|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A Salvation Contention
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Well, that was all enlightening. But please do not presume to tell what I do, and do not, understand, on the basis of this attenuated medium of intercourse. Your admission that your model of salvation is amoral is telling, I think. That is where the difference between us lies.
What do you think is best for the world - a belief in an amoral, undeserved end, or a moral, deserved fate? What incentive to Joe Ordinary to be good, if, however good he is, and whatever good he does that flows from that, it will make no difference, come the 'final solution'?
Finally, I suspect that if you had a decent argument, you wouldn't actually need these far-fetched analogies. This one only works well if you think everybody is being chewed up by an anaconda, and that the Holy Spirit saves those who receive it from such a fate. There is reason to question both these ideas; firstly, that most people are quite decent people, in my experience, and secondly, that some religious people who claim to have been 'saved' still retain some quite hateful, hideous prejudices that quite separate them from any idea of loving one's neighbour.
I think we need better ideas around salvation, and I am still looking around for them.
Best wishes, 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
Well, and there's where we differ. I am not looking for a practical scheme of salvation, to be made up by myself or others, in order to bring about some theoretical good in the world. I am interested in knowing what actually exists--what God has set in place--and I am not at all concerned whether it promotes moral behavior or not. There are plenty of other ways to motivate moral behavior without me fauxing one up and calling it salvation.
Besides, surely it is a sad thing when someone only behaves morally because he/she wants to be saved?
Morality ought to be its own reward.
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
--------------------
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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
So, we have a God who is good. We have justice as a good thing. We have a God who is just, as a direct consequence. And yet we are supposed to think that He forgoes this justice, this goodness, at the most vital point, to us anyway, when He is disposing of our souls. No wonder people have a problem believing in Him, when He is portrayed in such a cavalier fashion.
It may be nice for a Christian to think he has a get-in-for-free ticket to heaven. I just question whether things that are nice to think are things that are necessarily true.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
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 Lamb Chopped:
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
A gift arbitrarily given is no gift at all, more of a gamble as far as the recipient is concerned.
A person who receives no comfort or sign from God may as well stop asking and gamble that all this Christian stuff is nonsense anyway.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
A gift arbitrarily given is no gift at all, more of a gamble as far as the recipient is concerned.
A person who receives no comfort or sign from God may as well stop asking and gamble that all this Christian stuff is nonsense anyway.
I suppose one guess deserves another!
It's a gift that's not only arbitrary but imperceptible to many people, as you say, with 'no comfort or sign'.
I suppose one could argue that the gift is apparent, but some people can't see it. But why not? I know that some people's view of things can shift drastically, for various reasons, but maybe that is also arbitrary.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If you want an alternative view, I'm a universalist. Hell and damnation don't exist.
I have a number of caveats when speaking about life after death, because I believe that our logic isn't necessarily useful for describing it. I won't go into a discussion about that here, let me just say that for me, terms like 'choice' and 'free will' may not necessarily have the same meaning there.
But an image that I rather like is this: after we die, we need to come face to face with what we've done in our earthly lives. The good, the bad ... everything. To me, a very important part of that is making amends to the people we've hurt. This isn't just between us and God.
This is a process of healing, not of punishment, and eventually we'll all get there, because we have the perfect Healer at our side.
What about people who don't want to be healed? Like I said, I find talking about free will and choice a bit difficult here. What I can say is that there is no force involved. But I do believe that also these people will eventually come around (if only because they see how nice the party the others are having is ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
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
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[snip]
Nobody, but nobody, is going to hell who truly wanted to be with God instead.
The problem with this is that the definition of "truly wanting to be with God" varies widely depending on what seems to me to be mostly personal opinion. Christians can't even agree on a definition of God! Maybe if you make it vague enough they might agree but if you try to add in what "God" wants you will get very different answers. So what God should I want to be with?
Westboro Baptist "God"? , Amish "God?, Allah? Hashem? What If I hope to be reborn in the Pure Land? Namu Amida Butsu!!
Does that make a difference?
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, and there's where we differ. I am not looking for a practical scheme of salvation, to be made up by myself or others, in order to bring about some theoretical good in the world. I am interested in knowing what actually exists--what God has set in place--and I am not at all concerned whether it promotes moral behavior or not. There are plenty of other ways to motivate moral behavior without me fauxing one up and calling it salvation.
Besides, surely it is a sad thing when someone only behaves morally because he/she wants to be saved?
Morality ought to be its own reward.
Just as salvation is a gift, not a contest, and its end is union with the God who is love (not moral rules).
Well, if we are agreed God is good, and morality is good, it is but a small leap of deduction to get to the idea that God is moral. Furthermore, that what He wills is moral. Furthermore, since God is omniscient, that what God wills is (objective) morality.
It seems entirely consistent to me to think that God will reward us according to the degree to which we conform to His will. The degree to which we are (objectively) moral.
Which is not to say, of course, that humanity has actually figured out what objective morality actually is, yet. Further research, and a properly respectful attitude, is still required.
What is not helpful to global moral progress, though, is some idea that human ethical endeavour is superfluous, or irrelevant, because it won't matter to God one whit, as He delivers His verdict on us.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
It seems entirely consistent to me to think that God will reward us according to the degree to which we conform to His will. The degree to which we are (objectively) moral.
The thing is that heaven is utterly and outrageously disproportionate to any difference in degree to which a human being could be objectively moral. The differences between human beings are finite; heaven is infinite.
But anyway is it always moral to reward people according to which they are objectively moral? For example, is a parent acting morally who rewards their children according to the degree to which they judge their children to be moral? They may be just. But it is more loving for the parent to give gifts irrespective of desert. And it is more moral to be loving than to be just.
quote:
What is not helpful to global moral progress, though, is some idea that human ethical endeavour is superfluous, or irrelevant, because it won't matter to God one whit, as He delivers His verdict on us.
