Of another world

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?).

I get what you're saying....

But what if your chance to move on the next level is determined by what you do in this one?

To use the Werewolf analogy, if this is all we get, then at the end of Day 1, we all die- good or evil- it doesn't matter. All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

Perhaps so...

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.

And that, as I see it, the great difference between Christianity and other faiths: Christianity has a "Great Proof": the Resurrection. Scholars, historians, and others deny that Christ was ever raised, because to admit it undermines everything they say about Christianity in general. Rightly or wrongly, they HAVE to hold to that position if Christianity is to be disproved. No other faith has a singular "Great Proof" of the same nature.

[littlemanpoet]

I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"

God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted. I've outlined this in a previous post.

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

As to the Flood - I think the problem we have is not simply that God killed evil people, but that He killed everybody & everything - including children & animals.

To your final point, 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. If killing en masse, holocausts, 'ethnic cleansing' are wrong they are wrong - whoever does them. If those rules, that moral code, has been laid down by God He cannot simply ignore it when it suits. Jesus exhorts his followers to 'be like their Father in Heaven'. God cannot simply start over by mass slaughter of sentient beings. Giving free will to his children places a responsibility on Him.

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.

Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the Hebrews had inherited the tale of the Flood & attempted to account for it by involving God in it. Unfortunately, it makes God look bad. Or rather, it required them to make the victims look bad, so that they 'deserved' what they got.

In other words, we are not 'setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims', we are simply requiring God to abide by the standards He Himself gave us.

What we come back to is the question of whether whatever God does is 'Good' simply because He does it, or whether there is an objective standard of morality which God also is bound - ie, not 'whatever God does is Good', but 'God only does Good because He acts within the moral code'. But what if He doesn't act within the Moral code - can His actions still be considered 'good'?

The problem I have with your argument is that we can never know where we stand with God, or what constitutes 'Good' at all. It makes God an amoral, arbitrary figure, who just does whatever the hell He wants & declares it 'Good'.

Belief or unbelief are choices.

No they aren't - unless belief is irrelevant to anything. Belief/unbelief is not like the choice between coffee or tea. Belief is a response, not a choice, & therefore it must be a response to something. It is a spiritual state or it is nothing worth bothering about. To just sort of shrug your shoulders & say 'Oh well, why not - I've nothing better to do' trivialises the whole thing. For me to decide now 'I'll believe in God' when I feel nothing of the sort is as valueless as my deciding 'I'll believe in aliens' or 'I'll believe in reincarnation' or 'I'll believe the moon's made of green cheese' ('whatever the scholars or the evidence says').

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"

I don't blame God for destroying what He created. His rules, rewards and penalties. Interesting though is that in this case mankind was drowned but not given a chance to be immersed in water in a completely different fashion, like by John the Baptizer. 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? We have God stating that by living by the Law one can "live" (Leviticus 18:5), yet later in Romans we learn it's really all about faith in the Lord, or having faith in the Law, or... even those who 'naturally' conform to the unknown Law are saved. Or not.

My point is that those drowned people, like the other others that are seen in the Old Testament, are beyond redemption (or at least that's how I read it). It's not until later that Paul tells us that the 'Tetragrammaton' is not only the God of Abraham but of all humans. It's just confusing. And even more disturbing is that after all of that death, we still have sin (Gen 9:20), so what really was the point?

Genesis 10 lets us know where each tribe came from, all from Noah. Later in the Old Testament we will have kinslaying, as all of these tribes are family. 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.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.

Someone once said, that if your belief system is what's keeping you here, then by all means, keep believing! And note that I've read about people that existed thousands of years ago, and so even though they might be dead, they still have made an impact on my life. And from a biological POV, my immortality is in my children (it's also most likely to be the cause of my mortality... ).

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".

I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.

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?

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.

I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical.

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted.

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God.

This kind of argument rings of a particularly nasty version of western individualism. I'm not thinking, that individualism as such is bad - quite on the contrary - but only, that we have kind of unleashed a beast with it here in the west. That one seems to be a cornerstone of much of modern spirituality as well...

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?

All this wrong and evil.

And HE knew it already with HIS foresight? So was it good and loving FATHER'S move to give people free will? Just to test the individualistic actors (mostly self-centered males) with the murder, rape and anything you can come up with, acted against equally precarious souls of others???

I just can't see the point... not to speak of love.

