Christians, your feelings about obvious sinners believing they'll go to heaven?

[Maastricht]

Inspired by this thread about hell. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=354304)

If Hell exists, some people must qualify to go there, right? Take you instance gangsta-in-the-hood for instance. He grows up; he kills; he sells, and abuses drugs; abuses women and fathers a few kids, badly. Then he gets unlucky and ends up getting shot himself. He dies.
So his family grieve and the undertaker lays him out in a pretty suit and a priest talks at his funeral.

How come no-one, ever, at such gatherings, gatherings that are otherwise big on the religious talk, states it as an obvious truth that the guy who died is a sinner, and by their very own beliefs, can be nowhere other then burning Hell?

[Doctor Who]

How come no-one, ever, at such gatherings, gatherings that are otherwise big on the religious talk, states it as an obvious truth that the guy who died is a sinner, and by their very own beliefs, can be nowhere other then burning Hell?
I'll just give you my 2 cents. Funerals are for the living. They exist to comfort the deceased's surviving friends and family and to provide some form of closure so that the grieving can move forward.

That's why you hear things like "Tupac is with God now." Because the grieving want to know that their loved one has gone on to a higher purpose or a better place. Also if Aunt Betsy thinks she's going to heaven, she might be pretty upset if the preacher told her that gangbanging Uncle Ernest is pushing a stone up a hill for all eternity.

It's all about comforting the living.

- Peter Wiggen

[Doctor Who]

On reflection - I provided my pragmatic and personal view.

It seems that you might be looking for either (a) something akin to a guiding Biblical interpretation or teaching or (b) a concession that Christians are somewhat hypocritical in their application of their beliefs. If the former is the case - and you are looking for an operative doctrinal statement on the matter for Christians, afraid I can't help you there. If you are looking for the latter, take it to GD. They'll hook you up in there. ;)

Also - I didn't mean to disparage Tupac in my last post. Of course, he's going to heaven. Biggie's going to hell. WESTSIDE!

- Peter Wiggen

[Maastricht]

Well, Peter, it's a bit of both. My feeling is b) Christians are somewhat hypocritical in their application of their beliefs. But what I'm curious about is HOW the grieving manage to convince themselves that Tupac's in heaven. It seems to require a negation of everything they've ever been taught in Sunday school.

I'm always interested in peoples rationalizations. They're a dead give-away, and am excellent advance warning system, for real, everyday evil acts about to happen.

And I have no problem whatsoever dissing Tupac. :)

[Northern Piper]

Because most strains of Christians believe that no-one is automatically excluded from the love of God, and also that no-one can know for sure if the deceased was in a state of grace - that's God's call, not ours.

S. Paul summarised it in Romans 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&version=9):34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

...

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think that even those Christians who believe in predestination would not presume to judge whether a deceased was among the elect.

[Martin Hyde]

Well, Peter, it's a bit of both. My feeling is b) Christians are somewhat hypocritical in their application of their beliefs. But what I'm curious about is HOW the grieving manage to convince themselves that Tupac's in heaven. It seems to require a negation of everything they've ever been taught in Sunday school.

I'm always interested in peoples rationalizations. They're a dead give-away, and am excellent advance warning system, for real, everyday evil acts about to happen.

And I have no problem whatsoever dissing Tupac. :)

To echo what Northern Piper said, most Christians don't feel they know the actions of God better than God himself. I could kill a man on Monday and die on Friday and still end up in heaven under the beliefs held by just about every major Christian denomination out there.

So I'm guessing they just assume the best to put a good face on things. A gang-banger isn't necessarily condemned to hell just because he lived a "bad life." That isn't what Christianity is about, redemption is there for everyone, no matter how bad their life was or how heinous their acts.

[FriarTed]

Let us note that the moment some one DOES locate the deceased in Hell, there will definitely be a Pit thread opened!

[irishgirl]

Man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart.