Many atheists manage to contribute to global moral progress. They do so without thinking that they're earning rewards from God. If atheists can contribute to global moral progress without thinking that they are thereby earning rewards from God, I think Christians and other believers might be able to manage it too.
--------------------
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 PilgrimVagrant:
]Well, if we are agreed God is good, and morality is good, it is but a small leap of deduction to get to the idea that God is moral. Furthermore, that what He wills is moral. Furthermore, since God is omniscient, that what God wills is (objective) morality.
It seems entirely consistent to me to think that God will reward us according to the degree to which we conform to His will. The degree to which we are (objectively) moral.
Your view of salvation is consistent and rational, but isn't IMHO particularly Christian, or consistent with Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]
What is not helpful to global moral progress, though, is some idea that human ethical endeavour is superfluous, or irrelevant, because it won't matter to God one whit, as He delivers His verdict on us.
There's a difference between saying ethical behavior isn't the determination of one's eternal destiny and saying "it doesn't matter one whit". I believe one's ethical behavior matters a great deal-- to this life. The way we live here and now, on this earth, is going to determine to a large degree, what our life here on earth is like. There is some logic to "as you sow, so shall you reap". Our relationships, our hearts, our souls, are shaped by the habits we engage in, and the attitudes we nurture.
So just because something doesn't determine our eternity doesn't mean it doesn't matter to this life. We don't pursue holiness in order to earn God's love or a place in heaven. We pursue holiness because we trust in God's love and goodness, and therefore we trust that a life lived according to God's principles will yield the fruit of the Spirit and be the best possible life for us. In this life.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, we have a God who is good. We have justice as a good thing. We have a God who is just, as a direct consequence. And yet we are supposed to think that He forgoes this justice, this goodness, at the most vital point, to us anyway, when He is disposing of our souls. No wonder people have a problem believing in Him, when He is portrayed in such a cavalier fashion.
It may be nice for a Christian to think he has a get-in-for-free ticket to heaven. I just question whether things that are nice to think are things that are necessarily true.
Cheers, PV.
Do you not understand the difference between going below justice and going above it?
God disregards morality when it comes to salvation because he goes above it--that is, he shows mercy, not justice. You seem to think that I'm advocating something far less than morality and/or justice, on the part of God or people or both.
You might also engage with my arguments up thread, which are that NOBODY has an honest claim to good-enough morality. You ask for justice? Are you sure that's what you want?
Consider Hamlet:
quote:
Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?
Maybe you think that you can stand in the Final Day on the strength of your own righteousness and morality. I bloody well don't. I'm putting all my hope in God's mercy, because I know myself to be a deeply flawed human being, much in need of mercy and more than happy to take it.
As for the "get in free" ticket to heaven, it isn't and it wasn't free. It cost Jesus Christ his life. I'm damn well not going to take that lightly, or suppose that any of my feeble attempts at good behavior weigh anything in the scale when balanced against that.
[ 23. September 2015, 20:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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 Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[snip]
Nobody, but nobody, is going to hell who truly wanted to be with God instead.
The problem with this is that the definition of "truly wanting to be with God" varies widely depending on what seems to me to be mostly personal opinion. Christians can't even agree on a definition of God! Maybe if you make it vague enough they might agree but if you try to add in what "God" wants you will get very different answers. So what God should I want to be with?
Westboro Baptist "God"? , Amish "God?, Allah? Hashem? What If I hope to be reborn in the Pure Land? Namu Amida Butsu!!
Does that make a difference?
Let me ask you a question. If you love the true God under a false name, do you think it matters to him?
I really don't.
He knows perfectly well what you are loving, what you are yearning for. The label you slap on it (or on him) isn't the important thing.
Take two people who grow up in the Westboro Baptist Church. The one absorbs their idea of God as a hateful, nasty person who likes to abuse power. The other uses the same name for him, and may even worship in the same place, sing the same hymns, etc. but has a far truer image of God in his/her heart--whether this comes from Scripture (as with me) or from some other source, still, the person loves the real God and not the poisonous imitation. That's going to make a huge difference regardless of the outward labels slapped on God or on the church.
A person who says all the right words and yet desires a nasty, vindictive, abusive, hateful God is far, far away from the truth. A person who says everything wrong and yet desires the truth is in a good place. Hopefully eventually to be in a better place, where his/her true understanding of God is openly recognized and shared with other believers.
So the short answer is: I don't think God is sending anybody to hell for calling him Allah, or Kwan Yin, or whatever. God looks on the heart. He will know what, if anything, you love. And if it is him, even under a different name, you're golden.
--------------------
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
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
A friend of mine had a revelation when he and death were eyeballing each other. After he recovered he told us, "If there is no life after death it is all for the best, because God can be trusted." It is a statement I have come to agree with. My wife quoted this statement at an oldies after Eucharist function, and they also agreed with it.
Someone cannot develop this degree of trust without a real involvement with God which in turn brings us closer to the image we are made in.
<cynicism> I suspect that some people who want to be saved and go to heaven hope that God is not there. What they really want is an afterlife, and God is a means of getting there.</cynicism>
God should be trusted, loved, honoured etc for God's sake and not for any reward. What happens after our death is in God's hands and God can be trusted. This is the truth that lies behind judgment, heaven, hell and anything else one might want to throw in this direction.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
God should be trusted, loved, honoured etc for God's sake and not for any reward. What happens after our death is in God's hands and God can be trusted.
This is the relationship the pre-exilic Jews including King David had with God. It is the ONLY constructive relationship we can have with Him and I strive for it. Christianity has become overly concerned with personal salvation. So it imposes beliefs, rules and prohibitions and claims them to be necessary to salvation. I think the message Jesus left us is to love God and neighbour in the present moment in trust and hope and leave the rest to Him. Read the Lord's Prayer sometime.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I am of the age where the previous generation is regularly dying. I have talked long with lucid dying and been present with those whose unconsciousness becomes the long sleep. I am sure clergy would have many more experiences than I.
