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
I disagree.
The hope that Love ultimately wins does not negate present pain and suffering at all.
The hope that everyone will, in time, repent and turn to God does not mean that there is no pain and anguish.
Jesus wept over pain and injustice - there is still more than enough to weep over today.
Free will has been given from the beginning of the universe - that is obvious. But God reconciling all to Himself is a long term hope. The hope that God accepts all and all will accept Him. I believe that if they don't (waaay after death) then they will be allowed non-existence as an alternative. ie, they will still have a choice.
It was very unsurprising that the Jewish authorities rejected Jesus - he preached a gospel which didn't require their carefully constructed edifices, rules and regulations at all!
Firstly I would say that Jesus did not weep over pain and injustice.
quote:
Luke 19:41-44 English Standard Version (ESV)
Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Jesus wept for their lost opportunity and for their rejection of him and for their ultimate destruction because of it.
And yes, Jesus was scathing about their infinitesimal regulations, but he didn't preach against the Torah.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well, he wasn't terribly complimentary about the laws on Divorce, as I recall. And he didn't insist on its application, as in the woman caught in adultery. Good thing too, really, if God was really into stoning people to death for adultery (and indeed the strict application of a number of bits of the Torah, to be honest) I imagine he'd get on well with the chaps in the Taliban.
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
Of course, the Calvinists have an answer for this, and it's a rather nasty one IMV, but your invocation of the free will argument suggests to me that you're not a Calvinist
[ 06. November 2014, 09:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
HughWillRidmee: If, with no real corroboration, I told you that you could leap out of a tenth floor window and float unharmed to the ground would you jump because not to do so would be boring?
I'm afraid it's nothing that dramatic either. If by some miracle you would choose faith again, chances are your body wouldn't end up splattered on the floor.
Perhaps you could compare it with going on a party or on a voyage. You don't know beforehand what it's going to be, but sometimes that might enhance the adventure.
quote:
Mudfrog: He is the redeemer - we don't redeem ourselves.
To be honest, I'm not terribly concerned with who does the redeeming — Christ, us, or a combination of both. It's not some kind of competition to see who gets the credit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
I know of no-one like that. It seems a bit bizarre to me; I accept that you know them, but I speak from my own experience and absolutely, no, I don't.
quote:
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
Again, I know people who aspire to these virtues, but they don't necessarily even believe God exists, let alone have any kind of religious motive for holding these values. And they of course vary in their commitment to and living of those values, as do we all.
quote:
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
I can only talk about all the non-believers I know, all of whom are non-believers because, well, they don't believe
I do on the other hand know a quite a number who'd want to believe, if only they could. But they can't.
[ 06. November 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, I think the problem with the "free will" narrative and defence of Hell, is that for all the people I know who aren't Christians, it's got nothing to do with not choosing follow Jesus at all. It's to do with an inability to believe in the Christian claims about him - a lack of evidence that we're any more right than the Muslims, the Hindus or indeed the ancient Druids. It's a bit of a punt on a hunch, and it doesn't seem terribly fair to condemn people for missing the punt.
So you don't know any former Christians, who made choices that took them away from their relationship with Jesus? I certainly know people who accept Jesus probably is the Son of God but following Him is no longer something that they want to do.
There are also lots of people who accept that Christian tenets of loving one's enemies, not indulging in addictions or materialism etc. are the right values, but are unwilling to live that themselves.
I have no interest in condemning anyone, but it strikes me as extremely selective to say that all non-believers simply can't determine if the Christians are more correct than the Muslims.
The biggest group of former Christians I know are LGBT people who were taught that their faith and their sexuality are incompatible - it was either get married to someone of a different gender or leave the church.
So not really a free choice.
I do know others who just stopped believing, and I would say that most Christians know someone like that. But I wouldn't say that they made choices that took them away from Jesus - in the majority of cases, it was the church's actions that made them stop believing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While I know people who have left Christianity for this reason, I also know some who left for a desire to live a worldly life that became inconsistent with Christianity. Not because they had ceased to believe, but because something else became more attractive than a relationship with God.
I would suggest your experience is limited.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While I know people who have left Christianity for this reason, I also know some who left for a desire to live a worldly life that became inconsistent with Christianity. Not because they had ceased to believe, but because something else became more attractive than a relationship with God.
I would suggest your experience is limited.