No-one knows absoutely 100% what is going on in the mind of another or where exactly they are in their spiritual journey at any time. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

So, we comfort the family, hope for the best and put it in God's hands, because we don't actually know.

[Captain Oblivious]

As others have stated, only God knows the state of a person's heart, and the funeral is not for the dead guy.

Speaking as a pastor-in-training, my job after the death is to help the family and friends come to terms with the loss of a loved one. This is not done by pointing out the fact that the dead guy was a gang-banger who killed a whole lot of people.

On the other hand, if I encounter this person while they are still alive, and they call themselves a Christian while running around killing people and doing drugs, I am going to call them on it. They need to know that if they are truly a Christian, while they won't be perfect, they need to strive towards perfection, with the help of God. This can't be done by running around doing something that is plainly prohibited in the Bible such as killing people.

My $.02.

Andrew

[amarinth]

Along with what everyone else has said (that we really don't know who's going to heaven and who isn't), my other guess is that you haven't attended the "right" funerals.

In the not-as-distant-as-we'd-like past, people who were assumed hellbound weren't buried in the same way, in the same places, or by the same people as those whose eternal destination was considered to be less questionable. If there were words spoken over them, they would be of the "don't be like John, because he's in the fires of hell right now." In some places, that speech still happens at funerals. There are some pastors who see everything as an altar call.

Also various churches (and church leaders) have rules (or personal limitations) as to whom they will bury.

In other words, your premise is flawed.

[Maastricht]

amarinth, you're correct. I'm Dutch, and seldom attend American gangsta burials. :)
The image of the "glorious gangsta burial" I get from TV.
I'm sure there are other burials where more of an "altar call" is made and the deceased's life is held up as an example not to follow.
But I wonder, how common is that? Applied to murderers? From the answers, I get the feeling that the non-judgmental school of burial speeches is far more common.

Well, my question has been answered, and fairly unanimously at that. Thank you. Personally, I don't like the answer, but that is another matter.

As Captain Oblivious points out, a priest has to choose between comforting the family and making a moral stand, an "altar call" if I may call it so. On the one hand, there's society, and society feels better if Tupac gets his just rewards.

On the other hand there's the family, and they want to be comforted. I can understand that a priest wouldn't want to make Tupacs momma suffer any more then the poor woman already does. But then again, how many of Tupac's ten-year old nephews attend the glorious funeral and want to grow up and be just like him, as a result ? Aren't they family, too?
IMHO, the priest could do some important work here,. Suppose he said: "We don't know if Tupac was one of the chosen ones, if he was in a state of grace. Personally, I doubt it. Drive-by shooting is not an indication of being an elect. But God is the only one in the know. So, if Tupac IS a chosen one, he's sipping tea with God as we speak. If Tupac is not a chosen one, God is probably giving him a good thrashing with the Divine Belt for the next century, after which he will be forgiven and allowed to sip tea with God at long last."

Wouldn't a speech like that sooth Tupac's momma, warn off his nephews, AND make society feel somewhat better? All at the same time?

One last question:
If a priest or pastor says: "Tupac is with God"; will the congregation understand that as:
a. "Tupac is enjoying Heaven" or
b. "Tupac is in God's hand to be dealt with as God sees fit, and that includes being judged and severly punished?"

[CalMeacham]

In H.G. Wells' novel In the Days of the Comet, the protagonist's mom says at one point that she believes in a Hell, but not that anyone would actually go there. In other words, she was a closet Universalist, unable to believe in a God that would really condemn people to eternal punishment for temporal offenses. I suspect a lot of people are, or would be, if pressed.

[chrisk]

How come no-one, ever, at such gatherings, gatherings that are otherwise big on the religious talk, states it as an obvious truth that the guy who died is a sinner, and by their very own beliefs, can be nowhere other then burning Hell?

Okay, well, a few people have mentioned this sidelong... I'll try to pound it on the head.

Haven't been to church in a while myself, but when I did, nobody said, or believed, "there are sinners, and there are non-sinners. Sinners go to hell, non-sinners go to heaven."

