Of another world

[littlemanpoet]

The Kierkegaardian "leap of faith", while perhaps helpful to many who find themselves at reason's dead-end, has also been detrimental in terms of a clear understanding of belief and faith - at least in terms of God. The idea that faith must be the 'tight-rope' one uses to cover those last hundred feet to God because the 'bridge of reason' can't get you there, is flawed because it misconstrues what faith is. Faith in God is no different in its nature than faith in a stranger, friend, or spouse. (This is one more example of unnecessary obstacles getting placed in the way of knowing God.) Everyone trusts even strangers to behave in a certain manner on the merits of past experience with strangers. We trust our friends to behave in certain ways based on our knowledge of them. We trust our spouses to behave in predictable ways because we've spent so much time with them. Now as to God: suddenly we have a special problem as there is only one God compared to many strangers; so how can we predict how God behaves? Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. This is not just about human suffering and evil in the world, but about the consistency of all natural materials and phenomena to continue to operate as they have in the past. We trust this. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.

However, if we do not believe there's a God, but we want to give the possibility an honest chance to prove itself, how do we go about that if we refuse the tight-rope of the 'leap of faith'? There are precisely two ways that I know of:

(1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated.

(2) Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do. If there is no God, you still have lost nothing. If there is a God, He will honor this request and make himself known to you beyond any doubt. This is a highly personal "test", and the only one that I know of that God honors. This is so because God is a highly personal Being. This is different from the leap of faith because in the leap of faith, the human has to do all the work. In this test that I have described, you simply make a request, with or without any faith at all, asking God to be true to his promise. Whether you believe he will or not, doesn't matter. It's up to him to show you that he exists and loves you. Or there's no such being and you're merely disappointed and move on with your life.

Originally Posted by davem

I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue? I think not. If he cannot control Himself, how can we expect him to consistently sustain life as we know it? That he does, argues against the possibility that he has ever broken his own moral code. In addition, you have caught yourself in a failure of vision and perspective. God's view encompasses both this life and the next. Momentary physical pain, even on a mass scale, is although obviously tragic, not the whole picture. We don't and can't know the mind of God, or we would be God. However, the second letter of Peter tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and that the people who could have listened, refused to, for a very long time. They had plenty of opportunity to repent, and refused to.

Originally Posted by davem

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.

Except that you and I are Fallen and have very limited vision, having lost our right to it by our disobedience. How can we presume to judge God if we can't even know ourselves honestly at all times?

davem, in your reply to my statement that belief and unbelief are a choice, you set up a paper tiger then knock it down. Not much effort involved in that. I did not say that the choice to believe is trivial as choosing a drink, you have put those words in my mouth. Ptooey! The choice to believe or not is most certainly NOT trivial, but it is most certainly a matter of volition; the most serious there is, as it involves one's ultimate destiny.

Originally Posted by alatar

How many years did man have to wait until God reached out with His grace? How many years did man toil under the Law until it was shown to be only a guide?

First, Jesus says that he fulfilled the Law, not that it was only a guide. The Law still stands; however, his acts have paid the debt the Law required, in full. Second, (I may be wrong about this but) I know of no Scripture that discounts the power of God's redemption through Jesus Christ to work backwards through time as well as into the future. This is, however, currently of a speculative nature and I need to do further study.

Originally Posted by alatar

If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint.

My understanding of this is that over the course of time there was another falling away from righteousness (no surprise), the resulting vulnerability of which allowed the dark angels to start up their program again.

Originally Posted by alatar

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

What stirs in my mind is that the Israelites (Jews), by the time of Jesus, finally succeeded in removing all of the fallen-angel variety of false gods from their land; therefore, the only powers remaining were either demonic or godly. No paganism was left, except perhaps in Samaria; but even there, monotheism had pretty much taken over. The point is that (as Jesus seems to indicate in his comments regarding blaspheming against the Holy Spirit) any resurrections were not only quite NOT normal, they had to be accomplished either by God or by Satan. No middle ground.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back?

Jesus, as God and man, while being crucified, suffered every sin, every rape, every atrocity, ever committed. That is what suffering hell on the cross means. It doesn't erase the deed. Nothing can do that. Instead, it heals them. The wounds in Jesus' side, hands, and feet are the evidence of God's promise to do that.

Part of God's foreknowledge was that He would suffer all the wrong ever committed by humans so that He could heal all the wounds of the victimized, and take them all - yes ALL - to be with Him in joy forever. That's why Paul can say (wherever he says it) that he considers the sufferings of this world as nothing compared to the absolutely incredible joy of eternal life in Christ.

