|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A Salvation Contention
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We need a Savior.
Why?
"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.(Micah 6:8)
Jesus said if you want mercy then show mercy. If you want forgiveness then give forgiveness unlimited. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Why isn't that enough?
All right, go ahead and do it.
Aye, there's the rub.
The same is true of the sheep and goats story. If you wish to be saved, behave like the saved--and there's the hook, isn't it? Because we can't and we don't and we won't.
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
Oh sure, we can manage a little flash of light here and there. Even Adolf Hitler, I'm told (oh dear, am I invoking Godwin already? Even Hitler was merciful enough to snatch a child from under the hooves of a runaway horse.
But just try doing it day after day after day. Not just to your friends, but to your enemies. Without a break. Without fucking up. Without so much as a mental "nyah nyah NYAH, see what a jerk you are and how great I am!"
Seriously, it can't be done.
I used to ask my confirmation students to give it a go, just for twenty-four hours--perfection, wholeness, goodness, all under their own steam--in actions, words, and thoughts. Living up to the standards described in Matthew 5-7. And I promised that if even one person came back and reported success for a single twenty-four period, we'd have a pizza party.
You know how this ends, right?
Every time, they came slinking back the next week hangdog, not wanting to catch my eye. Not one could pull it off. Not for a single day.
And then we had the freaking pizza party anyway.
Because it's all about grace, not deserving it. God's grace to us in providing a Savior, Jesus his son.
And now we're free to live as saved people do, NOT because we're still under the impossible burden of earning our salvation (as if), but because God is slowly but surely remaking our hearts in his image. And we can enjoy that. And when we fuck up, we can be forgiven and go out and start again. And enjoy the party. And invite others to it as well.
Because the entrance cost has already been paid by Someone Else.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we stress the separation of the persons of the Godhead, then the cross seems like the most horrific form of child-abuse.
But if we allow for greater unity in the persons of the Godhead, then it is something else altogether. As in the ancient biblical metaphor of Christus victor, it's not some angry, vengeful God demanding a blood sacrifice and not terribly choosy about where it comes from. Rather, it is a loving, sacrificial God who enters willingly into suffering and into death itself, in order to declare victory over both sin and death.
Yes.
As Lewis pointed out, it is not necessary to believe in one particular explanation of Christ's work on the cross in order to know that he did it to give us life, to save us. You can pick your analogy (there's about twelve of them running around) or you can just throw up your hands and say "I don't understand, but I trust him."
Given Jesus' own nature as shown in the Gospels, and the fact that he tells us the Father is just like him (or vice versa), the cosmic child abuse idea has to be a horrible mistake. So I set aside any theory of the atonement that leads me to think such a thing, and look at the other ones.
The one that works best for me comes out of my child-raising experience. Kids cause pain. When a kid gets into trouble, it is the parent who pays the price. And the parent does so willingly, because they love the child. A parent will lay down his/her life to rescue the child, if that's the way the universe happens to be arranged at the moment--if there's a fire, or an attacker, or a famine or what have you. The parent makes sure the suffering falls on himself/herself. That's what love does.
In the same way God laid down his life for us--not because of some arbitrary, cruel, needless demand from one member of the Trinity onto another, but because in some real sense, it was truly necessary. The shape of what-is demanded such a choice. God himself could not alter it. It was inherent in the nature of the universe, the cosmos, he chose to create.
And having created all-that-is, and then seeing his dearly loved people fall into deadly need, God plays by his own rules. If such a sacrifice is necessary to rescue us, he makes it, instead of demanding it of us. And the whole Trinity works together in this as the Unity He is, working to save us in love.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
But I'm struggling because I'm one of those people who believes (I know, I know that word again) that faith in Christ is important too. Would welcome any views on how these words of Jesus relate to the discussion in this thread.
Both testaments of Scripture say in many places that obedience is important, that faith is important, and that love is important, with little indication about how to reconcile the various passages. Personally, I'm only aware of Swedenborg's explanation as one that starts from Scripture, encompasses all three (obedience, faith, and love), and statisfies common sense. To try to summarize briefly:
God loves everyone with pure and infinite love.
God wants to share with each of us as much as of his happiness as we are able to receive. His happiness is the happiness that inherently derives from serving others.
We must receive something of God in us in order to receive his happiness, and our capacity to receive it is limited by the degree to which we receive something of God.
Prior to the Fall, we were born with the natural desire to serve others, and thus to receive something of God.
After the Fall, we are born with the natural desire to serve only ourselves, and to serve others only to the extent that it serves self, which prevents us from receiving something of God. From education and training, we acquire a conscience about treating others well as balance against our natural self-centeredness. That balance provides us the spiritual freedom to choose between the two.
God desires us to open ourselves more and more to him so that we are able to receive more and more happiness from him through service to others, but our natural inclinations block us from doing that.
God requires our full permission to remove our natural desires and replace them with heavenly ones, to replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh. We exercise our permission most fully by compelling ourselves to obey God from faith, faith that what he wants is inherently good and worthwhile (in spite of the fact that it seems counter to our natural self interest). Self compulsion is necessary because our natural inclinations act to block out everything from God. As we compel ourselves to live our faith, our faith comes alive and opens the way for God to change our heart so that we gradually come to love what is good. Not because we earn anything and not because we make ourselve good people. All we are doing is giving God permission to change us so that we can receive heaven within us.
The more we know about God and believe in him, the more easily we can compel ourselves to live by our faith, but God is willing to substitute our conscience for faith, as long as we compel ourselves to live by it because it's the right thing to do.