More like "We're all sinners. Most of us are really bad sinners. If God was only just, we'd ALL be going to Hell. But God is infinitely merciful as well, and capable of forgiving the worst of sins, if we ask for that forgiveness out of love for him, and a desire to improve ourselves" (etcetera etcetera, this is the same stuff as other posters were talking about as 'being in a state of grace'.)

So, I do think you're the one who's misunderstanding christian beliefs and 'religious talk'

[Tevildo]

Two points, just repeating what others have said already.

All Christian churches that I'm familiar with teach that we're all "obvious sinners", that we all deserve to go to Hell - any sin, great or small, is enough to make us unworthy of salvation. However, God is merciful as well as just, and Jesus' sacrifice means that all our sins, no matter how great, can be forgiven. The conditions in which our sins will be forgiven, unfortunately, is a matter of considerable debate - which leads to my second point:

Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, that ye be not judged". We're not in a position to say that anyone, no matter how wicked or virtuous they've been by human standards, is definitely damned or definitely saved. A priest who says otherwise isn't following the teachings of Jesus.

Of course, this doesn't mean that a particular church is obliged to give everyone a funeral service, just as they're not obliged to marry everyone. Someone who has not lived as part of the Christian community shouldn't, in my opinion, be automatically entitled to be buried among them - after all, they probably wouldn't want to be in the first place. However, this doesn't, or shouldn't, at least, have any bearing on the question of their salvation. That's just between them and God, nobody else is involved.

[Maastricht]

...God is infinitely merciful as well, and capable of forgiving the worst of sins, if we ask for that forgiveness out of love for him, and a desire to improve ourselves" (etcetera etcetera, this is the same stuff as other posters were talking about as 'being in a state of grace'.)


Okay. I think I get it. The worst murderer may be part of Gods bigger plan. Or, God may feel that the murderer did repent, and did try to be good, in his own limited way of understanding. For instance, a boy from the hood may murder to become a respected gangmember, out of a fear that if he doesn't his family will have no life.

So, both the sinners intention and Gods intention count more heavy then the acts we see (and suffer from, as a society).

Right?

[Maastricht]

Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, that ye be not judged". We're not in a position to say that anyone, no matter how wicked or virtuous they've been by human standards, is definitely damned or definitely saved. A priest who says otherwise isn't following the teachings of Jesus.


Would that mean that true Christians oppose a penal system with judges and jurys and prisons?

[Mordib]

do believers not try and lead their lives acording to the the rules they are taught at church because of the end reward of heaven?

if the answers yes then surely the suggestions in this thread show that they are doing so needlessly as your actions on earth do not necesarily translate into your reward/punishment in death.

if the answers no then err... my query is kind of meaningless, beyond suggesting i dont have enough faith in mankinds natural goodness :P

[chrisk]

Okay. I think I get it. The worst murderer may be part of Gods bigger plan. Or, God may feel that the murderer did repent, and did try to be good, in his own limited way of understanding. For instance, a boy from the hood may murder to become a respected gangmember, out of a fear that if he doesn't his family will have no life.

So, both the sinners intention and Gods intention count more heavy then the acts we see (and suffer from, as a society).

Right?

Something like that, yes.

IIRC, most churches do teach that christ's forgiveness does not work as a 'get out of hell free' card, enabling anyone to keep sinning freely. The way I remember this as being put is that if you have come to know god's love, and love him in return, you will WANT to transform your life to make it worthy of him, and thus, fight against sin.

But yes, no-one knows exactly what was going on in that gang members heart, or what temptations (both inborn and circumstantial) might have led him to continue living a violent and brutal life.


Mordib: I think what I said applies to your questions as well. Human beings are not judged by god on their actions, but believers are encouraged to do good works altruistically... as a way of expressing love for their fellow man and to keep others from experiencing suffering.