I still think of death as a thing that unifies us. We all do it. Is there a soul's conversation with something ultimate as our amphibious nature is confirmed? Is there an imagined projection of the dying brain of comfort via some human brain structure which tries to ground a profound experience? All and more I think.
I lost an uncle this week. His dying and death seems to confirm for me again that life and death are the same thing. States of beingness. That death and whatever salvation is confirms the person's existence, it is not a new thing at death, but a confirmation. As for conscious awareness post death, it is rather doubtful it looks like my current consciousness.
Who gets what you are calling salvation? Maybe anyone who asks for it anytime what ever is their state of being. All we amphibians get get when on the dry land of our busy material lives is rumours of glory, while underneath something shines. Like gold, but better. (with apologies to Bruce Cockburn whose words I have used). Our bicameral minds not having the structures with which to accept different until our ancestral nonmaterial perception is accessed again.
God is more like my aunt. Who doesn't come and help run the race, nor stop bad people from harmimg us. But has tea and biscuits and a kind hug and words. No judging. Everyone gets teaband biscuits. All get prized. It's like gold, but better.
--------------------
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
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PV:
I'm late to this thread, so feel free to ignore me.
quote:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't.
You may have heard of the concept of splitting, whereby some people see no nuances but (in your case) good and bad people. Most people would recoil from this simplistic division of humanity. Presumably you think that say the difference between the "least good" person in heaven and the "least bad" person in hell is . . what?
I can't even get close to your division of humankind into goodies and baddies.
quote:
Irrespective of their beliefs.
This implies that beliefs cannot be validly morally judged. Like the main ideas of Nietzsche, including the superiority of the oppressor, and the legitimacy of enslaving the weak. Or anti-semitism. Or any other obnoxious belief.
quote:
What else could be morally just? What else could be consistent with the notion of a just and impartial arbiter of the moral, and disposer of souls, this allegedly good God, who loves all mankind, not just a conveniently agreeable segment of them?
Well what's wrong with subjecting all to a process of purgation resulting in all eventually coming to a state of goodness. In fact this is what many universalist christians believe, effectively replacing hell with purgatory, so that any pain is reformatory and all eventually come to salvation. Why is that immoral?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
God should be trusted, loved, honoured etc for God's sake and not for any reward. What happens after our death is in God's hands and God can be trusted. This is the truth that lies behind judgment, heaven, hell and anything else one might want to throw in this direction.
I like this too. It reminds me of Shadrack, Meshach, and Abendego just before they had that amazing encounter with "one like a son of God":
quote:
If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” Dan. 3:17-18
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
PilgrimVagrant quote:
So, it's not the most original of thoughts, but it is a deep-seated conviction of mine.
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't. Irrespective of their beliefs. What else could be morally just? What else could be consistent with the notion of a just and impartial arbiter of the moral, and disposer of souls, this allegedly good God, who loves all mankind, not just a conveniently agreeable segment of them?
Like Anteater I’m coming to this thread rather late, so I apologise if my remarks have already been covered.
To my mind PV is asking two questions:
(1) Whether we agree or not with his proposition that “good people [should] go to heaven bad people don’t [should not].”
(2) If we disagree with his proposition he asks whether ‘belief” is a satisfactory alternative criterion to righteousness or moral behaviour.
ISTM that on the first question New Testament teaching is pretty clear that whether we like it or not the attainment of a sufficient level of moral uprightness to enter heaven is not possible for anyone. That seems evident in both the teachings of Jesus and the epistles. One would think, too, that this is a position shared by the vast majority of Christians across the doctrinal and denominational spectrum. One might conclude, therefore, that while PV’s instinct might be understandable, like that of the prodigal’s elder brother, it is not Christian.
It follows that if PV’s proposition is contrary to Christian doctrine then we are to ask what Christians understand as the criteria for entry to heaven. What do Christians understand by judgement? What chances do non-Christians have of entering heaven? Is there the possibility of fulfilling the criteria after death? On these and related issues there are no agreed answers amongst Christians. To my mind it is relation to these questions that PV’s concern about justice comes into play not in relation to our behaviour but in relation to God’s equitable treatment or otherwise of humanity as a God of grace.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that on the first question New Testament teaching is pretty clear that whether we like it or not the attainment of a sufficient level of moral uprightness to enter heaven is not possible for anyone. That seems evident in both the teachings of Jesus and the epistles.
Is it really that straightforward? In the story of the
sheep and the goats (which I quoted upthread) simply helping those in need appears to be a sufficient level of moral uprightness to be welcomed into the kingdom. Moral perfection is not required.
I happen to think maybe it's not quite that simple but passages like this make me think it's not quite as obvious as you imply.
[ 29. September 2015, 17:30: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Thanks for these latest, erudite responses. They are most interesting.
Do Christians believe then, that one must be perfect to enter heaven? If one sets the bar impossibly high, but for the Grace of God, it is no surprise if no-one achieves it, but for the Grace of God.
I'm more relaxed about this. I just think that goodness (any goodness) is rewarded, and badness (any badness) is punished. It may not be a Christian idea, but it is a just one, and were I to choose between Christianity and Justice, well, I am enough of a goat to choose Justice.
If it is as I think, I will be vindicated. If it is as Christians think, well, I will be happily surprised. But conventional Christians; well they will be either very sorry indeed, or just get what they expect, this free ticket to bliss. There can be no happy surprises for conventional Christians, only their expectations met.
Somehow, I just can't see that being the way the system works, given that, at the end of days, all loose ends, especially the reconciliation of Justice and Mercy, must needs be finally resolved for a satisfactory closure.
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 anteater:
PV:
I'm late to this thread, so feel free to ignore me.
quote:
The idea is that good people get to go to heaven, and bad people don't.
You may have heard of the concept of splitting, whereby some people see no nuances but (in your case) good and bad people. Most people would recoil from this simplistic division of humanity...