[davem]

I have to say I go along with Nogrod here - where's the freedom & freewill of the victims? If so-&-so is merely acting with his God-given freewill when he punches me on the nose, where is my freedom not to be punched?

It seems that God has specifically arranged things so that the offenders have all the freedom & the good have none. As to punishment after death it seems merely vindictive. The only value in punishment is as a deterent - either of the perpetrator or of others who may be considering similar bad behaviour, but punishment after death in Hell can achieve neither of these things as for the perpetrator its too late to be deterred & no-one in this world can be deterred, because they don't witness the punishment.

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good. If He's only going to intervene when its too late He should just forget it & find something useful to do.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

How about the one with the most convincing proofs?

I suspect I'm going to be told that this is "subjective" or "personal"...

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?

Well, you are correct, Jesus did bring Himself back. That, in and of itself, does not imply that He did not have help. But consider that He said that He would "raise Himself up"- and then he comes back to life. No one else raised to life, such as Lazarus, made that claim before or after being raised.

Furthermore, though raised, Lazarus and all those others who were restored to life must still face death again. In the case of Jesus, that is not so. It is an eternal Resurrection.

I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical.

Well, you CAN refute it if you choose to. That just doesn't mean that the argument you are using is more rational. It may be more convoluted or complicated, but you (I mean "you" in a not-necessarily-you sense) HAVE to go along with it if you don't want to accept Jesus.

Holocaust deniers are an excellent example. They are denying that something actually happened, explaining it away using means that, we who accept it as historical fact, would find rather... silly.

What's more, I'd be more than a little curious to see/read any of these "simpler explanations".

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional.

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

That's one thing I love about the Christians - and that said with no sarcastic overtones. I couldn't think of the kind of reaction from people of some other faiths... but could think of it from still certain other belief-systems.

I hope, it's the questions that do the "battle" here (I haven't yet have time to read all of the correspondence here - not to talk of you people discussing earlier about these topics - which you surely have done, I just "hunch" it) - for my part it is just that way. And even if we never know, how other people take different inquiries and questionings, I still think, that honest questions are worth more than multiple muddied or unthought of answers...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'.

Thinking on this was a way I could drive myself insane. .... until a certain experience that changed everything. My sense of continuous serial longevity (remember that?) was a feeling of the Void; just me and foreverness. I could imagine God there, but could never really connect. Until a certain experience. It can still sometimes still give me the heeby jeebies, but not for long.

Originally Posted by davem

It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.

No. God wants every last one of his children to experience eternal life to its fullest, but he wants relationships. That necessitates free choice. Free choice requires that his children must be allowed to choose against Him. It's the nature of reality. There is love, and the absence of love. There is God, and the absence of God. It had to be that way.

I find Meister Eckhart's thought to be too divorced from reality. It doesn't present God the way the Bible presents God. The Bible's God is more real, more emotional, more personal.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect.

I understand the sense of relief you feel; however, relief is not the same as joy.

As to the existence of a Satan, the gospels record Jesus as having spoken of a real being whom he called Satan.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Christianity is not first of all a religion. It has taken that shape, and more's the pity. The Church, which is what Christ instituted, is a living, breathing organism ..... which also has gotten confused with the organized thing that works sometimes better, sometimes heinously .... but the Church that Christ instituted, the real one, is where the Faith of Jesus Christ really resides. Quite often that merges and overlaps with the various organized religious bodies professing to be Christianity, but not necessarily.

Science deals in the natural world, that which is repeatably provable in terms of controlled tests verified by the five senses. It cannot prove anything in terms of Christianity. Nor need the Church bother itself with railing against the theories currently in vogue in Science. The two realms do not overlap. I read in my newspaper how a scientific experiment was done to determine the benefit of prayer for surgery patients, with a control group and all. The experiment showed that those who knew they were being prayed for had more problems than those who didn't know. Does this prove that prayer doesn't work? It doesn't prove that it doesn't work, nor that it does, because prayer is a thing directly connected with God. God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way.

I have a lot more to catch up on, it seems. I shall return. (up to 113)

[drigel]

nice discussions here. this violates my general social rule of never discussing politics or religion, but..

Originally Posted by davem
The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'.

IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....

Originally Posted by Littlemanpoet:
God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way.

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?

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....