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic myself, but had an evangelical upbringing and believe I'm competent to explain some of the basics of protestant theology. :D

[Tevildo]

Would that mean that true Christians oppose a penal system with judges and jurys and prisons?
A tricky one. Many groups of Christians over the centuries have denied and opposed the secular authorities, and claimed that their own codes of morality place them above any human law - the Cathars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar) are probably the best-known example.

However, Matthew 7:2 goes on: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shal be measured to you again." That's not too bad a code to live by if we're only facing human justice - it's when we face God's justice that it becomes worrying. There are also various passages (Matthew 22:21 - "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" - comes immediately to mind) which support the idea that Christians should live in accordance with secular law.

do believers not try and lead their lives acording to the the rules they are taught at church because of the end reward of heaven?

if the answers yes then surely the suggestions in this thread show that they are doing so needlessly as your actions on earth do not necesarily translate into your reward/punishment in death.
This, as I understand it, is one of the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism - although I'm sure that one of our Catholic members will correct me if I'm wrong. However, from a Protestant perspective, you're right - our "actions on earth" are entirely irrelevant to our eternal destiny. Protestants don't attempt to live good lives to increase our rewards in Heaven, or our chance of getting there - being virtuous is pleasing to God and makes the world a better place, so that's our motivation for it, but it doesn't affect our ultimate salvation or damnation.

I believe (although I may be, and probably am, wrong) that the Catholic view of this issue is that, although good works on their own aren't sufficient for salvation, doing good does reduce your time in Purgatory, or otherwise make the afterlife less unpleasant than it would be for a (repentant) sinner who had spent most of his life doing evil.

if the answers no then err... my query is kind of meaningless, beyond suggesting i dont have enough faith in mankinds natural goodness
I would say that any faith in mankind's "natural goodness" is too much. :) Mankind's natural evil is far easier to believe in, as a brief survey of history and the world around us should confirm.

[Maastricht]

Chrisk, thanks for the clarification.

I'd like to ask again, to any Christians dropping in, my question upthread:

If a priest or pastor says: "Tupac is with God"; will the congregation understand that as:
a. "Tupac is enjoying Heaven" or
b. "Tupac is in God's hand to be dealt with as God sees fit, and that includes being judged and severly punished?"

[Maastricht]

Tevildo, thanks for presenting the two bible-quotes on both sides of the " should Christians abode my human law" issue.

...This, as I understand it, is one of the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism ..from a Protestant perspective, you're right - our "actions on earth" are entirely irrelevant to our eternal destiny. ... the Catholic view of this issue is that, although good works on their own aren't sufficient for salvation, doing good does reduce your time in Purgatory, or otherwise make the afterlife less unpleasant than it would be for a (repentant) sinner who had spent most of his life doing evil.


Hmm.. I've heard so, too. I attend mob-burials even more rarely then gangsta-burials, ( :) ) But my impression is that there, Catholic though they may be, it's the same thing. If a real-life Tony Soprano dies, I doubt any Catholic priest will say even something subtle as "Let us pray for his soul" which would, at least indicate that his soul could use it.

[amarinth]

One last question:
If a priest or pastor says: "Tupac is with God"; will the congregation understand that as:
a. "Tupac is enjoying Heaven" or
b. "Tupac is in God's hand to be dealt with as God sees fit, and that includes being judged and severly punished?""with God" would tend to imply choice "a" (but, still carry along the disclaimer that we don't really know what's in someone's heart, only God knows and can decide what has happened to his soul. That's a given. Failing to state that is like failing to say "and water is wet" at the end of every sentence. We all know that the pastor/priest doesn't know what's going on with Tupac's soul, we know that the best he/she could possibly do is guess, and that guess is on incredibly flawed information. Just because it isn't said out loud every time doesn't mean that it isn't known.)

If someone were to want to imply "b," the phrase would be "Tupac is now in God's hands." And there's a tone that goes with that statement.