And so would I. I have, earlier in this thread, made that clear. But just to repeat myself, in a different format:
I see goodness and badness as a multidimensional gray-scale, ranging from absolutely black in all dimensions to absolutely white in all dimensions. So, to be Just, God has to deal with these various arrays of goodness and badness according to each individual's locations in the spectra. Well, doubtless He can. It is His creation, after all.
But don't blame me for this binary idea of 'either good, or bad.' It is Christianity that lept on the idea of 'either heaven, or hell.' I used it merely to introduce the topic, in a culturally sympathetic way.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which culture? Iron Age?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that on the first question New Testament teaching is pretty clear that whether we like it or not the attainment of a sufficient level of moral uprightness to enter heaven is not possible for anyone. That seems evident in both the teachings of Jesus and the epistles.
Jammy Dodger: Is it really that straightforward? In the story of the
sheep and the goats (which I quoted upthread) simply helping those in need appears to be a sufficient level of moral uprightness to be welcomed into the kingdom.
I guess it is possible to argue from the story of the Sheep and Goats that entry into heaven or hell is the product of an act of moral merit or demerit on the part of an individual, irrespective of other actions in a lifetime of moral decision-making. It is, however, difficult to see how the life, death, resurrection and merits of Christ, which Christians consider central to their understanding of salvation and sanctification, have anything to do with this passage.
Furthermore, is it questionable whether this passage is meant to have a general application in which “the least of these my brethren” is a reference to any person in need either then or subsequently. The story was part of a discourse addressed specifically to the disciples during the crisis of Easter Week, the context of which is set-out in the opening verses of Matthew 24, and not to a wide disparate congregation. One is given to understand, therefore, that NT scholars are mostly of the opinion that “the least of these my brethren” is a specific reference to the disciples, who will be subject to fates similar to their master (Matthew 24: 9-12). It is probable that Matthew (alone) included these words in his gospel because the persecution of the apostles had become a reality. In any event it is difficult to conclude that it sets out the modalities of a final judgement, and is a shaky foundation on which to build a soteriology of justification by (just) works.
To my mind, and one doesn’t think it at all original, the paradigm of the NT is not that of a court of law in which God is the Judge and justice is impartially administered with a plea of mitigation from Jesus, the defending counsel, but of a family in which God is the Father and Jesus is the Elder Brother who represents the father and has a mission to reintegrate a dysfunctional family called humankind (John 3:17). The family paradigm with its emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation does not preclude questions of justice but is one in which justice is subordinate to the overall objective. Personally, I agree with Origen that judgement is necessary and should not be avoided, but is essentially a matter of diagnosis preceding healing and restoration. I confess to universalist tendencies but entertain the right of an individual to remain outside the father’s house by choice.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Personally, I agree with Origen that judgement is necessary and should not be avoided, but is essentially a matter of diagnosis preceding healing and restoration. I confess to universalist tendencies but entertain the right of an individual to remain outside the father’s house by choice.
Well said. I agree.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It is, however, difficult to see how the life, death, resurrection and merits of Christ, which Christians consider central to their understanding of salvation and sanctification, have anything to do with this passage.
Even when these are that same Christ's very own words on the subject?
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Furthermore, is it questionable whether this passage is meant to have a general application in which “the least of these my brethren” is a reference to any person in need either then or subsequently. The story was part of a discourse addressed specifically to the disciples during the crisis of Easter Week, the context of which is set-out in the opening verses of Matthew 24, and not to a wide disparate congregation. One is given to understand, therefore, that NT scholars are mostly of the opinion that “the least of these my brethren” is a specific reference to the disciples, who will be subject to fates similar to their master (Matthew 24: 9-12). It is probable that Matthew (alone) included these words in his gospel because the persecution of the apostles had become a reality.
Personally I have never heard this interpretation. I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret Jesus' statement more widely.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
in event it is difficult to conclude that it sets out the modalities of a final judgement, and is a shaky foundation on which to build a soteriology of justification by (just) works.
Funnily enough I agree that this does not necessarily mean salvation by works but I was just trying to make the point that surely we can't disregard Jesus' own words on a subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
To my mind, and one doesn’t think it at all original, the paradigm of the NT is not that of a court of law in which God is the Judge and justice is impartially administered with a plea of mitigation from Jesus, the defending counsel, but of a family in which God is the Father and Jesus is the Elder Brother who represents the father and has a mission to reintegrate a dysfunctional family called humankind (John 3:17). The family paradigm with its emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation does not preclude questions of justice but is one in which justice is subordinate to the overall objective. Personally, I agree with Origen that judgement is necessary and should not be avoided, but is essentially a matter of diagnosis preceding healing and restoration. I confess to universalist tendencies but entertain the right of an individual to remain outside the father’s house by choice.
Don't disagree with your conclusions but I think there is a strong element of "judgment" in the NT in the sense of God "setting everything right" (as I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread IIRC)
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Which culture? Iron Age?
I think you will find, even today, there are plenty of Christians who subscribe to the idea that Christians (of their own type) get to go to heaven, and everyone else is hell-bound. You need only post on American boards to discover this for yourself.
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 Kwesi:
in event it is difficult to conclude that it sets out the modalities of a final judgement, and is a shaky foundation on which to build a soteriology of justification by (just) works.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
The alternative, conventionally Christiam view on salvation seems to be a thing about what one believes, and knows, and comes through belief to know. It is essentially a cognitive, epistemological view, and it is one I can't see as being consistent with the idea of a just disposition of our wayward selves, and therefore a just God, however convenient for Christians to believe in it.
So there we have it; which is the best alternative for humanity to be judged on? What we do, what we know, or what we are?
Cheers, PV
--------------------
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
quote:
PilgrimVagrant: Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
LOL, I disagree with this. I don't see a way to define a person as being good other than doing good.
--------------------
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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Of course, if one wants objective confirmation of goodness, one must look to the objective realm of verifiable facts. Nevertheless, we humans can infer good character, and conclude it exists, or any attempt to confirm it is doomed, anyway. So it is for us.