But then what you mean by an 'afterlife' would bear no relation to what we know, or could possibly conceive of. How, then could you feel any desire for it? Such an afterlife is a meaningless, abstract, concept as far as I'm concerned. What you seem to be suggesting is something that bears no relation to Human existence as we know it at all, & in such a state we wouldn't actually remain 'human' in any recognisable sense. Whatever we were we wouldn't be ourselves, but some kind of multi-dimensional consciousness. Hence 'you', the person who lives your life now, likes the particular type of food you do, has the interests, loves, hates, hopes & fears you have, would be gone forever. Whatever survived into this afterlife, it wouldn't be you any longer.

I'm not sure non-existence isn't preferable...

[drigel]

But then what you mean by an 'afterlife' would bear no relation to what we know, or could possibly conceive of. How, then could you feel any desire for it? Such an afterlife is a meaningless, abstract, concept as far as I'm concerned. What you seem to be suggesting is something that bears no relation to Human existence as we know it at all, & in such a state we wouldn't actually remain 'human' in any recognisable sense.

Interesting question. For myself, it was a subject I was trying to approach in a non-demoninational way, I suppose. And yes, those terms (that describe our physical universe) would have no meaning at all. Yet, I believe that does not deprive my existence in the afterlife of meaning. Abstract - yes absolutely, in terms of us humans and what our 5 meager senses can fumble about with. Meaningless - absolutely not. Human in any recogizable sense - possibly, but human in terms of 2nd cousin of a chimpanzee, or human in terms of Athens, Tchaikovsky, Bhudda, the Pyramids of Giza, et al? What I am driving at is that my spirit that is housed in my human body is both what defines me as human, yet cannot be defined by humans.

Can one define heaven? It seems to me that by taking the definition that you described of an afterlife, I would agree with your initial conclusion: going on forever and ever drifting on a cloud, sitting at the mead table of my forefathers, perpetually out hunting in Elysium for the Divine Kine, even the 34 virgins.... would get a little stale after a while. Joining with departed loved ones and the body/spirit of God for Christians is what I expect most would define as heaven. But then (IMO) creation is of the body of God, all its dimensions and realities. Yet I feel I still have meaning in the midst of that.

Hence 'you', the person who lives your life now, likes the particular type of food you do, has the interests, loves, hates, hopes & fears you have, would be gone forever. Whatever survived into this afterlife, it wouldn't be you any longer.

I agree with you surprisingly in the former, but not the latter. There is no flesh. My soul cannot be vanquished. The Fire remains.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by drigel

nice discussions here. this violates my general social rule of never discussing politics or religion, but..

I hear that, yet, like a hole left by a plucked tooth, can't but help sticking my tongue in it...

IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....

How can we know about something, assuming that this supernatural/nonphysical God has spoken to us about it through whatever means, that is completely supernatural or nonphysical and have any chance of understanding it, let alone hearing it? You speak of quanta and physics, and though we can believe (I guess) that God isn't bound by any constraints, we are, and so there has to be some way of getting all of that supernatural information into this world of atoms.

My point is that God may be The Light unto the World, but that light is made up of photons, and that light will bend due to gravitational forces. You have no idea, as does anyone else, how all of that supernatural stuff works, and I wonder if we've even heard its description right, as things could have been garbled in the translation.

The other problem is how all of that non quantum stuff works. You see why scientists don't spend much time looking for invisible odorless fireless dragons in your garage.

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?

I agree that science cannot rule out the existence of a higher power, but they can comment on the possibility.

[drigel]

How can we know about something, assuming that this supernatural/nonphysical God has spoken to us about it through whatever means, that is completely supernatural or nonphysical and have any chance of understanding it, let alone hearing it?

Faith, belief, or *insert other transpersonal belief descriptor here*

You speak of quanta and physics, and though we can believe (I guess) that God isn't bound by any constraints, we are, and so there has to be some way of getting all of that supernatural information into this world of atoms.

We humans are constrained. But, after I shed my raiment I am not constrained.

My point is that God may be The Light unto the World, but that light is made up of photons, and that light will bend due to gravitational forces. You have no idea, as does anyone else, how all of that supernatural stuff works, and I wonder if we've even heard its description right, as things could have been garbled in the translation.

NICE. I would submit that what we know of light today will be different than what we know of light tommorow. It still doesnt matter to me. What our science understands today, or a thousand years from now, we will still be merely scratching at the surface.