[yBeayf]

From the Prologue from Ohrid, for March 30:

This monk died joyfully because he had never in his life condemned anyone. He was lazy, careless, disinclined to prayer, but throughout his entire life he had never judged anyone. And when he lay dying, he was full of joy. The brethren asked him how he could die so joy-fully with all his sins, and he replied: `I have just seen the angels, and they showed me a page with all my many sins. I said to them: "The Lord said: `Judge not, that ye be not judged.' I have never judged anyone and I hope in the mercy of God, that He will not judge me." And the angels tore up the sheet of paper.' Hearing this, the monks wondered at it and learned from it.

[gigi]

In the not-as-distant-as-we'd-like past, people who were assumed hellbound weren't buried in the same way, in the same places, or by the same people as those whose eternal destination was considered to be less questionable. If there were words spoken over them, they would be of the "don't be like John, because he's in the fires of hell right now." In some places, that speech still happens at funerals. There are some pastors who see everything as an altar call.
See Breaking the Waves for an excellent portrayal of this.

[amarinth]

As Captain Oblivious points out, a priest has to choose between comforting the family and making a moral stand, an "altar call" if I may call it so.An "altar call" is a direct invitation for people to follow Christ (and usually to make a public show of doing so by moving toward the altar) right now.

Saying "X behavior is sinful" is not necessarily an altar call, though often they are combined. Also, comforting someone can become an altar call, too.

The choices at the funeral are not so binary. The officiant choose to say nothing. They could condemn a certain behavior, or they could leave that for another venue. They could condemn the person, or they could leave that for another venue. They could offer words of comfort to the mourners, or they could leave that for another venue. They could just read a generic reading. They could just pray a prayer. They could do any combination of the above.

[Maastricht]

Gigi, I've seen the movie and I know what you mean. The girl in the movie is, on first sight, heavily promiscuous, and she gets condemned for that by her society and her priests. However, she does it out of a kind of love for her husband. The movie has a strong emotional appeal because she doesn't harm anyone but herself with here behavior. I can't say as much for a gangsta who's raping and killing.

But there's always a golden optimum between condemning too much, or for the wrong reasons, and not condemning at all. With the Tupac-example, I believe there's too little condemning going on. Personally, I feel we should try to minimize misery on earth. Condemning harmful behaviour is one of the tools we have to that end, and it is a tool that, IMHO, should be applied with care to have a maximum effect.

Hero worship for thugs like Tupac only encourages impressive young minds to follow in his footsteps. I'd like it a lot if somebody could lessen the perceived desirability of Tupac's behavior. I don't know how that should be done, and I do appreciate the desire not to judge in lieu of God's. But I do feel that church officials neglect a moral responsibility here.

[Uncommon Sense]

We Christians believe that if a person accepts Christ as their savior then they shall be saved. Specifically, if you truly believe that Christ died for your sins then your sins will be forgiven, this is the foundation of accepting Christ as your savior.

[Maastricht]

Uncommon Sense, suppose Tupac had never ever said, or believed, anything to the effect of accepting Jesus as his savior. Then he dies, and after the funeral Tupac's mom asks you if Tupac is in heaven or in hell.
A: where would you, honestly, think Tupac hangs out, and,
B: what would you tell Tupac's mom?

[amarinth]

Hero worship for thugs like Tupac only encourages impressive young minds to follow in his footsteps. I'd like it a lot if somebody could lessen the perceived desirability of Tupac's behavior. I don't know how that should be done, and I do appreciate the desire not to judge in lieu of God's. But I do feel that church officials neglect a moral responsibility here.I think again, you may be confusing real life with the movies. I've never seen a pastor hero worship or glorify gangbanging. Ever. I'm sure it could happen, in fact, if we search long and hard enough, we'll find that pastor. But, in my experience, violence is pretty thoroughly condemned when it comes up in churches. What you're seeing in movies is not really representative.

[Hostile Dialect]

most Christians don't feel they know the actions of God better than God himself

So what's with "This is what God wants for me/him/her/them/us" or Robertsonian condemnations of gays/Jews/Muslims/etc? If Christians can't judge the dead, why can they judge the living?