But God, of course, knows us intimately and internally, being privy to our thoughts, as well as our words and deeds.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
PilgrimVagrant quote:
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Fair enough. My response, however, was in response to Jammy Dodgers reference to the story of the Sheep and Goats.
The problem I have with your position, PV, is your notion of goodness as an ontological state appllcable to human beings, at least in a Christian sense. Both both Mark (10: 18) and Luke (18:19) record the following:
A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. No one is good- except God alone.
Is not the inference that only God is good in an ontological sense?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Hmmm.
I think my previous posts have made my position clear on this. There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
I do not think that being somewhat bad disbarrs someone from being mostly good, whatever Jesus says on the matter. And I do think God can, and will, judge us accordingly.
However, if conventional Christianity has a better idea, I am more than willing to entertain 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:
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
The alternative, conventionally Christian view on salvation seems to be a thing about what one believes, and knows, and comes through belief to know. It is essentially a cognitive, epistemological view, and it is one I can't see as being consistent with the idea of a just disposition of our wayward selves, and therefore a just God, however convenient for Christians to believe in it.
So there we have it; which is the best alternative for humanity to be judged on? What we do, what we know, or what we are?
Cheers, PV
Okay, more confusion.
PV, we understand you mean being good, or growing into goodness, or becoming a good person, or however you want to ontologically phrase it. The point is, this is not possible. Not to any sin-infected human being, not to any reasonable standard of goodness. It's like polishing a deeply flawed diamond, one where the flaw goes so deep the stone is almost in two pieces. You can polish all you like, but there's no fixing that.
Unless you're God, that is.
Some things can be grown out of. Other things heal with time. And still other things are incurable without a complete remaking, a new creation. The infection of sin is in the last category. That's why we need Jesus Christ. As he says, "I make all things new"--and most close and personal, our individual human selves.
Now, about this: "The alternative, conventionally Christian view on salvation seems to be a thing about what one believes, and knows, and comes through belief to know. It is essentially a cognitive, epistemological view." You've got hold of exactly the wrong end of the stick. What a Christian "knows" he knows in the sense of Spanish conoscer, not saber--to know intimately, from the heart, as a matter of relationship (don't shoot me, peeps). "Saber" would be to know in the sense of cognitively comprehending something, like the times tables. It's a pity English has only the one verb, "to know"--but you want the sense that starts with ordinary acquaintanceship and goes all the way to carnal knowledge, the personal sense. Not the impersonal sense that is a bare assent to certain propositions. 90% of what goes on in Christian "knowing" and "believing" is of the first variety, not the second. The second kind of knowing, anybody can have. It doesn't make one a Christian.
And convenience has fuck-all to do with what Christians believe. You speak as if you think we had a choice--as if we went shopping for a faith and chose the one most likely to fit in with our personal desires and goals. Seriously, guy? We believe what we believe because we have no choice--this is what we have become convinced of, whether we like it or not, and now we have to deal with it. Much like you and your attitude toward gravity. You didn't "choose" it--rather, events in your life have led you to the point where you have concluded that gravity exists, and that it's generally a bad idea to sit down without a chair under you. For me to speak of your belief in gravity as a "convenience" would raise eyebrows or even sniggers.
Faith--real faith, whether it's in Christ or in Islam or in whatever--forces itself upon one. With a mighty effort one may reject it, but it doesn't work the other way around--you're not going to be able to sit down and will yourself into believing something simply because it would be convenient to believe it. There's always the little voice in the back of your mind saying "Yes, but if this doesn't work out the way I want, I can always go back to the Religion Shop-a-rama and get something else." Truth compels; in its absence, you can pick whatever you like, whenever you like.
Your last paragraph is similar. "which is the best alternative for humanity to be judged on?" You speak as if WE had the ability and opportunity to set those criteria. Nope. If you can get God's ear and convince him, go ahead. He's the judge. From our standpoint, the question is rather "On what basis IS God intending to judge us?" In other words, a question of fact. We want to know what IS, not what could be in some nonexistent fantasy cosmos where we were the judges in charge.
It's all very well saying things like "I see you have cancer; wouldn't it be better if you could be cured by drinking soda pop instead of undergoing chemo?" Of course the cancer patient would prefer that! But it's fantasy. The real question is, What will cure me in this real life that I am living now?
[code]
[ 02. October 2015, 19:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
If goodness and badness are multidimensional then it must be possible for someone to be simultaneously very good and very bad, or some other complication that means that judgements about whether someone is mostly good will be largely meaningless. You can say that someone is honest and dutiful, but callous and self-righteous. But to sum that up to good overall but inclined in minor details to sin - that's not doable.
What makes something a minor detail anyway? If people like you and me who are basically good commit a sin, it must be a minor detail?
quote:
However, if conventional Christianity has a better idea, I am more than willing to entertain it.
How about love and forgiveness? Do you agree that love and forgiveness are more moral than justice?
--------------------
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
My 2 cents echoes some of what's already been said:
Salvation and even justice, in the biblical sense, are not about rewarding good or punishing evil. They are both about restoration-- about setting things right. The one spiritual truth we can all empirically observe is that things are Not Right. If we didn't know that already, we learned that last night with the horrific news of yet another school shooting here in the US.
Things are not right. And that misalignment is found in each of us. Sometimes the misalignment may seem insignificant to us-- perhaps we have a tendency (quickly squelched) to rejoice at the suffering of rival, or a tendency to envy those who are advanced when we are not. Small things. Other times the misalignment is so significant that we can only call it evil-- 200 African girls kidnapped and sold into slavery. Each of us is in a different place along that trajectory from near-saint to near-demon, for a host of reasons from environment or family or past to free choice or pride or stubbornness.
Wherever we are on that trajectory, there are things we can do on our own that will move us away from evil and toward the good. But we-- and the world we live in-- can never be fully restored, fully "set right" without a Savior.