So what Scripture reveals to us is that we should obey God and serve our neighbor from faith so that we can receive love for all that is good from God. That is heaven within us that allows us to be within heaven.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
** In William Styron's novel (the movie does not do Styron's prose justice, one of the best 20th century novels), Sophie is given the choice on the railway platform which of her two children to send to the gas at Auschwitz, and which one to save. The choice is magnificently obscene and so is her life after, as she says (from my memory), later when at additional extremity: "fuck Gotte and all his hande work". I think she's correct to dismiss God entirely if the death of Jesus as man or child is a requirement of God to provide anyone deserving or otherwise with salvation. In the wonderland of faith, is it more obscene to hold that "everyone has won and all must have prizes" than to hold that God must have Jesus' blood? Unless the dodo is me, I say prizes for all.
Any time we tread on the sacred soil of discussing the Trinity, we are in grave danger (if not certainty) of hitting on some heretical doctrine or another). Knowing that, I would still say...
If we stress the separation of the persons of the Godhead, then the cross seems like the most horrific form of child-abuse.
But if we allow for greater unity in the persons of the Godhead, then it is something else altogether. As in the ancient biblical metaphor of Christus victor, it's not some angry, vengeful God demanding a blood sacrifice and not terribly choosy about where it comes from. Rather, it is a loving, sacrificial God who enters willingly into suffering and into death itself, in order to declare victory over both sin and death.
That's having your cake, eating it, after you baked it too.
You and I, we don't share the belief nor the conceptual ability to equate a loving sacrificial god with the torturing to death of crucifixion, whether God was magically being Jesus the man in mystical combination of not. Nor will we agree of the need for the episode in order to declare any sort of victory. Like the circumcision of the heart, no actual cutting or killing or bleeding is required. The death to sin is within each person.
--------------------
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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
PV, I'm having a hard time knowing where to start. Boogie was right in pointing out that there is good and bad in everybody, and one consequence of that is to put the whole "do good and earn your way to salvation" right out of court. There simply isn't anybody out there who could meet that challenge. Unless you think God grades on a curve, and gives extra points for effort?
The whole points-earning contest model is a mistake to start with. The very word "salvation" implies that there is something you need to be saved from, something you can't manage for yourself.
If you want a better analogy, try something like a horrible car accident, and God is pulling us out of the crash. Or a mirror with a crack in it--one which will only spread as time goes on. That mirror isn't going to fix itself--only the glassblower can melt it down and recast it, whole again.
You seem to think that those who say "You must trust in Jesus to be saved" are therefore claiming some sort of moral superiority for those who do believe over those who do not. This is totally wrong. The statement is much closer to "you must allow the firemen to pull you out of the fire" or "you must allow the surgeon to save your life." There is nothing the least bit superior about those who trust in Christ, anymore than there is about the burn victim or stroke victim. The superiority, the glory, is all God's.
Indeed, the situation of the Christian is such a lowly one that it is common to see the so-called "dregs of society" latching on to Jesus--the poor, the drug users, the dysfunctional, the outcasts. It's much easier to break down and admit you need a Savior when you're out in the pigpen feeding the hogs. Those who still have illusions of "I can do it myself"--well, they have no need or wish for Jesus.
Yes, I think you have put this all very well, indeed. The thing is, I am not talking about earning heaven, by doing good, or earning points. I am positing the idea that one achieves heaven, by being good. In this world, and the next. Virtue, it is said, is it's own reward, and I am somewhat influenced by the virtue ethic idea of eudaemonia, or flourishing of character, through the possession and exercise of virtue. It happens to be so in this life, that good people are happier. It is only consistent to think that it would happen so in the next.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I would agree with much of this, but I still find it necessary to ask this most fundamental question in the OP. Is this supposedly Salvation act - basically, begging for God's help - the thing that gets us into heaven? If so, why? Does God want us diminished before He will accept us? Or, does He want people, who, come Judgement Day, will look Him in the eye, fearless and confident, and say, 'Now what was with the Amelakite genocide?'
I know which, if I were God, I would prefer.
Cheers, PV.
Okay, I like this, because it points up the contrast so beautifully. You appear to be imagining us as standing on a more or less equal footing with God--free either to grovel or to spit in his eye and walk away--full of self respect and free agency.
So now I've got a question for you--have you ever heard of the medical term "anasognosia"? Anasognosia is what you have when a person is dreadfully impaired by some disease and yet insists that he is entirely well, happy, healthy, and good to go...
And this is the state of the human race without God.
Seriously, look around you. Climate change--but very little change in the hearts of people who caused it. Refugees everywhere. Nuclear politics. Inner city slums. Child abuse and elder abuse. Rape which is so prevalent that I daresay you know at least thirty victims yourself, if they were willing to tell you.
Is this a healthy species? I think not.
We need a Savior.
So, this is a glass half-empty or half-full question. Yes, we have many things wrong in our societies, but we also have many good people beavering away, day and night, to try and resolve them. Maybe because of the impetus Jesus provided; I like to think so, anyway. So, I suggest, this work will be rewarded, by the development of moral stature, spiritual growth, good character, whatever you want to call it, and this will be the deciding factor in the last deployment of our souls.