[YaWanna]

So what's with "This is what God wants for me/him/her/them/us" or Robertsonian condemnations of gays/Jews/Muslims/etc? If Christians can't judge the dead, why can they judge the living?

Just because some of them (us) do it, doesn't mean they (we) are supposed to! The New Testament says (via one of Paul's epistles) that what non-believers do is not our business to judge or condemn.

But Christians do things that they ought not to do, and often don't do things they should - Paul admitted to this himself. Only Christ himself didn't do it, and he's the only perfect example of Christianity. (A lot of people forget this.)

[Maastricht]

I think again, you may be confusing real life with the movies. I've never seen a pastor hero worship or glorify gangbanging. Ever. I'm sure it could happen, in fact, if we search long and hard enough, we'll find that pastor. But, in my experience, violence is pretty thoroughly condemned when it comes up in churches. What you're seeing in movies is not really representative.

Of course not. But the relatives and friends will do their utmost to make light of the deceased's wrongdoings, and they will glorify everything they can.
If a priest stands by that and doesn't speak out, or even frown or look sceptical, then he will seem to approve or agree with everything that is being said.

[Hostile Dialect]

Just because some of them (us) do it, doesn't mean they (we) are supposed to! The New Testament says (via one of Paul's epistles) that what non-believers do is not our business to judge or condemn.

But Christians do things that they ought not to do, and often don't do things they should - Paul admitted to this himself. Only Christ himself didn't do it, and he's the only perfect example of Christianity. (A lot of people forget this.)

Fair enough. I have nothing to say, except that I only wish all Christians had your viewpoint on this.

[Maastricht]

amarinth, I know that the church does condemn violence, in a general way.

So why don't they speak up during a funeral? When they could make a big impact on those present? (IMHO they could do so without unnecessarily hurting the feelings of the people grieving; those probably already know that unca Tupac wasn't a saint).

They don't do that because they know the relatives don't want to hear it? Since when has the Church been in the business of telling people what they want to hear?

[Frank]

I think I'm going to send this off to debate land.

Moved from IMHO to GD.

[Northern Piper]

As Captain Oblivious points out, a priest has to choose between comforting the family and making a moral stand, an "altar call" if I may call it so.I think you're setting up a false dichotomy here - comforting the family is itself a moral duty, and by comforting them the priest is making a moral stand, proclaiming that Christians believe, with hope and fear and trembling, that God's love is powerful enough to save even the greatest sinners.

Sure, there's a tension there, but it's a tension that goes back to the very beginning. After all, Jesus told Peter that he had the power to bind and unbind, in a passage that has been interpreted as the basis for the moral authority of the church, Matthew 16:18,19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=9):18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Sounds pretty much like Jesus is telling Peter to go to it and make moral judgments, even of the dead, doesn't it?

But after the Resurrection, Jesus gave Peter a much simpler commission, in John 21: 15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021;&version=9;):15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The job of the priest is not simply to condemn sins, it is also to comfort the afflicted. The dead are beyond earthly power to correct, but the survivors need comforting in their grief.

[Northern Piper]

Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, that ye be not judged". We're not in a position to say that anyone, no matter how wicked or virtuous they've been by human standards, is definitely damned or definitely saved. A priest who says otherwise isn't following the teachings of Jesus.Would that mean that true Christians oppose a penal system with judges and jurys and prisons?Some do, notably those of the Amish strain of Christianity, as well as some of the related Mennonites.

However, most Christians distinguish between God's laws and humanity's laws. It is not our job to judge where a fellow human stands in relation to God - but it is acceptable and indeed desirable to have an orderly system of laws made by humans to govern human affairs. Judging and determining righs and obligations under man-made laws is not a usurpation of God's role in assessing an individual's state of grace.