Originally Posted by davem

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good.

If you really thought about it, you know that you don't really want that. Think it through .... including yourself in the mix. Okay, I'll help. If God is going to be expected to do this, He will ALWAYS do it, or else it's unjust, and God is not unjust. Do you want God's justice here and now? No, you don't. You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

Originally Posted by drigel

And neither can science acknowledge the existence, or even possiblity of, a higher power at work in the universe. Yet, as the author did with our pagan ancestors, we have the ability to live in both worlds, no?

Hmmmmm...... I think that science can function quite readily within the framework of not dealing with the existence of God. I think that science can function just as well from a belief in God. Belief in God erases not a single scientific law. So yes, we do have the ability to live in both worlds, if I understand you rightly (not entirely convinced I do...).

My take on the afterlife is that we will be fully physical and fully spiritual, and that God will completely sustain us so that we feel no fear, no terror, no sorrow, but joy and love and more of both. There will be, according to the Scriptures, a new heaven and a new earth. That sounds pretty physical to me. Non-existence is most definitely not preferable to this.

Originally Posted by alatar

this supernatural/nonphysical God

.... is still supernatural, but most definitely physical. Jesus was raised bodily into heaven. God is physical for eternity.

Originally Posted by davem

However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like.

When it did so, it had allowed itself to be talked out of some of that uniqueness into a Platonistic philosophy (Plotinus) that deplored the body. It was a mistake for the Church to let itself get trapped in that.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length.

I do admire Williams' Affirmation of Images as far as it goes. However, the bible is very clear that because of the Fall, material has been corrupted. This, however, is not the same thing as saying material is EVIL. It isn't. It will be redeemed, and it is a glorious and celebrated thing as it is; Tolkien has shown us this at least. But by itself it is incomplete. It needs God's spirit to redeem and purify it and make it whole again. Thus, the resurrection of the body.

As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for.

Here, maybe this will help:

When Christ, for love of splintered light,
of fallen flesh and rotted tree,
of emptied day and fear-filled night,
stooped eagerly from deity
into the blessed Virgin's womb
(enholied by that sacred Leaven),
He gloried hollow atom's tomb
with weight and depth of solid heaven.

Our flesh, now gloried, lucent shines,
as moving streams reflect the sun;
we bodied beings, in Him divine,
now dance and sing, our glory won.
Incarnate Dream! Word in flesh!
Let human words in music, laced
with gloried tongue and throat, express
all praise to Him who flesh has graced!

© 1993, littlemanpoet

Originally Posted by davem

In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.

This should never be, but alas is too often. The funny thing about this is that my faith insists that those who don't accept Christ are excluding themselves. Is that denigration? If it is, then all Christians denigrate all non-Christians. But I don't think it is. Denigration is to despise, is it not? (my dictionary is not available) May it never be that I despise anyone! I shouldn't, I have no right, because I'm no better than anyone who doesn't believe. Any righteousness I may have comes from Jesus. I recognize that what I just wrote might feel insincere. It's not; it's the way it is. (up to 140)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

This should never be, but alas is too often. The funny thing about this is that my faith insists that those who don't accept Christ are excluding themselves. Is that denigration? If it is, then all Christians denigrate all non-Christians. But I don't think it is. Denigration is to despise, is it not? (my dictionary is not available) May it never be that I despise anyone! I shouldn't, I have no right, because I'm no better than anyone who doesn't believe. Any righteousness I may have comes from Jesus.

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith? That is why I would broadly identify as universalist as I believe there are many ways of getting to god.

One thing I see in Tolkien's work as a metaphor which works for me is the Straight Road. At the downfall of Numenor the open and free way of getting to Valinor (for purposes of the metaphor read this as Heaven/Nirvana/Valhalla, what you will...) was lost. The Elves know how to find this way, and it seems that mortals do not, however it is not always lost, some find it open who need to find it open. To me, that works as a metaphor - in that if we need God we will find a way, but looking in one place might mean that we entirely miss the way.

Originally Posted by Alatar

No one. We all face the unknown when we die. No one has come back and said what the ride was like. Even Jesus and those that were brought back did not describe how it works, what it felt like, and so we have no idea what to expect. As humans we abhor holes in what we know, and extrapolate (or fantasize) to fill in the gaps.

By the by, near death experiences (nde) are just physiological - like dreams in a way. Note that no nde'er ever comes back stating that he/she was in a very hot place.