So, my difference of opinion is that where I think this development of the soul will be directly rewarded, conventional Christianity wants to insist on a single instant of salvation, occurring with the transforming invasion of the Holy Spirit according to an abject, heartfelt plea for help and bestowed by the grace of God, and entirely sufficient on it's own to guarantee an individual an eternity of pleasure. I think conventional Christianity has a point, some truth to its claim, but I do not think that it has the whole of the story right, as it currently stands. There are too many logical holes, too many unfairnesses to be reconciled, too many loose ends that need to be tied up neatly, completely and finally.
Cheers, PV.
[ 21. September 2015, 10:05: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am positing the idea that one achieves heaven, by being good. In this world, and the next. Virtue, it is said, is it's own reward, and I am somewhat influenced by the virtue ethic idea of eudaemonia, or flourishing of character, through the possession and exercise of virtue. It happens to be so in this life, that good people are happier. It is only consistent to think that it would happen so in the next.
You haven't addressed my point that no-one can be a 'good' person. We are all a confused mixture of good and bad.
Many people who appear 'good' are doing awful, harmful things in secret - so there are probably far fewer folk who are 'mostly good' than it appears. Many people who seem to be 'bad' have a good streak too.
It's all too muddy imo.
If I worked really really hard at being 'good' and my motives were selfish (doing it to get to heaven) then that would disqualify me too.
Maybe better to say all get to heaven, but the 'bad' hate it there!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe better to say all get to heaven, but the 'bad' hate it there!
Exactly my belief.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe better to say all get to heaven, but the 'bad' hate it there!
Exactly my belief.
Cheers, PV.
In that case -
How about the 'bad' get a chance to repent, even in heaven (when they truly see God and truly see the harm of their 'badness') and those who don't, ie total psychopaths, are allowed to truly 'die' - cease to exist?
That's my belief (based on nothing except that I want it to be true!)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In Romans 10:9 Paul writes "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." But saved from what? For Paul, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23) not eternal damnation.
So you can take two separate ideas, one given by Jesus that good deeds save you from hell, and one given by Paul that belief in Jesus saves you from death, and synthesise them into a belief that belief in Jesus saves you from hell. Only that isn't what Scripture actually says. At best it's a flimsy interpretation of Scripture.
Thanks but I'm not sure you need to go to Paul to find the idea of belief saving from death, as this occurs in Jesus own words esp. in John e.g. John 11:25..
Faith seems to be important but not at the expense of how you live your life (and especially how you treat other people).
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
PS. Thanks to W Hyatt for your response and cliff dweller for the helpful point about justice and "setting things right"
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about the 'bad' get a chance to repent, even in heaven (when they truly see God and truly see the harm of their 'badness') and those who don't, ie total psychopaths, are allowed to truly 'die' - cease to exist?
That's my belief (based on nothing except that I want it to be true!)
I like that idea too, but I would go further. If total psychopaths are people with mental illness and not people who deliberately choose to do evil, why wouldn't they be able to remain too? And perhaps anyone who maltreated them to the extent that they became mentally ill should be the one to be allowed to die? In the end, only God knows the truth and God therefore is the only judge we can trust.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Yes, but I think that good people love goodness, and rejoice in it, and bad people hate it, and despise it as 'weakness'. Our heaven is what we make of it, how we approach it, how adequate we are in ourselves to perceive it's riches (the virtues of others, not least, God's) and value them correctly. But I do not think that the bad are irrevocably condemned into a situation they will hate, for all eternity. I think that, as soon as they have perceived the truth about themselves, and come to repentance, and received forgiveness, they will come to enjoy heaven, also. But always with a nagging regret for a misspent life.
Such would be a disposal I would see as 'just', anyway. It is, incidentally, this belief in a just God doing justice that persuades me of an afterlife, at all. We all know this world is not 'fair'. If God is just, He must have built a just system; so, at the end of time, there must be a just resolution. It seems we need the resurrection of souls to allow that to happen.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, but I think that good people love goodness, and rejoice in it, and bad people hate it, and despise it as 'weakness'. Our heaven is what we make of it, how we approach it, how adequate we are in ourselves to perceive it's riches (the virtues of others, not least, God's) and value them correctly. But I do not think that the bad are irrevocably condemned into a situation they will hate, for all eternity. I think that, as soon as they have perceived the truth about themselves, and come to repentance, and received forgiveness, they will come to enjoy heaven, also. But always with a nagging regret for a misspent life.
Such would be a disposal I would see as 'just', anyway. It is, incidentally, this belief in a just God doing justice that persuades me of an afterlife, at all. We all know this world is not 'fair'. If God is just, He must have built a just system; so, at the end of time, there must be a just resolution. It seems we need the resurrection of souls to allow that to happen.
Cheers, PV.
I suspect that even the "bad" who despise goodness as weakness are broken in some way. It is some sort of mental illness- some sort of trauma or lack or whatever that caused them to be "tweaked" in that way. And I'm not sure that the "badness" in me isn't of precisely that sort-- that when I choose to sin, I'm not implicitly thinking precisely that to do good in this situation would be "weak" when I want to be "strong" (powerful, in control, masterful).
I believe the afterlife-- or salvation-- is God setting things right. So if I am right that those who embrace "badness" do so out of brokeness or trauma, even that will be "set right." They will be healed. And in being healed, they will-- I suspect-- most likely willingly embrace the "goodness" they previously despised. So I too hold out hope that all might be saved-- "set right"-- in the end.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The first step of Heaven is that we recieve full knowledge of exactly who we are. People who had been trying to confront that n their earthly life will have a much easier time of it than those who willfully avoided the self examination process.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The first step of Heaven is that we recieve full knowledge of exactly who we are. People who had been trying to confront that n their earthly life will have a much easier time of it than those who willfully avoided the self examination process.