The other problem is how all of that non quantum stuff works. You see why scientists don't spend much time looking for invisible odorless fireless dragons in your garage.

But science IS working all the time on quantum, because they realize the laws that are set up now do not work out right. Science is struggling getting out of the flat world when it comes to advanced physics. "dark matter", "dark energy" "black holes" etc are descriptive terms that are should be saying to you that, like "planet X", they know somethings amiss, but havent quite been able to trap that dragon.

I agree that science cannot rule out the existence of a higher power, but they can comment on the possibility.

but most dont. I can comment on the possiblity of invisible odorless firelss dragons as well. but, thats silly isnt it? Yet I still contemplate the existance of one, and would love very much to sit down and converse with him/her. And still my head does not explode at the dichotomy....

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

And yes, those terms (that describe our physical universe) would have no meaning at all. Yet, I believe that does not deprive my existence in the afterlife of meaning. Abstract - yes absolutely, in terms of us humans and what our 5 meager senses can fumble about with. Meaningless - absolutely not. Human in any recogizable sense - possibly, but human in terms of 2nd cousin of a chimpanzee, or human in terms of Athens, Tchaikovsky, Bhudda, the Pyramids of Giza, et al? What I am driving at is that my spirit that is housed in my human body is both what defines me as human, yet cannot be defined by humans.

This focus on 'spirit' as opposed to matter makes me a bit uncomfortable. Christianity has always tended to reject the 'flesh' in favour of the 'spirit', yet ironically it is the unique emphasis that Christianity placed on redemption of the flesh & the resurrection of the body that makes it unique. Christianity actually seems to offer an afterlife very close to this one, rather than an eternity as a bodiless 'spirit'. It is this raising up of matter (symbolised by the ascension of Christ & Mary in bodily form into Heaven) that is its uniqueness. Both the Gnostics & the Cathars were considered heretics precisely because they denied the flesh & considered it to be evil, a prison holding the 'pure' spirit.

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

Williams taught the 'Affirmation of the Images' - seeing the creation as a means to God, rather than as an obstacle. The creation reveals God, rather than hiding Him. However, the Church has never been truly comfortable with this approach.

Lewis makes an interesting comment in his introduction to The Great Divorce:

I think earth, of chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region of Hell: & earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

But this still puts Earth second, sees it as a separate thing, because one is required to reject it in order to possess it in the end. For Williams the Creation was divine, a revelation of God.

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.

My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get, though there may be some 'being' which has my existence as part of its memories. From that perspective it is irreleevant whether that being/consciousness is a separate entity from God, or merely a collection of images/memories in the mind of God - it won't be 'me'. Even if I did experience bodily resurrection that being would not be 'me' either - it may be 'me'+' but it will not be me as I am, as I recognise myself to be.

Of course, it could be argued that the Frog is the tadpole, the Butterfly is the caterpillar, the Oak tree is the acorn, so maybe in a sense that 'me'+' will still be 'me' but at a different stage of growth. Then again it may not. All I can actually know is what I am now, because this is me - the only me I can conceive or know. & this me ends when I die.

[drigel]

great post davem! I admire your writing and thinking abilities.

It's all a very personal subject, and I don't expect anyone else to make sense of my perspective.

Both the Gnostics & the Cathars were considered heretics precisely because they denied the flesh & considered it to be evil, a prison holding the 'pure' spirit.

Considered heretics by those who of course are convinced that only their way is the true way. This is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.

But this still puts Earth second, sees it as a separate thing, because one is required to reject it in order to possess it in the end.

I agree. As to that quote - are we not seperate as well? Seperate from both good and evil? We are both, never entirely one, or the other.

My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get

I respect that view. I have that view at times, but I always eventually become aware, or reminded of, the idea that I have always had: that inside us is a spark, an inheritance of a divine, inviolate, indomitable flame that does have meaning, and that is the reason we are what we are, and not swinging from trees or being eaten by hyienas. From that spiritual awareness, I have the foundation to the tower of my beliefs.

[davem]

I know what you mean - the 'Light' behind the world - I don't dismiss mystical perception, the sense that there is more to 'reality', whether that one means an experience of a 'deeper', underlying reality, or simply a deeper experience of this reality.

But there's a difference between that kind of experience & simply 'believing' something you've been told or read. Experience is true, what we are told may or may not be. The other problem with organised belief systems is that they exclude those who do not, or cannot simply believe what they are told. In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.