Maybe it is. But it's tangential; the point is still that there are many people whose lack of faith is not as a result of their choosing not to follow a Christ who they believe exists, but as a result of their not finding themselves able to believe in him. Most of my family, for starters. And while we can argue the toss about what proportion of ex-Christians are in one category or the other, the great bulk of people who have never been Christians are, IME, almost entirely composed of those who are sceptical of the truth claims of Christianity in the first place.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity. For instance, I know someone who promised completely to her husband, but did not want a legal marriage. Let me be clear that they were not avoiding the commitment. She told anyone who was interested (including the pastor of her church) that she considered herself married in the eyes of God. Her church did not accept that anything that was not made legal was real--odd for a church of libertarians, I thought--so she left the church. She feels rejected and somewhat betrayed by the institution now, and even though she wants to attend services, will only enter churches when she knows no one will come to try to get her to join.
She's still a Christian though. The people who I know who are interested in religion--at least one of them attends church every week--but don't believe would all very much like to. Some of them try to...
[ 06. November 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity.
I mean "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]."
If the person is not having a relationship with God through Scripture or prayer (even if not attending church), or trying to change or repent, then in my view that person is not a Christian. Even if they accept that Christianity is true or the most likely religion to be true.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It probably partially depends on how you define sin and left Christianity.
I mean "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]."
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
And what on earth are they doing that's so much fun?
[ 06. November 2014, 13:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
No, not at all. And I know lots of people who have left Christianity. Most people who want to live a ~worldly life~ are perfectly fine reconciling that with their Christianity.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
Because you don't know anyone like this, they don't exist? Try "The Parable of the Sower" for a start.
And no it's not my interpretation, it's things that people have actually told me. People raised in Christian homes who still accept Christianity is true (or probably true), but prefer not to live as Christians because they'd rather not feel bad for doing things that they know they ought not be doing.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Not one of them. Is that what they've actually told you or is that your interpretation of their status?
Because you don't know anyone like this, they don't exist? Try "The Parable of the Sower" for a start.
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
Especially if they've been taught that the consequences of ignoring said being might be eternally uncomfortable. Makes no sense, therefore I find it hard to believe that the world is crawling with such people.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
I didn't say that.
They don't want to be convicted that they way are living is wrong, so they hide - like Adam and Eve in the garden.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope; because, like Gwai, "I'm having trouble imagining someone who believes that there is a all-powerful being who can govern one's life and one's death, but is not interested in getting to know said being."
I didn't say that.
They don't want to be convicted that they way are living is wrong, so they hide - like Adam and Eve in the garden.
Well, call me as thick as a whale omelette, but that does sound exactly like what Gwai described. Perhaps you could explain the difference between Gwai's description and "I'm not a Christian anymore, it might be true but I don't care because I want to live my life doing [fill in activity not aligned with Chrsitianity here]" because I'm buggered if I can distinguish between them in any way that holds water.
[ 06. November 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Karl and Pomona (and anyone else) - you don't know anyone who left Christianity over sin?
I can think of people who have left Christianity for sin-related reasons:
- cheating on spouse
- getting involved with crime
- substance abuse
And not because they decided "You know what? The Buddhists have some good points too. Time to become an agnostic."
Nope. Not one. Every person I know who left Christianity did so because they could no longer believe it was true.
While there are always exceptions to all or none statements, Karl is more correct than not. Jails, for example, are full of redeemed people. People don't run away from Christianity when they've done bad things, they run to it, and twist the idea of redemption so they can exculpate themselves from much sense of who they've actually harmed. Heaven being their everlasting reward etc.
The jailhouse parable is that they had their time in the desert where they hurt people and abused their bodies, but now they've been washed in the blood of the lamb, with their sins all washed away and while it's supposed to be the straight and narrow thereafter, reoffense statistics tell the real story. It's all terribly self-centred, and pays minimal attention to anyone else. Which is a root of my objection to the focus on heaven, and the contention of the need to live as if there ain't one.
Perhaps it's hard for people to live principled lives unless they get paid to do it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The biggest group of former Christians I know are LGBT people who were taught that their faith and their sexuality are incompatible - it was either get married to someone of a different gender or leave the church.
So not really a free choice.
Same here - though our benefice has two 'inclusive' churches - but many LGBT Christians have been in evangelical churches and don't find our churches attractive because we are 'liberal and so not 'real' Christians.
