Of another world

[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.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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?

Now c'mon Form! You can't be serious! And this is not a point of an afterlife or something like that - for that, I think well all have freedom (within cultural constraints) to believe what we will. But really: a christian, believing in one God - or a moslem, believing in one God - what's the difference? If you look at the history of these religions, none! Only Islam is the updated version of Christianity - so being a Christian is kind of using Windows 98 still? You can't be serious about this Hell-stuff anyways. That's just a puerile-metaphysical-void-nightmare -thing most people get over with as they grow up...

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.

So you are going to heaven? Which here is the primary motivation in your life: securing yourself, or being good? This I would call something like crooked utilitarianism (which indeed the "golden rule" can be interpreted as too?). So you are "offered benefits"? Like the store that gives you three for the price of two? Which one do you see better in moral sense: the one that does good without believing to be paid for it, or the one awaiting a nice return?

Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it.

And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here? Without a border / end, there is no sense or meaning. Aristotle is the basic philosopher of Thomism - which is the fundamental philosophy of Catholicism. But if you look at Aristotle (Metaphysics, book II), he himself clearly says, that without presuming finity, there are no reasons and no sense in anything...

Well, we could delve into these argumets for a while - and in some sense, I would like to do it, as I believe in shared points more than anyone's private revelations or daydreams. But at the same time, I'm a bit ashamed, calling Aristotle to be my witness in this case - as that is not the way, a rational person would go for his/her case. The dogma can't be the decisive factor, the reason could be it? So if Aristotle is something to lean on, it should be not, because his name was Aristotle, but because his arguments make sense even today (and sorry St. Thomas, this nut you never cracked!).

With all the love.