That is God's desire for each of us, and for the world we live in. He desires us to be fully restored and set right, to live the life we were intended to live. Again, we may do things on our own to move in that direction. Or we may do things in the power of the Spirit by recognizing our need for a Savior. The people who are trying to get there on their own might very well be further along the trajectory than the person who is attempting to get there thru the power of the Spirit. But ultimately, full restoration comes only thru Christ (IMHO).
I don't think that necessarily or even probably means the only who are fully set right in the restoration-- the New Heaven and New Earth-- are those who verbally confess allegiance to Christ in this life. But I believe the only way anyone gets there is thru the grace of Jesus Christ. That grace is a big grace, which just might be big enough to include everyone, regardless of where they are on the trajectory or whether or not they recognize him or call him by name.
But I think that's what justice and salvation mean in the Bible-- not getting what you deserve, not reward or punishment, but setting right.
--------------------
"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
It certainly doesn't mean that or it wouldn't be setting things right would it? Jesus couldn't save.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am not talking justification by works. I am talking justification by way of being. I am not talking ethical actions, I am talking ontological state. I am not talking doing good things, I am talking simply being good, as the deciding factor of our eventual fates.
Good things, good works, may arise out of being a good person, may indeed, prove a good person to be good, but these works are secondary to the goodness of character that precede them, inspire them, and generate them.
Okay, more confusion.
PV, we understand you mean being good, or growing into goodness, or becoming a good person, or however you want to ontologically phrase it. The point is, this is not possible. Not to any sin-infected human being, not to any reasonable standard of goodness. It's like polishing a deeply flawed diamond, one where the flaw goes so deep the stone is almost in two pieces. You can polish all you like, but there's no fixing that.
[code]
And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
The problem Christians have with the idea of goodness being central to salvation is generally, I find, twofold. Firstly, they don't like the idea that they need to be good, and secondly they don't like the idea that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness.
So, in direct contradiction to the thrust of your argument, I say it is not necessary to be Christian to be good, any more than it is necessary to be good to be Christian. These are, as statisticians might have it, independent variables. And if they are independent, then (to ram the point home) surely a just God will seek His company in Heaven from the best the world has to offer, rather than a somewhat smug subset of it.
Again, a rational argument, evidence based, would serve your cause better than a flawed analogy about flawed diamonds.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
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 Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
If goodness and badness are multidimensional then it must be possible for someone to be simultaneously very good and very bad, or some other complication that means that judgements about whether someone is mostly good will be largely meaningless. You can say that someone is honest and dutiful, but callous and self-righteous. But to sum that up to good overall but inclined in minor details to sin - that's not doable.
What makes something a minor detail anyway? If people like you and me who are basically good commit a sin, it must be a minor detail?
On the contrary, they are mutually consistent. One can be a highly effective parish priest, bringing succour to his flock and educating them in critical ways with each Sunday sermon, and still a paedophile. The fact that one tends to blackness in one, sexual dimension, does not necessarily entail that one tends to black in all dimensions.
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 cliffdweller:
My 2 cents echoes some of what's already been said:
Salvation and even justice, in the biblical sense, are not about rewarding good or punishing evil. They are both about restoration-- about setting things right. The one spiritual truth we can all empirically observe is that things are Not Right. If we didn't know that already, we learned that last night with the horrific news of yet another school shooting here in the US.
Things are not right. And that misalignment is found in each of us. Sometimes the misalignment may seem insignificant to us-- perhaps we have a tendency (quickly squelched) to rejoice at the suffering of rival, or a tendency to envy those who are advanced when we are not. Small things. Other times the misalignment is so significant that we can only call it evil-- 200 African girls kidnapped and sold into slavery. Each of us is in a different place along that trajectory from near-saint to near-demon, for a host of reasons from environment or family or past to free choice or pride or stubbornness.
Wherever we are on that trajectory, there are things we can do on our own that will move us away from evil and toward the good. But we-- and the world we live in-- can never be fully restored, fully "set right" without a Savior.
That is God's desire for each of us, and for the world we live in. He desires us to be fully restored and set right, to live the life we were intended to live. Again, we may do things on our own to move in that direction. Or we may do things in the power of the Spirit by recognizing our need for a Savior. The people who are trying to get there on their own might very well be further along the trajectory than the person who is attempting to get there thru the power of the Spirit. But ultimately, full restoration comes only thru Christ (IMHO).
I don't think that necessarily or even probably means the only who are fully set right in the restoration-- the New Heaven and New Earth-- are those who verbally confess allegiance to Christ in this life. But I believe the only way anyone gets there is thru the grace of Jesus Christ. That grace is a big grace, which just might be big enough to include everyone, regardless of where they are on the trajectory or whether or not they recognize him or call him by name.
But I think that's what justice and salvation mean in the Bible-- not getting what you deserve, not reward or punishment, but setting right.
Yes, I agree with most of this.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
On the contrary, they are mutually consistent.
I'm not sure that if I object that as far as I can see point A and point B are inconsistent, it's really a rebuttal to repeat point B.
Especially if, as here, I agree largely with point B and it's point A that I actually disagree with.
Also, you haven't told me whether you agree that morally speaking love overrides justice.
--------------------
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 PilgrimVagrant:
And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
The problem Christians have with the idea of goodness being central to salvation is generally, I find, twofold. Firstly, they don't like the idea that they need to be good, and secondly they don't like the idea that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness.
So, in direct contradiction to the thrust of your argument, I say it is not necessary to be Christian to be good, any more than it is necessary to be good to be Christian. These are, as statisticians might have it, independent variables. And if they are independent, then (to ram the point home) surely a just God will seek His company in Heaven from the best the world has to offer, rather than a somewhat smug subset of it.
Again, a rational argument, evidence based, would serve your cause better than a flawed analogy about flawed diamonds.
Cheers, PV.
You're still not getting it. There IS no one good, no, not one. And I dare you to ask any of the people you've mentioned if they consider themselves to be good. They are, after all, the only ones with direct access to their own interior lives.
The question is not what a person looks like from the outside. The question is what he or she IS.