Also, our style of worship is a bit on the 'high' side for the and we don't do happy clappy.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think that the long term decline of Christianity in countries such as the UK, is not because people are thinking, 'well, I know it's true, but I want to do some serious bad stuff', but rather out of growing indifference, or in some cases, active disbelief. My family were a mixture of the two.
In the cases of specific ideas like hell, they just began to seem bizarre, if not ludicrous, to many people.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Apologies in that I've been told not to go into dead horses in Purg - but had forgotten and was reacting to another post - and also to the suggestion from seekingsister that people leave because of 'sin'.
If people leave because of apathy, it's a gradual thing owing to circumstances - work, kids etc.
But there are others, in the dead horse category, for whom leaving involved a lot of pain, most of it unnoticed by other churchgoers.
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
leo wrote:
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
That last point is interesting, as I've known a ton of people in my life, who have spiritual and religious interests, but they seem to regard Christianity, or at least, what you call 'routine church life' as too limited in some way. Maybe they are making excuses, I'm not sure. 'Church life' has a kind of gruesome ring to it for me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
See that to me is very No True Scotsman - you can't ditch the bad Christians just by saying they're not really Christians. Of course you can do all those things and be a Christian, none of those things define Christianity. Christianity is about being redeemed by Christ, not how often you go to church.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm realizing that the issue is that many on the ship come from church traditions in which one doesn't cease to be a Christian unless specifically stating "I'm an atheist now."
"I'm not a Christian now" would be adequate - no need to nail one's colours to a new mast.
quote:
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
Anglican/RCC see that person as a bad Christian or a lapsed one.
The people I am describing are from the same church background as I am.
Well indeed. There are many people who do not do those things you describe, or at least do them willingly - children, for example, but we still consider them part of the church, even if they don't at this stage own the faith themselves individually.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Apologies in that I've been told not to go into dead horses in Purg - but had forgotten and was reacting to another post - and also to the suggestion from seekingsister that people leave because of 'sin'.
If people leave because of apathy, it's a gradual thing owing to circumstances - work, kids etc.
But there are others, in the dead horse category, for whom leaving involved a lot of pain, most of it unnoticed by other churchgoers.
There have been various research projects into reasons people give for leaving, such as
Walking Away from Faith - published by IVP so from an evangelical perspective and A Churchless Faith which suggests that routine church life is too naive for genuine spiritual seekers.
A lot of that resonates with me. I do find routine church life to often be boring and naive. I don't know if seekingsister would see that as being due to sin, but to me it's like being bored at school because you're not being challenged - it's not me thinking I'm better than everyone else, I just need a challenge and I'm not getting it.
However, that's my experience of more high church environments, and it does make me miss the challenge of more Reformed-influenced churches. So I'm not sure what that says.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
snip..
Can you not see how monstrous a God who actively chooses to condemn/leave some people irredeemable looks? ...
snip
I've had this conversation on another thread somwhere.
What you're talking about is control. Surely love is an offer and not a compulsion?
What kind of love controls the destiny of another person without that person's aquiescence or loving response?
A love that demands that it wins every time is not love. The strength of God's love is that it has defeated the power of sin - not that it has defeated the freewill of the sinner. Love is seen in the possibility of redemption and the possibility of rejection. That is not a failure because the victory was won. The appropriation of that victory into the life of the believer is not in the control of the Almighty and neither is its rejection.
Love does not insist on its own way - even if that means that the offer of love is turned down.
If love were to win every time, Jesus would have had no cause to weep over Jerusalem and neither would the Jews have rejected him. The fact that 'he came to that which was his own but his own received him not' was not a sign that God's love failed but that free will was respected.
Pomona expressed it better. But love me with all your strength heart and mind or spend an eternity of conscious suffering in hell is not "free will" , especially if its hard to determine which version of god to love, even in this thread there is a wide variety of choices for god.
And also since the evidence in favor of god's existence is at the very least not obvious.
About "choosing to believe". I was a catholic until High School not only by upbringing or by attending catholic school but I really did believe. I went to church every Sunday and prayed every day. I was confirmed while in High school not shortly after first communion like I see it done now at least in Phoenix.
I did believe and when I was loosing my faith I tried very hard to keep it. I actually attended a weekend retreat to decide if I had a vocation for the priesthood. (Now I see it as my dying faith's last ditch effort, ALL or nothing)
In retrospect the main reason at that time was that belief in Hell seemed less and less rational and just. Also I had started studying other religions and found things in them that I really liked. Then I started reading the Bible (Try to make sense of Revelation in High School without a degree in Theology and without using LSD, It can't be done)
It all seemed man made to me. The Bible was clearly written by men.