So, you can have experiences where you may forget your everyday self for a time & feel like you've 'awakened' from a 'dream', yet both the awakened one & the 'dreamer' are you, so in that sense I can see where you're coming from. However, it is the 'dreamer' who is the real us in a sense (despite what the mystics say) because the 'dream' is what we live most of the time - the 'dream' is 'home'. ('We Tooks & Brandybucks cannot live too long on the heights.' - & we probably aren't meant to - Chesterton said 'One sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak.' The great value of this 'dream' is that it teaches us humility.)

[drigel]

Exquisitely put, good sir!

But there's a difference between that kind of experience & simply 'believing' something you've been told or read. Experience is true, what we are told may or may not be. The other problem with organised belief systems is that they exclude those who do not, or cannot simply believe what they are told. In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.

Concurrence and huzzah

because the 'dream' is what we live most of the time - the 'dream' is 'home'.

from our human frame of reference YES undoubtedly. But only in our perception of it. But, quantum and forever and reality at this point become meaningless, no?

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

from our human frame of reference YES undoubtedly. But only in our perception of it. But, quantum and forever and reality at this point become meaningless, no?

I suppose. But I'm not sure I'd want to live outside 'our human frame of referrence' for any length of time. The 'glimpses' are fascinating, but I suppose I'm just too much of a Hobbit. This is where the funny stuff is, the homely stuff, the sit-coms, the books, the nights in with a beer & a video.

Or maybe I'm just getting too old for 'Adventures'

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

So why does the pig suddenly become 'clean' after the resurrection - cf Peter's dream which I referred to earlier?

Because the death and resurrection of Jesus fulfills all the Law. Like the sacrificial sheep of Leviticus, He became unclean by shedding his blood, and being without sin, and being God, his death renders all uncleanness redeemed ..... if those we claim it. But the resurrection is God's victory over the sting of death, which is sin.

The reason for uncleanness laws in the Old Testament was so that the people of Israel could have kept before them tangibly that humans (and therefore they themselves) were fallen. It's not a matter of value or worth, being clean or unclean, but a matter of condition before God. Maybe everybody here understands that, but I just wanted to be sure.

Originally Posted by davem

This is what worries me about all believers - if the Bible ... says one thing, & the 'scholars' (basing their statements on ... archaeology, historical record, common sense) say different the text is given primacy & the scholars "either dismissed as fools or sent to the stake[sic]".

They shouldn't be dismissed, not even if their motivations are less than perfect. It does indeed come down to a matter of whether one is a "person of the Book" or a "person the World". This is not meant as a pejorative, but a naming of which place you choose to place greater authority. The problem I have with the World is that it is all based on human knowledge, we hope the best there is. The Bible is (as I see it) God's revelation, and that makes all the difference. I understand that you see the Bible as just one more piece of human knowledge, and therefore I can't blame you for understanding things the way you do. Makes lots of sense if you come from that point of view. However, I have found that acknowledging the Bible to be God's revelation, has brought much that was at war in me, to peace; much that had been cowardly, to courage; much that had been bitter and full of resentment, to compassion; much that had been depressive and unremitting gloom, to joy. What in this world has the power to do that in a human life? I don't know. But I do know that the Person presented in the Bible has done this in mine.

Originally Posted by davem

The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit.

Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.

Originally Posted by davem

Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.

Belief is unavoidable. Every human chooses to believe something. The content of my belief is as I have stated in many posts on this thread. Yours is as you have stated.

But regarding my seeming cop-out. I was using short-hand. I am not an anti-intellectual. I was referring to certain scholars who refuse to accept the historicity of pretty much any of the old testament writings. That seems like a benighted point of view, and the one to which I was referring. There are plenty of scholars who make no such refusal.

By the way, there are a few scholars who have written about how the resurrection is the best answer to fit the facts. One is Malcom McDowell; but a more insightful and thoroughgoing writer on this topic is N.T. Wright. He's really worth a look. He's Church of England, and I believe he's with Oxford or another of the major British Universities. But I digress.....

I think you mean not simple belief, but belief based on an authority found in a text as opposed to the authority of experience by means of evidence and proven experiment. But you should know that the more we learn through our experience, and through evidence of experiment, the more we realize how much there is we don't know ... and can't know through these means. One must choose one's beliefs, because science and mere experience can't take you where the questions we can't help asking ourselves, takes us.