I suspect that's probably true-- which may be why Jesus' parables about the afterlife seem to suggest there will be a lot of (not necessarily happy) surprises in the final judgment.
The purpose, I suspect, in that revealing of truth, is not to shame us or expose our "badness". Rather, I think the point is for us to see what is true, what is real-- what has always been true-- i.e. the superiority of life lived on God's terms. I suspect at that point-- when we are confronted with exactly what life is like when we live it on our terms (by reviewing our life) and what life could be like when we live it on God's terms-- we will voluntarily and joyfully enter into the Kingdom-- the place where God's will is perfectly done. This is voluntary-- no one is forced in, no one is forced to live life on God's terms. But I suspect once we have experienced the alternative thru trial & error in this life, we'll all want the best possible life-- life in the Kingdom.
--------------------
"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 Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about the 'bad' get a chance to repent, even in heaven (when they truly see God and truly see the harm of their 'badness') and those who don't, ie total psychopaths, are allowed to truly 'die' - cease to exist?
That's my belief (based on nothing except that I want it to be true!)
I like that idea too, but I would go further. If total psychopaths are people with mental illness and not people who deliberately choose to do evil, why wouldn't they be able to remain too? And perhaps anyone who maltreated them to the extent that they became mentally ill should be the one to be allowed to die? In the end, only God knows the truth and God therefore is the only judge we can trust.
Allowed to die because they are so unhappy there and yet unable to change/adapt?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The first step of Heaven is that we recieve full knowledge of exactly who we are.
Just so.
As that great Scot Robbie Burnes put it:
'Oh wad some God the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!'
Cheers, PV.
[ 21. September 2015, 14:35: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That, and any happiness or self love based on illusion is not happiness or self love at all.
To take the example of the genuine psychopath-- "This is who you were. This is who you hurt. This is what you turned yourself into."
Hell.
"Also, this is what gigantic chunks of your brain were doing while this was going on. This is the backstage view of why you knew you couldn't stop yourself. And this is what you look,like healed. And this is what your victims look like healed. That is who you all really are."
Heaven.
Maybe the permanent aspect of Hell is a holy wound- a permanent scar, if you will, that informs your continued spiritual evolution. Because I think we keep evolving.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life. At least the idea of a cosmic balance sheet in which our deeds are weighed, which can be tipped either way by one action has justice in it. But even there I don't believe in such a harsh God. Repentance is always available to cancel out wrongdoing and tip the scale in our favour. Psalm 51 says, "16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise."
Tradition has it that David wrote or sang this after contriving the death of Uriah the Hittite in order to steal his wife Bathsheba. Contrition, as long as it's genuine cancels out sin and restores us to the Garden of Eden. That's simple.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That, and any happiness or self love based on illusion is not happiness or self love at all.
To take the example of the genuine psychopath-- "This is who you were. This is who you hurt. This is what you turned yourself into."
Hell.
"Also, this is what gigantic chunks of your brain were doing while this was going on. This is the backstage view of why you knew you couldn't stop yourself. And this is what you look,like healed. And this is what your victims look like healed. That is who you all really are."
Heaven.
Maybe the permanent aspect of Hell is a holy wound- a permanent scar, if you will, that informs your continued spiritual evolution. Because I think we keep evolving.
That last bit is very good, Kelly. It reminds me of the idea of the wounded healer, which is found in some areas of therapy.
I like also the Zen saying, 'hell isn't punishment, it's training'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You haven't addressed my point that no-one can be a 'good' person. We are all a confused mixture of good and bad.
So, I find the time to get to answer this point, which is well made. Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad. The worst of sinners is liable to have some saving grace! I am talking more of a tendency to selfless-, or selfish-ness. Whether one's preference is for virtue or vice.
For what its worth, I find most people tend to the good. We may all be sinners, but, strangely enough, I think we are mostly good sinners.
Best wishes, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm finding that my thinking about this is much in line with what Kelly is saying here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think the idea that most of us are 'good sinners' is at all incompatible with traditional Protestant teachings - or wider teachings across Christianity as a whole come to that.
Even the Total Depravity thing in the TULIP doesn't mean that the vast majority of humanity are ravingly brutal and nasty - no, it's meant to convey the idea that we can't save ourselves by our own efforts but need a Saviour.
All Christian traditions are agreed on that one.
In many ways I think we're dealing with a false dichotomy here. Whoever is saved must surely be saved through Christ - even if they aren't aware of it. If Christ is God then this must follow of necessity.
Whether this, that or the other person is saved is , in one sense, none of our business.
I've got all on dealing with my own sins and short-comings - through God's grace - than bothering myself with speculating about who is or isn't going to be saved. That's God's call, not mine.
Sure, I believe in preaching the Gospel but I've long since given up trying to be reductionist about it or speculating about how it all 'works' - because I have absolutely no idea.
As a wise RC priest once said to me, 'We have no idea what happened to the Rich Young Ruler. He may have been among the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost for all we know ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad.
I do not find, even with the qualifications, that most people tend towards one or other extreme.
I think that the only thing that comes of dividing people into good and bad is judgementalism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life. At least the idea of a cosmic balance sheet in which our deeds are weighed, which can be tipped either way by one action has justice in it. But even there I don't believe in such a harsh God. Repentance is always available to cancel out wrongdoing and tip the scale in our favour.
Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! The analogy is at fault. It implies a) that everyone involved has total unpressured free will to do this or that, as they please; b) that they can then be fairly evaluated on those choices as easily as a spreadsheet comes up with a result; c) that sin can be quantified; d) that repentance is a semi-magical thing-in-itself rather than a state of an individual-in-relationship-to-someone-else; e) that God actually WANTS to condemn anybody, which is probably the worst mistake of the lot. (Someone who got himself crucified to save us all is not in the least wishful to see us end up in hell.)
Anyway, so much the analogy. Can we ditch it? Turn rather to something organic and messy--something like addiction, or cancer, or bamboo rampaging through the backyard.
When the doctor insists on "no alcohol ever, or you're going to die", he isn't saying that to be mean or judgemental; he's making a prediction that he hopes desperately you (general you) won't fulfill.
When the oncologist says "We absolutely have to get the whole thing and have clear margins or it could come back and kill you," she isn't being unnecessarily pissy and perfectionist; she is making a statement about the virulent danger of that particular cancer.
When the botanist shakes her head and says, "You're going to have a damn hard time of it, but you've got to get up every scrap, every root of that bamboo, or in three years the whole grove will be back and eating your house," she is speaking from woeful experience.
And when God says to us, "Repent and turn yourself over to Christ, it's your only hope of living," he is speaking with the precisely the same desperate urgency to people he knows are in a terminal situation.
None of these people--the doctors, the botanist, God himself--WANT to see the predicted bad result happen. All of them desperately want to see the patient/gardener/us take the offered escape and be happy. But none of them can force that choice on us, not even God.
The doctor has no way of stopping an alcoholic from taking a drink the moment she's out the door. The oncologist can do nothing with a patient who refuses surgery. The botanist cannot dig up your yard for you against your will. And God himself cannot force salvation on someone who simply refuses it. It's like asking for dry water, or a willing refusal. It's a mistake in logic to think God could. Even omnipotence cannot perform logical nonsense. And for God to "save" someone against his will is basically like requiring him to raise someone from the dead while allowing that person to stay dead at the same time. Nonsense.
To misquote somebody or another, "Against absolute refusal, God himself struggles in vain."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. I've got all on dealing with my own sins and short-comings - through God's grace - than bothering myself with speculating about who is or isn't going to be saved. That's God's call, not mine.
2. As a wise RC priest once said to me, 'We have no idea what happened to the Rich Young Ruler. He may have been among the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost for all we know ...'
1. Yep I'm there too
2. The RC priest may be wise but this isn't necessarily a wise thing to say - we have no way of knowing. The rich young ruler takes his chance like the rest of us including the priest.
[ 22. September 2015, 06:19: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, and I don't think the priest was saying otherwise.
He was simply saying that we can't know the full picture this side of Eternity.
I'm really not sure what point you're making here. After all, in RC soteriology there's no guarantee that Popes, Cardinals or priests are any more or less likely to be saved as anyone else.
Look at medieval frescoes of the Last Judgement in Italian churches and you'll see Popes, Cardinals, priests, monks and nuns on both sides of the Heaven/Hell divide.
I wonder whether my post would have drawn the same reaction had I not specified the denomination of the cleric concerned.
I suspect not.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There were some salient caveats - 'we have no idea ... may ... for all we know ...'
If he was stating that the Rich Young Ruler's presence on the Day of Pentecost was 'highly likely' or that his response would almost certainly have been positive - we have no idea how many of those present didn't respond and weren't among the 3,000 who believed and were baptised - then I'd agree with you.
But that's not what he was saying. I think we're talking past each other here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, people are both good and bad. But, on balance, people verge to one or the other extreme. When I speak of good people, I do not mean that they are wholly good. Even saints do not so qualify. And when I speak of bad people I do not necessarily mean wholly bad.
I do not find, even with the qualifications, that most people tend towards one or other extreme.
I think that the only thing that comes of dividing people into good and bad is judgementalism.
It may be judgementalism. I prefer to call it discrimination, another word that gets a bad press. Nevertheless, we can, and should, discriminate between the moral characters of a Hitler and a Gandhi, between a Pol Pot and a Dalai Lama. Not to do so is no virtue, just an abdication of moral responsibility.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life...
Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! ..
To misquote somebody or another, "Against absolute refusal, God himself struggles in vain."
Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
I won't have it.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
I won't have it.
Cheers, PV.
No, with respect you DON'T understand. This has nothing to do with begging. It also has nothing to do with fairness. It has EVERYTHING to do with being in a dangerous situation and suddenly a rescuer turns up to get you out of it. If you choose to beg him, that's your affair. It's not necessary or required. All that's needed is that you permit him to help you, and stop insisting that you're perfectly fine as you are, thanks very much, please go away now, would you?
You seem to think that there are degrees of danger from sin, and that a minor "case" of sin is less dangerous than a major one. This is absolutely NOT the case when we're talking about ultimate fate/salvation. (It makes a difference in our human world--for example, in the court system. But that's not what we're discussing here.)
Take an analogy. If you're being eaten by an anaconda, it really doesn't matter whether the snake has swallowed you up to the knee or up to the neck. You're going the same route sooner or later. Unless someone turns up to get you out of your mess.
What you need to understand is that from this perspective, Christian salvation is fundamentally amoral. It has nothing to do with fairness or deserving at all. The 99% evil and the 1% evil are all of us in the same danger. God comes to rescue all of us on the very same basis--"Let me help you."