No, it was not hot, but it was very green. I was 'outside' myself for a time and looking in on the scene below. Everything looked quite green, and there was a sense that my very being was made up of 'green-ness' if you can understand what they might feel like! I had a sense of absorption, of my eyes slowly losing their sight, my ears losing their hearing and my voice becoming smaller and smaller. Of being taken back into something bigger, like an egg going back into the ovary or a leaf going back into the branch it sprung from.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith? That is why I would broadly identify as universalist as I believe there are many ways of getting to god.

Historically, it has typically been expressed -correctly or no- by churchgoers that you have to be Christian to be saved.

This is a fallacious view.

If this were the case, then all those people who have never heard of Jesus, or who lived before Jesus, would be automatically excluded- which would be quite unjust indeed.

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God. Christians have the benefit of various aids and assistances that non-Christians do not have, and so have a greater range of help to draw from, such as the joined prayer of the community, the rules of Christ which outline the path to Heaven, as well as other things of a similar nature. I would also go so far as to say that the Catholics are one up on the rest of the Christians for a "help plan", so to speak, in that they have the full complement of seven sacraments.

However, just as you can get from Point A. to Point B. without the benefit of equipment, you can get from Earth to Heaven without the benefit of the Church. Conversely, just as people can get lost on the way, even if they have a map, a compass, and supplies, people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.

The Church, therefore, is the BEST way to get to Heaven: it equips you for the journey, gives you help to lean on, and shows you the way. But it is not NECESSARY to get there.

[davem]

LMP On reading your last post I found myself with the odd feeling of almost wishing it was true. Yet on stepping back from it I found myself thinking, 'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?' Its almoost like you've created a secondary world there, completely internally self-consistent & logical, but I just don't see how it integrates with the primary world.

Of course, it may all be true just as maybe in some ancient historical epoch the events of LotR may have really happened. But where's the evidence that they did?

Some things you said did puzzle me, though:

Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do.

This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? If I ask God to give me something without knowing what it is how will I know when I've got it, or if I get it at all? If my heart's desire is a big Lottery win will I get that? And if I don't will that prove God does not exist? Seems a bit of an odd excercise. I suppose you will now say 'But that isn't really you're heart's desire, is it? You really wanted something else.

Secondly, the point about the Resurrection of Jesus. That's interesting. Personally, even if I accepted the 'evidence' that Jesus came back to life (though one could argue that he 'died' suspiciously quickly, taking only 6 hours when many victims would take days & days. There clearly was a story among the soldiers guarding the tomb that his followers had taken his body which the Gospel writers felt a need to counter by saying they were bribed to say that - logically the former is most likely. Anyway.) that would not necessarily make the event relevant to me. What am I supposed to do about it? What should my response be - simply singing hymns & saying prayers seems a rather pointless response. My own feeling is that Christianity has had little to do with what Jesus said & did & more to do with what the Church has decided Jesus meant by all that.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue?

Why not? Who knows the real nature of God? It may be quite possible for Him to sin against Himself & continue to exist.

What stirs in my mind is that the Israelites (Jews), by the time of Jesus, finally succeeded in removing all of the fallen-angel variety of false gods from their land; therefore, the only powers remaining were either demonic or godly.

Bit pejorative there - the God you believe in is 'the True God' other people's Gods are 'false' or 'demonic'. You see, you're imposing your belief on the world as though its objectively true without supplying any proof.

Jesus, as God and man, while being crucified, suffered every sin, every rape, every atrocity, ever committed. That is what suffering hell on the cross means. It doesn't erase the deed. Nothing can do that. Instead, it heals them. The wounds in Jesus' side, hands, and feet are the evidence of God's promise to do that.

No it doesn't heal them. Go tell that to the survivors. Its just platitudes.

If you really thought about it, you know that you don't really want that. Think it through .... including yourself in the mix. Okay, I'll help. If God is going to be expected to do this, He will ALWAYS do it, or else it's unjust, and God is not unjust. Do you want God's justice here and now? No, you don't. You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

Yes I would. I'm not talking about God hurling thunderbolts, or sending universal floods, just intervening to stop children being raped or pensioners being mugged or maniacs flying airliners into tower blocks. Its not an either-or situation - either God zaps us all to atoms or He stands back & allows the helpless to suffer. Even I could find a middle way between the two so it shouldn't be beyond God.

As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for.