I've never met a person I considered saintly (and there are a lot of these, Christian and non-Christian!) who did not have a strong sense of his/her own wrongdoing. And I will do them the compliment of taking their own self-assessments for truth. They are not being falsely modest. When the saints accuse themselves, they are speaking the truth--the same truth that the whole human race faces about ourselves.
When will you see that I am NOT claiming goodness for Christians only? Christians, just like non-Christians, are deeply flawed and in need of a Savior. The only case in which your examples of Gandhi, eastern teachers, etc. makes a difference is in the purely external human estimation of goodness as it appears to other humans. That's fine if you're running a popularity contest, but it's not going to cut it for any of us--Christian or not--in the divine court.
You seem to greatly dislike analogies. I am not sure why. I regret if they cause you some form of mental pain, but I find they are generally a useful aid in communication--if not to you, then to others who are reading the thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
PilgrimVagrant, I’m intrigued by your framework, but would like to see it developed and clarified.
As I understand it you posit people as either good or bad in an ontological sense, and it is this state which determines their classification as sheep or goats and ultimate destination: heaven or hell. In practise, however, you argue that individuals perform good and bad acts of varying degrees of goodness and badness, and the proportions of predominantly good acts and perdominantly bad acts varies from one individual to another.
What I would like to know is:-
1.How an individual is or becomes ontologically good or bad: is it innate or acquired?
2.Is there a relationship between good and bad acts and an individual’s ontological state?
3.Do good and bad acts have anything to do with God’s judgement on an individual?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
Then perhaps it is your notion of justice which needs adjustment. Human justice is anything but infallible, individual human beings hold different ideas of what it means, and it is demonstrable that societal notions of "just" and "unjust" have changed within recent memory.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And this is another substantial point of disagreement between us. I can think of several famous non-christians, who are good. Indeed, better than several famous Christians. The idea that goodness is dependent on a Christian world-view is just a non-starter for me. I have cited Gandhi and the Dalai Lama previously, but any of the Hindu gurus or Zen masters or Sikh teachers would do equally well.
The problem Christians have with the idea of goodness being central to salvation is generally, I find, twofold. Firstly, they don't like the idea that they need to be good, and secondly they don't like the idea that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness.
So, in direct contradiction to the thrust of your argument, I say it is not necessary to be Christian to be good, any more than it is necessary to be good to be Christian. These are, as statisticians might have it, independent variables. And if they are independent, then (to ram the point home) surely a just God will seek His company in Heaven from the best the world has to offer, rather than a somewhat smug subset of it.
Again, a rational argument, evidence based, would serve your cause better than a flawed analogy about flawed diamonds.
Cheers, PV.
You're still not getting it. There IS no one good, no, not one. And I dare you to ask any of the people you've mentioned if they consider themselves to be good. They are, after all, the only ones with direct access to their own interior lives.
The question is not what a person looks like from the outside. The question is what he or she IS.
I've never met a person I considered saintly (and there are a lot of these, Christian and non-Christian!) who did not have a strong sense of his/her own wrongdoing. And I will do them the compliment of taking their own self-assessments for truth. They are not being falsely modest. When the saints accuse themselves, they are speaking the truth--the same truth that the whole human race faces about ourselves.
When will you see that I am NOT claiming goodness for Christians only? Christians, just like non-Christians, are deeply flawed and in need of a Savior. The only case in which your examples of Gandhi, eastern teachers, etc. makes a difference is in the purely external human estimation of goodness as it appears to other humans. That's fine if you're running a popularity contest, but it's not going to cut it for any of us--Christian or not--in the divine court.
You seem to greatly dislike analogies. I am not sure why. I regret if they cause you some form of mental pain, but I find they are generally a useful aid in communication--if not to you, then to others who are reading the thread.
Well, from my point of view, of course, you are the one who seems willfully determined 'not to get it!' I have repeatably argued that goodness and badness exist on gray-scales. It may well be that God is the only being that exists in pure white on all dimensions. Nevertheless, that does not disbar the rest of us from being mainly good, or somewhat good, or passably good, in any or all of these dimensions.
We cannot expect to be wholly good; and nor should we. We evolved out of slime. It will take us time to shed our innate tendencies to selfishness; and I am talking geological time, epochs and eons, not days or weeks. The fact that we are good at all, in any respect whatsoever, is already a miracle. And a miracle, moreover, not confined to this religion or that; it seems to be a human trait, this goodness, though we may ethnocentrically ascribe it to other animals, also. Whatever, it would be unjust for God to ignore it, come judgement time.
As for anologies; I do not wholly dislike them; I am simply careful with them. They have a place, as an illustration of an argument. But they are not a replacement for an argument, and should not submitted as such. An analogy, a parallel, is not a train of thought, just the recognition of a pattern that may, or may not, bear close similarity to some more difficult topic. The danger is to understand the analogy, and then think you have automatically understood the difficult topic. You have to show, with an analogy, what the difficult argument is, what the analogy is, and why the analogy is relevant to the difficult argument. It is not good enough just to say; my position is proposition X, and analogy Y is self evident, and therefore X must be true. You have to rigorously determine that analogy Y is like proposition X, before Y has any purchase on X, whatsoever. This is so much extra work, it is probably more effective simply to prove X from first principles, anyway, and see Y as nothing more than an interesting diversion.
Cheers, PV.
[ 11. October 2015, 13:05: 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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
]To be just, a just disposal needs to be seen to be just. There is no point in saying God is Just! but His justice is not like our justice. That is like saying God is Red! but His red is not like our red.
Then perhaps it is your notion of justice which needs adjustment. Human justice is anything but infallible, individual human beings hold different ideas of what it means, and it is demonstrable that societal notions of "just" and "unjust" have changed within recent memory.
Indeed. I would draw a clear demarcation between a) my perception of justice; b) the greater human consensus about justice; and c) God's conception of justice, otherwise called objective Justice, with a capital 'J'. Nevertheless all these different ideas around justice must have some common trait, or the word justice would not denote them all.