And in the world, some of the 99%-ers hear the voice of their rescuer and let him. So do some of the 1%ers--the folks who only have a foot or so in the anaconda. Regardless of how far gone they are, God kills the snake and gets them out of there. Nobody stops to ask precisely how much of you had been swallowed already. Nobody cares. The only thing God cares about is that you need him, and he wants to help.
And similarly, in this world some people hear the voice of their rescuer and fold their arms (which are inside the anaconda at this point!) and say politely, "Thanks very much, but I really don't need or want any help, thank-you-all-the-same." (Yeah, I know it's an absurd image--but so is allowing sin to eat you alive when God is trying to help you escape.)
Some of the refusers will be 99%ers--people everyone identifies as horribly evil. Some of them will be 1%ers--people everybody identifies as "saints." Some of them will be ordinary folks like you and me, "good old Joes" like you mention. Their degree of sin means absolutely nothing. If they take the offer of rescue, rescued they are. If they flat out refuse it ("no thanks, I'm quite comfortable here in my snake")--well, their ultimate end will be the same, regardless of what degree of evil they started out with.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It isn't in us, apart from the mercy of God, to behave like the saved.
I agree with this, but I don't believe in a God who is willing to roast someone for eternity for one transgression in an otherwise well lived life...
Several difficulties here. First, you are postulating a very artificial situation where God chooses to damn or save based on a points (money?) type system. Of course it's going to look arbitrary and unfair! ..
To misquote somebody or another, "Against absolute refusal, God himself struggles in vain."
Yes, I understand this point. The idea is that we must beg to be saved, or we are damned. Well, I find this unconvincing because it is fundamentally unfair. I mean, it's great for those who have lived a 'bad' life, but who then breakdown and beg forgiveness. But it's totally useless as far as your Joe Average reasonably moral but unbelieving citizen is concerned. And there are plenty of them around my part of the world. And they are all good people, many of whom I like to have a beer with, when I have the money to hand.
You don't seem to have followed Lamb Chopped's excellent analogy.
People who have a deadly cancer are not bad people either. They are "reasonably moral Average Joes". But they have found themselves in desperate situations-- dealing with a deadly disease that has the power to consume them and end their lives. The patient may believe this or not-- I have known many people with early stage cancer who will deny it's serious nature-- they feel fine, everything's OK. But the cancer is living and growing in them, threatening to destroy them. And so the doctor offers a prescription-- chemo, radiation, surgery, whatever-- which is designed to save their life. The doctor doesn't make the patient "beg" for the treatment before s/he will save them. The doctor isn't on some power trip to control them. The doctor is moved by compassion-- seeing how the cancer is consuming the patient and robbing them of life. We believe this is true of sin-- that it is deadly. Not because it is breaking rule but because it is breaking relationship. God doesn't hate sin because he is a mad despot who flies into a rage when we refuse to obey. God hates sin because he sees jealousy, anger, bitterness, selfishness, acquisitiveness, aggression as the root of human suffering.
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Are they damned for a perfectly rational non-belief, and therefore non-repentance in respect of some pretty petty sinfulness?
I won't speak for Lamb Chopped, but several of us here have argued for the possibility of universal salvation. I personally do not believe that "verbal profession of faith" is necessarily the primary requirement (if any) for salvation. But I do believe Jesus is. Whether we believe in him or not, whether we call on his name or not, I believe salvation comes thru Jesus.
(cross-posted with Lamb Chopped)
[ 22. September 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At times like this, I incline to the view that the Orthodox hold, that sin is a disease that needs to be cured rather than simply transgression that needs to be punished ...
That's not incompatible with the analogy Lamb Chopped has used, of course. Like any analogies, though, it can only be stretched so far.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
No, a better analogy is, someone gives you a slow acting but 100% deadly poison. Then the people who
claim he did that offer you hundreds of versions of an "antidote" some clearly contradictory with no way to test if any of them work.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At times like this, I incline to the view that the Orthodox hold, that sin is a disease that needs to be cured rather than simply transgression that needs to be punished ...
That's not incompatible with the analogy Lamb Chopped has used, of course. Like any analogies, though, it can only be stretched so far.
I'd say it is exactly the analogy Lamb Chopped was using. And yes, it will break down. But I think it's a much better metaphor than the "rule breaking/punishment" motif.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
No, a better analogy is, someone gives you a slow acting but 100% deadly poison. Then the people who
claim he did that offer you hundreds of versions of an "antidote" some clearly contradictory with no way to test if any of them work.
Martin an others will jump in to object shortly, but I am partial to a somewhat radical form of Wesleyanism (Open Theism) which would posit that the "poison" was not given to you by God. God did not create the evil in this world (including natural evil); it was part of the "corruption of creation" that occurred in the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang or whatever). Along with all of creation, we await the coming "recreation" or restoration of heaven & earth.
cue Martin
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
As for universal salvation, I hope so, I really do hope so. My problem is that I have insufficient evidence to conclude that it really WILL be that way. So much depends on the free will of the people God loves and wants to save. If it were entirely up to God, certainly all would be saved. But he has given us the dignity of true choice--and if it is possible to choose at all, it is surely possible to choose the opposite of what God wants.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
I did not. But some people said that we cannot avoid sin. And that we absolutely depend on God for "Salvation".
So they seem to be claiming that God made us absolutely dependent on him and if left to our own devises we will fail 100% of the time.