Again, you're 'assuming that which is to be proved'. Where is the evidence for a 'Fall'?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God. Christians have the benefit of various aids and assistances that non-Christians do not have, and so have a greater range of help to draw from, such as the joined prayer of the community, the rules of Christ which outline the path to Heaven, as well as other things of a similar nature. I would also go so far as to say that the Catholics are one up on the rest of the Christians for a "help plan", so to speak, in that they have the full complement of seven sacraments.

Lucky for you then- imagine if it had turned out that one of the other religions or denominations had turned out to be the only/best way - you'd have had all the hassle of changing your belief & starting from scratch! Fortunately, it just happens to be the very religion you happen to following already that's right. Bit unfortunate for the followers of all the others as they have to give up their religions to find the only, or at least the best, way. Mind you, it does seem a bit coincidental - but maybe that's the cynic in me ....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.

So what you are saying is that when God seems to act 'differently,' it's not Him but us. Interesting. I always saw the god of the Old Testament as much different from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The OT one is more tribal and punishing; the NT more forgiving and loving. As an example, wouldn't many in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) love to hear about 'love for enemies' and the like (Luke 6:27-29)? Mark 3:28 seems to state that there is but one unforgivable sin (the continual denial/blaspheming against of/the Holy Spirit) yet in BC many seemingly were unredeemable and so got the axe. Why weren't they permitted to live so that they may find God and repentence (a rhetorical question, to be sure, but we will see it come up later in the post)?

Could it be that as people evolved, becoming more civilized that either their view of God or relationship with God changed? That I can easily accept, but it's still not evident that God is unchanging.

I was just reading quotes from some of Frank Herbert's books, and one was "the bigger the God, the bigger the Devil."

(1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated.

As you know, been there and done that. Short of a time machine, I say that with all of the evidence known at present one still has some leaping to do (and, as stated, maybe that's a requirement to sift the wheat from the chaff).

(2) Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God.

Would it be impolite to ask what your deepest desire, met seemingly, was? Just curious.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue?

See Isaiah 45:6-7. Are we sure that concepts like 'all good' and 'sin' (though we do know that He hates it) apply to such a being?

Momentary physical pain, even on a mass scale, is although obviously tragic, not the whole picture. We don't and can't know the mind of God, or we would be God.

Very true. However, it's been posited that we, being made in the image of God and therefore having at least some of His attributes (not the god ones) would, upon seeing suffering, would for the most part try to relieve it. I'm not of course saying that everyone is like that , but many are. We, if we could, would end suffering but in many cases are powerless to do so. God is not so limited, and yet...What always sparks me is any god that would allow the innocent (children and the child-like) to suffer. Death, okay, but suffering? He could end it, but chooses not to do so for some purpose "beyond our understanding." Those words are ashes in the mouths of anguished parents. Yes, His child suffered and died, but that was a free will choice (and it's still a mystery as to how much an eternal being can limit itself to truly experience human life and suffering, but that's unanswerable too).

How can we presume to judge God if we can't even know ourselves honestly at all times?

The minister with whom I converse stated a similar idea, that we as imperfect beings might not be able to see the Truth. It was a counter statement to my own about science and really knowing some Biblical truths definitively. I guess the point is that when I try to nail something down that is inconveniently paradoxical or unsupported, it's not because it's as I observe it to be but because I'm viewing it through poor vision. On the other hand, seeing Truth in a text, though dictated by God yet written and printed and interpreted and heard by human hands and minds and ears is unquestionalby 100% accurate.

My understanding of this is that over the course of time there was another falling away from righteousness (no surprise), the resulting vulnerability of which allowed the dark angels to start up their program again.

By the by, I just read that there apparently were Nephilim after the Flood (Numbers 13:33). Not even going to state the obvious observation there.

You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

Disagree. If it's to be a game, then let's be done with it. This argument is brought out when people ask why God doesn't clean up the world that He created, and the 'frightening' answer is that, if He were to, He has a big broom and many are going into the pail. If that's where we're to end up anyway, what's the point of waiting? And He knows which clay pots are common and which are for parties, and so it would save Him some time and anguish as well. I'm always put off by that argument, and though I know that lmp is not saying this, but I cannot but hear the words from my childhood when I asked inconvenient questions in church, "Sit down and shut up!"

And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?).

Hmmmmm...... I think that science can function quite readily within the framework of not dealing with the existence of God. I think that science can function just as well from a belief in God. Belief in God erases not a single scientific law. So yes, we do have the ability to live in both worlds, if I understand you rightly (not entirely convinced I do...).

Mostly agreed. One can believe in a god or gods, but also cannot bring them in to naturalistic explanations nor submit extra- or supernatural explanations and still call it science.