Clearly different individuals have different ideas of justice, as do different societies in different places and times. But I am an optimist; I tend to the view that our notions of justice have gained in accuracy over the years, and will continue to do so, barring catastrophe, until such devoutly desired time as they all finally converge on God's notion of Justice.
Cheers, PV.
[ 11. October 2015, 13:18: 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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
PilgrimVagrant, I’m intrigued by your framework, but would like to see it developed and clarified.
As I understand it you posit people as either good or bad in an ontological sense, and it is this state which determines their classification as sheep or goats and ultimate destination: heaven or hell. In practise, however, you argue that individuals perform good and bad acts of varying degrees of goodness and badness, and the proportions of predominantly good acts and perdominantly bad acts varies from one individual to another.
What I would like to know is:-
1.How an individual is or becomes ontologically good or bad: is it innate or acquired?
2.Is there a relationship between good and bad acts and an individual’s ontological state?
3.Do good and bad acts have anything to do with God’s judgement on an individual?
Kwesi, I love you! Thank you for the consideration you have given my thoughts!
OK. To see people as either good or bad is obviously a gross oversimplification. This leads me to think that to see our final disposal as either Heaven or Hell is also an oversimplification. Conventional Christianity does not have this problem; to believe or not believe Jesus is God is a binary matter, so a binary disposal suits it quite adequately.
In answer to your queries:
As regards becoming good or bad; in the world according to PV, the character, or soul, stands in relationship to it's thoughts, words and deeds. It has, in it's original state, a tendency to selfishness for itself, and a desire for selflessness, for others. It wants to have it's cake, and eat it, too. It wants to be allowed to be greedy, but for others to service that greed. Sooner or later, we realise the world can't work that way; if everyone was selfish, no-one's greed would be serviced. So we invent virtue, and the genius idea of each servicing each others need, to the extent that is good for them, and no further.
While our acts relate to how we are, they also help determine how we are. There are virtuous cycles and vicious spirals inherent in the system; a virtuous act will fortify a virtuous spirit leading to further virtuous acts; and viceful act erode vicious spirit and cause more vicious acts. What we do both reflects and affects what we are.
My current thinking is that God does not, and does not need to directly to judge our acts. Our acts have consequences, for ourselves and others. A virtuous act leaves the world better, and sinful act, worse. A virtuous act leaves our spirit stronger, a sinful act, weaker. All God needs to do, therefore, is assess our spirits, and what better way to do that, than allow us to approach Him to the extent that we can bear? My suspicion is that those strong of spirit will be able to endure the ecstasy of God's love - equal parts joy and pain - at far closer range than those used to complacent self-indulgence, and worse.
Best wishes, PV.
[ 11. October 2015, 13:47: 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Where does grace fit into that scenario? Or does it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
There is the concept of the 'good sinner' which I take us all mostly to be, the idea of being partially good, but still inclined, in some minor details, to sin. Then there is the idea of goodness and badness being a multidimensional gray-scale, which we all inhabit, in various positions in degrees of black and white on various dimensions, most of us being more pale than shaded.
I think these two ideas are inconsistent with each other and contradictory.
If goodness and badness are multidimensional then it must be possible for someone to be simultaneously very good and very bad, or some other complication that means that judgements about whether someone is mostly good will be largely meaningless. You can say that someone is honest and dutiful, but callous and self-righteous. But to sum that up to good overall but inclined in minor details to sin - that's not doable.
What makes something a minor detail anyway? If people like you and me who are basically good commit a sin, it must be a minor detail?
On the contrary, they are mutually consistent. One can be a highly effective parish priest, bringing succour to his flock and educating them in critical ways with each Sunday sermon, and still a paedophile. The fact that one tends to blackness in one, sexual dimension, does not necessarily entail that one tends to black in all dimensions.
Cheers, PV.
Let me try again.
Yes, you can be very bad in some dimensions, and very good in others. Where that leaves one on a more simple, one dimensional scale of good and bad, is not for me to say. That's God's call. And I suspect He has more sophisticated ways of dealing justice than we can know. Perhaps each dimension is dealt with separately.
So what? How does this affect the model?
As for love overriding justice; well, no. Justice, a good thing, is the proof of love. Without the love, there would be no justice. If God didn't love us, it wouldn't matter to Him how He dealt with us; perhaps He would have handsome favourites, or prefer folk-dancers to anyone else, or insist on real-estate agents for company.
But justice distributed on ethical grounds, well, that makes His love immanent and relevant, in a way no arbitrary preferences could.
Best wishes, 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 cliffdweller:
Where does grace fit into that scenario? Or does it?
It's very important, but indirectly so.
The idea is that the invasion of the Holy Spirit transforms us, but does not, in and of itself, save us. What it does is convert us to the right attitude, a healthy love of virtue, and visceral dislike of sin. But from there on, it is up to us to make what we can and will of the grace of God in our own lives.
Being a 'saved' or 'born again' Christian is therefore, not a guarantee of eternal bliss, just an advantage of mindset towards this end.
Cheers, PV
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Where does grace fit into that scenario? Or does it?
It's very important, but indirectly so.
The idea is that the invasion of the Holy Spirit transforms us, but does not, in and of itself, save us. What it does is convert us to the right attitude, a healthy love of virtue, and visceral dislike of sin. But from there on, it is up to us to make what we can and will of the grace of God in our own lives.
Being a 'saved' or 'born again' Christian is therefore, not a guarantee of eternal bliss, just an advantage of mindset towards this end.
Cheers, PV
Respectfully, I disagree.
Grace is what makes all this possible. I agree with your notion that salvation is about more than just "getting into heaven when you die". I agree that salvation is about an ongoing holistic transformation of heart, mind, soul, and spirit that impacts every aspect of our lives here and now. I disagree (if I'm reading you correctly, which I may not be) that this is about being "good" or "bad" or even "good enough". I believe it is a wholly and completely a gift of grace that reaches us, sinner and saint, with the invitation to radically different life.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