And the outcome of failure seems to be eternal damnation or at least something we need to be "saved" from. This varies with the person making the claim.
If I was an omnipotent parent given the choice and the means of designing my own children. And I went ahead and designed them utterly dependent on me, and incapable of making the right decision unless they asked for my help. And on top of that I placed them in a dangerous place in which they are going to be making those decisions all of the time. And then I gave them no easy way of finding out who I am or how to obtain my help.
What would you think of me?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for universal salvation, I hope so, I really do hope so. My problem is that I have insufficient evidence to conclude that it really WILL be that way. So much depends on the free will of the people God loves and wants to save. If it were entirely up to God, certainly all would be saved. But he has given us the dignity of true choice--and if it is possible to choose at all, it is surely possible to choose the opposite of what God wants.
But we don't really know what "God" wants how can we make a free decision about it?
I base that statement on the fact that for example Christians don't agree on what God wants among themselves. Adding other forms of belief into the mix makes it even harder to decide what "God" wants.
So what kind of "True choice" is that?
[ 22. September 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's some perceptual paradoxes built in. It reminds of the person who asks to be hynotised, to which the correct response is of course "you're hynotised already".
By the time anyone is going to go to hell, they have already mostly arrived. The door or gate being openned and the final step in is a metaphor, it confirms what has already occurred. Like a graduand stepping across a stage, their name announced, and the degree conferred. There was years of study, and the qualification for the degree or high school diploma was already in place before they were declared a graduate.
Those who might be in hell: Step by step, they forged the chain, perhaps not realizing that they were doing it, day to day. But saying they were not realizing they were doing is too mild: they haven't the right to not realize it, and there is ultimately no excuse to not realize.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
Because your God is like the nasty boy who tortures ants. He created a perfect world. allowed it to go wrong and blames us for being born into his own mess. He then throws us a lifeline, but if we are unable to grasp it, for whatever reason, our default position is to be tortured for eternity. And some people call this good news? It's a psycho-manipulative horror story! If Christ died on the cross for our salvation. If this was God's way of correcting His earlier mistake, I can only accept it if it includes all the banished children of Eve. But it could be simpler. God could simply forgive us. It isn't like a doctor watching the spread of cancer. God makes the rules and can give unlimnited mercy if He wants.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's a huge amount of truth in that, No_Prophet.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I did not. But some people said that we cannot avoid sin. And that we absolutely depend on God for "Salvation".
So they seem to be claiming that God made us absolutely dependent on him and if left to our own devises we will fail 100% of the time.
And the outcome of failure seems to be eternal damnation or at least something we need to be "saved" from. This varies with the person making the claim.
If I was an omnipotent parent given the choice and the means of designing my own children. And I went ahead and designed them utterly dependent on me, and incapable of making the right decision unless they asked for my help. And on top of that I placed them in a dangerous place in which they are going to be making those decisions all of the time. And then I gave them no easy way of finding out who I am or how to obtain my help.
What would you think of me?
[snip]
But we don't really know what "God" wants how can we make a free decision about it?
I base that statement on the fact that for example Christians don't agree on what God wants among themselves. Adding other forms of belief into the mix makes it even harder to decide what "God" wants.
So what kind of "True choice" is that?
Ikkyu--
you're going to get a wide variety of opinions on what actually is "sin," whether and what kinds are avoidable, and so on, and so on, and so on. I won't start that debate here, not having time to write a library-full. But I will point out that the whole issue is academic anyway, given that God's voided the whole mess for anybody willing to have it voided. What is the point of arguing the petty details of an unpleasant mess when one can simply flush?
As for dependence on God, that exists regardless of whether sin exists or not. It's not a bad dependence, like adult children who wrongly rely on their parents when they should be independent; rather, like mammals depend on oxygen to stay alive. Nobody expects you to grow out of breathing. Neither should you grow out of creaturely dependence on God.
As for knowing God's will--[deep breath] I know this is going to raise a shitstorm, it did last time, I'll get my rainclothes on.
Faced with the same question, this is what Jesus said:
quote:
So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." (John 7:16-17)
I understand this to mean that anyone who really wants to know will not be left forever in the dark, however it may feel at the moment.
"For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened." (Luke 11:10)
I was not a cradle Christian; I spent years outside before I got hauled in by the ear. And while my experience is next to nothing compared to the words of Christ, still I might as well say that my personal, minor, ignore-it-if-you-want experience bears this out. Those who bang on the door eventually get an answer. It may not come for years, and it may not come in the form expected or wanted by the knocker. But it comes.
Nobody, but nobody, is going to hell who truly wanted to be with God instead.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
Because your God is like the nasty boy who tortures ants. He created a perfect world. allowed it to go wrong and blames us for being born into his own mess. He then throws us a lifeline, but if we are unable to grasp it, for whatever reason, our default position is to be tortured for eternity. And some people call this good news? It's a psycho-manipulative horror story! If Christ died on the cross for our salvation. If this was God's way of correcting His earlier mistake, I can only accept it if it includes all the banished children of Eve. But it could be simpler. God could simply forgive us. It isn't like a doctor watching the spread of cancer. God makes the rules and can give unlimnited mercy if He wants.
This IS unlimited mercy, man! He's died for you, he's washed away all your sins, he's sent messengers to your very door, he's calling your name. What more do you expect of him? That he should strip you and everyone else of our free will and human dignity?