No, it was not hot, but it was very green. I was 'outside' myself for a time and looking in on the scene below. Everything looked quite green, and there was a sense that my very being was made up of 'green-ness' if you can understand what they might feel like! I had a sense of absorption, of my eyes slowly losing their sight, my ears losing their hearing and my voice becoming smaller and smaller. Of being taken back into something bigger, like an egg going back into the ovary or a leaf going back into the branch it sprung from.

Not to offend, but I'm reminded of the Mel Brooks "History of the World: Part I" movie. And not sure what exactly you are describing, and so will not make judgment. My point is that nde is not a 'there and back again' experience.

If this were the case, then all those people who have never heard of Jesus, or who lived before Jesus, would be automatically excluded- which would be quite unjust indeed.

The usual explanation is that they have the light of creation to point them to God, and that all will be judged by what they have received.

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God.

I assume that you mean that church is not necessary for salvation, but belief in Jesus is (John 14:6)?

Great conversation, great posts (liked the poem, lmp! and in my dreams I post like davem and have the fire of Formendacil) and hope that no toes have been stepped upon.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

I assume that you mean that church is not necessary for salvation, but belief in Jesus is (John 14:6)?

Not at all... What is the Church but a group of believers in Jesus- who follow a codified form of his teachings?

No, what I mean is that ANYONE can get into Heaven, can receive Salvation, be they Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist... atheist. For all that WE on earth know, Hitler and Stalin made it into Heaven! I'm a little skeptical about either of those, but my point is that God sees our hearts, and allows us into Heaven based on what He sees there- not on what we do or profess.

What we do or profess, however, generally shows what's in our Hearts... A Christian wanting to get to Heaven, who is living his/her life as best as he/she can, is generally distinguishable from someone who claims to care, but doesn't give a rat's whisker.

Likewise, there are many non-Christians who are more likely to get into Heaven than some of those not-so-Christian Christians.

Faith in Jesus, belief in Jesus, is a tremendous asset to getting there, to be sure, as is the following of His teachings. A failure to do so, if one knows about those teachings, will likely count against you. But it is a merciful God who judges us, and EVERYTHING will be laid in the scales.

[Kath]

Form I'm not sure that what you are saying is the accepted view of the Church. I'm pretty sure the general idea is that you have to believe in Jesus to get into Heaven. Therefore, you could have lived your life as a Jew, but could only go to Heaven if by the end of it you had accepted Jesus as being the son of God who sacrificed himself for mankind. Otherwise you get nothing.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Kath

Form I'm not sure that what you are saying is the accepted view of the Church. I'm pretty sure the general idea is that you have to believe in Jesus to get into Heaven. Therefore, you could have lived your life as a Jew, but could only go to Heaven if by the end of it you had accepted Jesus as being the son of God who sacrificed himself for mankind. Otherwise you get nothing.

The accepted view of the Church, and by the Church, I mean the Catholic Church, is not that one HAS to be Catholic (or Christian) to get into Heaven. Possibly, the way I try to describe and word it isn't exactly something that a Bishop would be willing to put the Nihil Obstat to, but as far as I am aware, it does not contradict Church teaching.

After all, are we to believe that a God who willingly accepts even major sinners into Heaven, for a small act of repentance on their deathbeds would turn away a, let's say a Moslem, who had all his life lived according to his religion as best he could, who had followed the promptings of his conscience, done as much Right and as little Wrong as he was able, and had loved, been loved, and done his best to pass on what he knew to the next generation- can we honestly believe that a loving God, who loves ALL his children, would condemn to Hell those who had not chosen to follow His Son?

Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has. But it is not a REQUIREMENT to get into Heaven. If I take the position that one HAS to be Christian to get into Heaven, then logically I ought to be saying "well, if you aren't Catholic, then you won't get into Heaven" - and where does that leave our Orthodox and Protestant brethren.

To know who Jesus was, to know He existed, and to deliberately reject Him is an entirely different matter than never choosing to become Christian, be it for cultural, personal, or apathetic reasons. Christianity preaches of a merciful God. It is not within our abilities to say that His mercy is limited by anything.

Mind you, this is my interpretation of what I know of Church teaching. To try and get to Heaven without the Church- knowing that it is the best way there- is to scorn the Church, and therefore to scorn the Body of Christ. But to not be a member of the Church should not, if a condition born of ignorance, misunderstanding, a lack of reason to join, or failure on the part of the Church, should NOT be an obstacle to Salvation.