..... and at this point I finally come full circle to Tolkien. It is story and poetry that can take us there. Tolkien's story does take us there, and it's a great part of what draws us to LotR and The Silmarillion. Tolkien wrote about real things and we are rewarded by entering into Middle Earth in ways that we can't even write about successfully, and we are rewarded with riches we can't even explain. Tolkien's stories do this for us. The stories in the bible also do this, but not for everyone; not for those for whom the bible feels alien because it has become tied to negative correlations in our own lives that we don't even understand. (up to 116)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose. But I'm not sure I'd want to live outside 'our human frame of referrence' for any length of time. The 'glimpses' are fascinating, but I suppose I'm just too much of a Hobbit. This is where the funny stuff is, the homely stuff, the sit-coms, the books, the nights in with a beer & a video.

Or maybe I'm just getting too old for 'Adventures'

Do you want to know what you reminded me of, Davem, while I was at choir practice tonight? (A frivolous fact, that, but I felt like pointing out that I was thinking about this thread when I should have been concentrating on better and more profitable things. Ah well, time well wasted...) Anyway, here it is...

Your attitude towards the afterlife really reminds me of being about age 8. Not with regards to the afterlife- I don't think that ever bothered me one way or antother- but with regards to "growing up".

When I was young, say anytime before I was "grown up" (yes, that sounds just a LITTLE funny coming from a 19-year-old), whenever I seriously pondered "what's it going to be like as adult?" I was scared stiff. I didn't WANT to grow up. I was scared of having to drive, having to pay bills, having to live on my own. For that matter, having to go up the till and pay for groceries on my own scared me.

But, now that I am grown up, does any of that scare me? None of that stuff does. And for good reason too, for I am no longer a child (geezer though I have yet to become). The things that a child cannot do or would fine hard and strange to do are natural now. The thought of living on my own, so terrifying to a child, is now liberating.

And I am inclined to believe that the Afterlife shall be the same. Of course it can scare us right now. We are not "old" enough yet (ie. we aren't dead). Until such time as we pass from this life, it is natural for us to consider the Earth home, and to not want to move out. But the time will come for each of us, at a time that is right for each of us, to "move out".

And just as I no longer wish to go back to being a child, not seriously, having experienced life as an adult- not wanting to go back to the immaturity, weakness, and inexperience of a child- I do not think that, when we are in Heaven, we shall find it less than, or worse than, the Earth. It shall be different-- and yet better and the same.

As an example, when I was little, I was a big LEGO fan. I dreaded the day that would come when I would no longer enjoy it, when all those hours of "meaningful" play would no longer interest me at all.

Well, guess what? I've grown up, and my LEGO is still my favourite hobby. In the same way, I think we'll find a lot more of what we have here will be there- we just may not see it the same way.

[davem]

Of course belief is necessary – we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes.

Experience of the transcendent, on the other hand, is a different thing, & has nothing to do with belief. Of course, books (whether novels or sacred' texts) may open us up to an experience of higher/deeper aspects/levels of 'reality'. This is the Eucatastrophic experience. But just as the fact that we can experience this through Tolkien's works but this does not prove that they are literally true history I would say the same about the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. I'm not arguing that you don't experience 'transcendence' through the words of the Bible, I'm just arguing that that doesn't prove its historical veracity.

Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up – it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course belief is necessary – we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

You say 'believe' but it's not the same. You may have faith that the cables will hold, the sun will rise and that the drivers will wait (that's my hardest one to accept ), but this faith/believing is based on experience. The first time you get on an escalator, you might be afraid as the thing looks to be a large set of teeth. The person who may be accompanying you, a parent perhaps, may also be apprehensive as he/she may not have taken one so small onto one of the things. It's practice and repeated affirmation that makes escalator...well...pedestrian and eventually unnoticed. That's definitely not blind faith.

Formendacil speaks of apprehension of becoming an adult, and many of us have been there. Getting married, having children (I'm a goof! yet now have four little ones dependent on me - how screwed up is that?), experiencing the loss of a parent (you can't go home anymore) - it's all about dealing with change. But his analogy, like many (and by no fault of his), falls short. We have seen others grow to adulthood and experience all that that offers and entails. Some of us have even seen people die, and so know what that looks like.

But who has seen what happens after?

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.

But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes.