If we're saved to be robots, I don't call that being saved.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
And this idea of God "making the rules"--how can I get it across that God isn't making up a game here? There are certain facts that are simply unalterable, even for the omnipotent God himself. God cannot, may not, will not alter his own nature. It is logical nonsense. God cannot, may not, will not alter certain facts of the universe which flow directly from his own nature. It would make everything disappear in a "poof!" of logic.
Omnipotence DOES NOT MEAN you can do anything the human tongue can say, nonsensical or not. Omnipotence means that nothing outside yourself is a barrier to your power.
It is God's nature to bestow freedom. Freedom is a necessary precondition of love, and God is love. To force someone to love you is a logical contradiction. It is a non-sense.
Therefore it is logically impossible for God to create a universe where people have free will and yet there is absolutely zero chance of them using it to deliberately separate themselves from God forever. If they are free to love God, they are also free to hate him. If they are free to be saved, they must also be free to choose damnation. You hate this idea. God hates it a lot more. But that is the nature of logic.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But he has given us the dignity of true choice
Please tell us what is the dignity of true choice? For many Christian groups that means believe what we tell you to believe or be damned for eternity. This damnation can extend to unbelievers, those with a different interpretation of Christianity, and those from any of the world's many faiths. Given all the variations in human thought, history and culture on this planet, God truly gave us a very narrow gate by which to avoid his wrath. Only a remnant of a remnant can get in. I think the whole rotten edifice sucks big time. A God who loves everything He has made, or why would He make it, must hold that creation in His loving embrace for eternity to be worthy of anyone's worship.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If they are free to love God, they are also free to hate him.
You know I've never met anyone who hates God. Many people don't believe He exists. And why should they? It may be just as easy to believe we're an evolved animal on a tiny speck of dust with no significance. Many people think the Christian story is a fairy tale. But again, they don't hate God. What you're really saying is that anyone who doesn't believe the same as you hates God and must be damned for it. If we have the free will to think and act for ourselves, our rational minds may not accept the Christian story. That's what you and many Christians are describing as "hating God." I don't buy your logic on that.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course God is not responsible for sin. To say that he is and that he then cooked up some elaborate scheme of salvation is to put him on the same level as a rather nasty little boy, torturing ants to see what they'll do next. None of us would do such a thing. Why attribute such behavior to God?
Good question. Most Christians believe in some sort of punitive afterlife that can only be avoided through having a sufficient understanding and acceptance of Christian theology at the moment of death. Why do they attribute such behavior to their God?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for universal salvation, I hope so, I really do hope so. My problem is that I have insufficient evidence to conclude that it really WILL be that way. So much depends on the free will of the people God loves and wants to save. If it were entirely up to God, certainly all would be saved.
Have you considered the possibility that God may be at least as merciful as you are?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that the only thing that comes of dividing people into good and bad is judgementalism.
It may be judgementalism. I prefer to call it discrimination, another word that gets a bad press. Nevertheless, we can, and should, discriminate between the moral characters of a Hitler and a Gandhi, between a Pol Pot and a Dalai Lama. Not to do so is no virtue, just an abdication of moral responsibility.
Between Hitler and the Dalai Lama, no doubt.(*) But what about Hitler, and the Polish or German Mr Johann Average reasonably moral citizen, good people, whom you would like to have a beer with, who watched the cattle trucks go into Auschwitz as he sat and drank his beer?
It's easy for us to convince ourselves that we and our neighbours are basically underneath it all good people. But are we sure we'd do any better if we lived along the road to the death camps?
And no I don't see that passing judgement on Hitler's character and Gandhi's character is any kind of moral responsibility. It won't make the world a blind bit better for us to pronounce solemnly that that Hitler may have had some 'saving graces' but basically he was a bad person. Pronouncing on actions, yes, because we may be tempted to those actions ourselves and are probably tempted not to intervene. Pronouncing on the moral character of dead people, not so much. It's moral masturbation.
(*) Gandhi treated his eldest son terribly. Does that make him a bad person or a good person who was not wholly good? How would we decide? Is the question not meaningless?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But he has given us the dignity of true choice
Please tell us what is the dignity of true choice? For many Christian groups that means believe what we tell you to believe or be damned for eternity. This damnation can extend to unbelievers, those with a different interpretation of Christianity, and those from any of the world's many faiths. Given all the variations in human thought, history and culture on this planet, God truly gave us a very narrow gate by which to avoid his wrath. Only a remnant of a remnant can get in. I think the whole rotten edifice sucks big time. A God who loves everything He has made, or why would He make it, must hold that creation in His loving embrace for eternity to be worthy of anyone's worship.
You should hate that edifice. But that's all it is-- an edifice. It's not God. It's not even Christianity, or at least, not the whole of Christianity.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That, and any happiness or self love based on illusion is not happiness or self love at all.
To take the example of the genuine psychopath-- "This is who you were. This is who you hurt. This is what you turned yourself into."
Hell.
"Also, this is what gigantic chunks of your brain were doing while this was going on. This is the backstage view of why you knew you couldn't stop yourself. And this is what you look,like healed. And this is what your victims look like healed. That is who you all really are."
Heaven.
Maybe the permanent aspect of Hell is a holy wound- a permanent scar, if you will, that informs your continued spiritual evolution. Because I think we keep evolving.
I tried to post this yesterday (BT Infinity upgrade ...) in response to the false dichotomy causing the OP:
... whether Jesus saves ...
Whether He can walk beyond this blink with the former sickest psychopath whose brain has been healed and those - if any - who are 'guilty' of making them so and talk them right?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