This was deeply uncomfortable because I liked the
way I felt when I did have faith. But the cat was out of the bag. All the Kings horses Could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. All I have seen since then has only confirmed my unbelief.
So I find it offensive when people claim that faith is a "choice". I guess they do it to justify why god can send unbelievers to Hell for not believing. I also find it funny when they use arguments such as "deep down inside you really believe". Or if I do a "good" deed it MUST come from god. Well, maybe anything can be said to come from god given the many possible definitions of god.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
A lot of that resonates with me. I do find routine church life to often be boring and naive. I don't know if seekingsister would see that as being due to sin, but to me it's like being bored at school because you're not being challenged - it's not me thinking I'm better than everyone else, I just need a challenge and I'm not getting it.
I'm talking about things that anyone - liberal or conservative, evangelical or high church - would consider to be sins. I gave examples - infidelity and crime. Many people in good faith cannot keep going to church and doing the Christian motions when they know what they really want to do, is something that's not compatible with a good Christian life. So they drop the Christian life even if they still believe deep down that it's the right path. They can't or won't follow that path, for whatever reason.
Some people wish to say "Well that's someone who has lost their faith" but it's not as if they don't actually believe in God. They just don't care to have a relationship with Him.
It seems to me the universalist position goes along with the idea that no one would ever reject God if given the choice - even once on the other side. That doesn't jibe with my experiences and I wonder what makes universalists feel that this is actually the case for most people. Humans are quite good at rejecting love and being self-destructive in their personal relationships, so I'm not sure why their spiritual relationships would be any different.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So I find it offensive when people claim that faith is a "choice". I guess they do it to justify why god can send unbelievers to Hell for not believing. I also find it funny when they use arguments such as "deep down inside you really believe". Or if I do a "good" deed it MUST come from god. Well, maybe anything can be said to come from god given the many possible definitions of god.
For some people it is a struggle to believe. I'm married to a person like that. He wasn't raised in any religion and while he can see the value of faith objectively, it doesn't do anything for him. This is not someone I see as rejecting God. He doesn't know God at all so there's nothing to reject.
But there are people who do know about God and faith and then reject it, not only for loss of faith but because of desire to live a life that contradicts that religion's teachings. To me that's a pretty different category.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm from a conservative church background in the US, where people draw lines a lot more clearly. So someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the Bible, doesn't pray, doesn't fellowship with other Christians, and is living a life that is sinful (however you personally would define it) is not a Christian.
My problem with this definition is that is self-referential. Let me invent an example using a definition of "sin" that avoids any specific dead horses.
Let's say that I've discovered the joy of cotton-polyester blend clothing, but my church has a strict belief that this violates the OT law forbidding mixed fabrics. I have a different interpretation of that passage (that it applies to sewing two types together, where they may shrink at different rates) so I don't believe blended fibers are sinful.
This makes it uncomfortable to continue attending this particular church, so I stop, and later join with others who hold similar views on fabrics in a different church.
This mean I'm no longer a Christian? From the point of view of the first church, I've left to live in sin (according to their beliefs), and I no longer attend (their) church or fellowship with other Christians (like them). If that means that I'm no longer a Christian, and those in my new church aren't either, then I no longer attend a Christian church.
But from my perspective, I am still a Christian who attends a Christian Church, fellowships with other Christians, and I am not living a sinful life as I define it.
While there may be some people who actually do leave the church to "lead a sinful life", I suspect it is far more common that they have prayed, studied the Bible, and came to the conclusion that their behaviors are not sin: they leave the particular church because of a difference in belief and interpretation as to what constitutes a sin (or related issues or other problems at the church), rather than from an intent to sin. Some of them may end up at other churches (if there are ones nearby that share their interpretations). Others may be so emotionally shattered and damaged by the actions of the first church that they are not yet recovered enough to attend another. That doesn't mean they don't sill consider themselves Christian.
So perhaps the problem is when "people draw lines a lot more clearly" effectively becomes "you are only a Christian if you meet our definition". One thing I've learned in my time reading the Ship is to let folks decide for themselves what labels they want to apply to themselves and their beliefs: if someone says they are a Christian, then I'll take their word for it, even if there are some aspects of their beliefs that don't, to me, seem compatible with my view of Christianity.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