People state that belief in the supernatural by peoples across the globe must mean that there's something to it. Each culture can point and say, "see, we all have God in our hearts" or something. Another possible, and more probable, explanation is that a 'believing' brain imparted a survival advantage to our early ancestors. Guessing, intuition, a 'religion' when practiced would allow for a tribe to survive better than one that had to have everything weighed to a nicety. The obvious advantage is that a leader of such a people could get the tribe to accept hardship for the promise of something better later.

And, like davem states, this hardwiring can get used and abused in all sorts of ways. Think that the whole advertising industry takes advantage of this inherited trait.

Hope that that makes some sense.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up – it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals.

No, I'm inclined to think otherwise...

The afterlife is no more optional than adulthood- it's going to happen eventually. Just like the body inevitably matures, we all inevitably die. However, just as actually growing up- with regards to one's brain or maturity- isn't an automatic process, since people often tend to remain immature and childless past the time they OUGHT to become mature adults, I suppose it's possible for you to "refuse to grow up" or "refuse to have an afterlife"- but quite frankly, I don't think it's optional. You had to grow up, like it or not, and you have to go somewhere after death.

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).

Personally, it all seems a lot of hassle. If it happens it happens, if it doesn't, fine. I can't help feeling that if people were less obsessed with the idea we'd all be a lot better off - it would probably get rid of suicide bombers at a stroke, as they all seem to be obsessed with getting to heaven & collecting their Houris at the gate..

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).

I've observed the same, and it's interesting that younger people may be drawn to the elves as they are both immortal and (at least) outwardly beautiful (if not perfect). Also, younger people have less of a sense of their own mortality which is what fuels the crazy (and sometimes destructive) behavior.

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.

Much agreed. Religion/belief systems aren't responsible for all of the problems that we experience in this world, and I think that it's just that animal inside us. Some choose to point at the devil as the cause for such evils, and like our discussion about God, I think that this incarnate evil is just another convenient excuse that creates a certain world view.

[drigel]

Originally Posted by alatar

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.

speak for yourself not that im fixated with, or even have a concrete opinion of an afterlife...
I think the whole escape thing is what younger people are drawn towards with the works. It did for me anyways.
I just think elves have far more interesting lives

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined.

Well, loser is perhaps not the best word to use... but one should remember that from my perspective there IS an afterlife, and it IS worth attaining. Therefore, those who strive for it and don't attain it are, from that point of view, losers.

But my basic point- with regards to that- is that it doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife or not. Either way, either everyone gets it or everyone doesn't.

As regards the new- and intriguing- "Teenagers Are Attracted to Youth", I think there may be a good deal of truth in the suggestion that the immortality is what attracts the Young to the Elves. Now, while it may sound rather silly for me- as a 19 year old- to go putting myself in the Elderly Camp, I've found that, as I age, and as I realize the inevitability of death (attending funerals on a regular basis will do this even to the Young), I've also come to realise what a GIFT it is. Christian Theology being in agreement or not, life as we live it in this Fallen state, Death is a release, an end to the weariness of this fallen world...

... and so the Elves still intrigue me. But not because they live for ever, but because I'm beginning to sympathise with their envy of the Gift of Men. I think my choice would have been the Choice of Elros.

[davem]

I'm not denying the 'transcendent' experience. I've personally experienced things, met beings, inhabitants of other 'realities' - which I've mentioned before. I've had moments where, for want of a better term, I've glimpsed 'eternity'.

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to

classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

As to the 'Choice of Elros' - I think I'd choose mortality too - even if I knew that there was nothing after death.

Anyway...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Cause and effect... that's how this world works. People save money for DECADES before they retire- because of the adverse consequences and because they know they'll need it. As for the Afterlife being "wholly other", I wouldn't call that a truly Christian dogma. What we shall live in the Afterlife will, in my view, be similar to and much the same as what we have now- only BETTER, more perfect.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is.

Tinted lenses... or corrective lenses. I would say that belief acts much the way glasses do: they correct our vision, and bring things into a more correct focus. Yes, we see the world differently- but we are also better off.

It attempts classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Humans in general like to pigeonhole things... and it's not necessarily a good tendency. Quite frankly, I would say that Good and Evil cannot be pigeonholed, because both coexist in the same people and situations. We all contain good and we all contain evil. Bad situations can have good side-effects, and the best of situations can have negative impact.

As far as classifying and quantifying the universe goes, religion and science are more alike than either sometimes wishes to think in this matter. It's really only a difference of systems.

[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.

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it

You may have noticed that no one actually does this. They may think they do, but they don't. There are genetic, cultural, familial, and other experiential factors that come into play. For example, that I come from a Dutch, Reformed (protestant Christian) background, am third generation American, all play a role in what I believe. So does the fact that I was introduced to Tolkien's "Riddles in the Dark", the revised version, when I was 8 years old, and found my life changed forever.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Indeed. It shouldn't be an obsession. You have chosen not to think about it, and I have chosen to resolve the issue by deciding to accept Jesus at his word. For both of us it's a done deal (although I hope that you reconsider ). My life is now all about, "what to do now"? Of course, this means for me being aware of God's presence, and living within the "confines" of heaven already.

Originally Posted by davem

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes.

This reminds me of another poem, although it names the problem not belief, but analysis:

I had a moment
clear -
like a water balloon
small as the space between
cupped hands -
big as day.

In and through it I could
taste God and touch being
see all colors of earth, water, sky
smell fresh cut grass and rich loam
hear bird song and squirrel chatter.

With rational blade I took hold
bisected, laid it open to dis-
cover what was inside
dissected to analyze its parts
diced and weighed to evaluate its worth
to discern the whole.

I lost the moment
having never lived it.

© 2001, littlemanpoet

(You may notice that this was written in an "Emily Dickinson" phase )

hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Interesting. It seems that Tolkien's conception of evil was quite complex by comparison, more mature. Though this properly belongs to the "Absolutely Evil" thread, I'll just mention that Tolkien described in LotR that good and evil cut through everyone, rather than any character being clearly good or clearly evil (except perhaps Sauron...?)

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?

This makes sense. But it's an attempt at a psychological explanation for something that doesn't immediately make sense to you. I might prefer to believe that there's more than one road to God, but there's this constant theme repeated by Jesus (who is my God) in all of the gospels: "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of hard for me to argue with that, psychological leanings being what they are....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.

Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

Originally Posted by davem

'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?'

There's only one way you'll ever discover the proof, and that's to take the test.

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

It's not meant to be pejorative. I've been quite honest that "I believe" these things. I've also been forthcoming that "proofs" are quite limited. I'm very aware that all of my beliefs rest on a set of paradigms that I accept, by choice. That's the nature of belief. I don't apologize for what I believe, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Anything I do say by way of answering questions posed to me, is going to come in the context of what I believe.

Originally Posted by davem

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

Not if you believe the human is eternal, which I do. If the human isn't eternal, then there is no worse tragedy, especially since the suffering becomes frankly meaningless. The universe I understand, has at the back of it a God who hungers for all his children to know him, and wants to heal them and give them unimagined joy.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

Originally Posted by davem

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

In the heart of every human.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

One must factor in the increasing knowledge of God over time. The earliest Hebrews didn't understand God as well as, say, Daniel, for whom by that time there had been a good 500 years or more of dealings with God; time to get to know Him better.

God can't be unchanging, or else there could not be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. It amazes me how systematic theologians seem to just blithely pass over this little stumbling block in their understanding of God. God did change.

Originally Posted by alatar

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

To experience real joy in Christ. It took 45 years of living before that happened.

Originally Posted by alatar

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?

It was a rhetorical question that I threw out there somewhat haphazardly. I'm not prepared to back it up with sound argument. Note that in the passage, God is the author both of peace and calamity. Does that bother you? I suppose it might. God's motivation for calamity is to bring his children to him.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

And should never be said to anguished parents. Jesus did alleviate suffering while he was on earth, wherever he found it. It's a Christ-followers role to "be Jesus" to those in anguish, not to offer platitudes, but to be present in the midst of their suffering with them. Bearing another's burdens.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

This is an unnecessary hang-up, my friend. The crucial matter is not its accuracy (even though I do generally accept it as so), but its power to change lives.

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

I answered this. Noah preached righteousness for hundreds of years (according to the account, a good 500), and none turned from their evil ways, not one.

One additional thing: if you want to know what the Christian view of God's character is, it is found in the story of Jesus while he lived on earth.

(up to 155, and I gotta quit) I'll be away at St. Gregory's Abbey in Three Rivers, MI from Sat. noon until Sun. evening, so I'll be away from here for a bit....