[Northern Piper]

Okay. I think I get it. The worst murderer may be part of Gods bigger plan. Or, God may feel that the murderer did repent, and did try to be good, in his own limited way of understanding. For instance, a boy from the hood may murder to become a respected gangmember, out of a fear that if he doesn't his family will have no life.

So, both the sinners intention and Gods intention count more heavy then the acts we see (and suffer from, as a society).

Right?A sinner who truly repents will want to change and will want to try to undo the harm he or she has done. But sometimes that is not possible, because of the course of human events, for example in the midst of cruxifixion. Even there, God's love is available to the repentant sinner: "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2023:%2039-43;&version=9;)

[Maastricht]

The dead are beyond earthly power to correct, but the survivors need comforting in their grief.
Okay, but I repeat myself, what then about Tupac's 10 year old nephews, and all other ten-year olds who watch footage of Tupac's glorious burial? Don't they need correcting, and why does the Church shrink from that duty?


A sinner who truly repents will want to change and will want to try to undo the harm he or she has done. But sometimes that is not possible, because of the course of human events, for example in the midst of cruxifixion.

So, a mobster dies and there is no evidence whatsoever that he repented anything, except maybe not getting head mobster. So, this unrepenting sinner would go, in your opinion, to hell, right?

It's just that Chruch officials seem so polite, or, if you will, show lack of courage when it comes to condemning sin, in the case of absolutely in-your-face-blatant sinning. (I'm talking violent crimes, not homosexuality). They don't even condemn the sin, apart from the sinner, which would be the ligthtest form of condemnation.
I can understand they don't want to upset grieving relatives; but Is there really no way of saying something to the effect of: " Mr Mobster loved his family, and tried to do his best under difficult circumstances. Other then that, he lived by the sword, and died by the sword..." Is even that too much to ask?

The alternative explanation is that the modern American Church is not eternal at al, but simply a product of modern American culture. And in that culture, lcertain kinds of sex are bad and immoral, violence is bad, but understandable and kinda cool, and church officials's job is to tell the paying members of their particular congregation what they want to hear.

[Zoe]

Maastricht, another possible alternative explanation is that there is a time and place for speaking to the specific issues of sound moral judgment and there is a time to practice one of those moral values: comforting the suffering.

If you are a minister, one of your duties is to comfort the bereaved. I don't know if you've lost anyone close to you or not. The fathers and mothers of wayward children still deserve to be comforted in whatever way that a minister can do it with integrity. It is a good time to remind the grieving that God is a merciful God. Sermons about responsibilities are generally for another time.

There are ministers, however, who are able to interweave the two affectively. If someone dies a violent death, a skillful speaker can both comfort and teach. But it is still not the ministers place to pass judgment either. There is a difference is being discerning and in passing judgment.

[Maastricht]

If I may summarize the discussion so far:

1. The bible says that humans have no way of knowing if God, knowing what he knows, will ultimately condem someone to hell, or save him in heaven. Anything a priest or anyone would say about that is idle speculation. (True, IMHO)

2. In general, a true Christian should abstain from morally judging anyone. The only way to warn any sinner off is to tell him that the Bible says that he should abstain from sinning. Just telling him. No legal action, no persecuting, just free speech. It doesn't matter if the sin is against the very Ten Commandments themselves (killing, stealing, working or shopping on Sunday), or if some lesser command is violated, for instance any one of the Leviticus commandments, including the bans on homosexuality and wearing clothes of mixed fibers.
Christians should not morally judge: just compare behavior they perceive to what they read about it in the Bible and share their views with the sinner. (I think this is an admirable effort, by the way!)

3. The Bible (along with common decency) tells us all, in John, and expecially priests, that comforting grieving relatives is more important then trying to teach them, or the attending congregation, a lesson. If a skilled speaker can do both, all the better; if he can't he should choose comfort over teaching. Teaching can best be done another time.
(Here I agree as well. My only beef with this last one is, that in general, sinners will only come to church if they need comfort. I'm afraid they won't stick around for the teaching. )

Agree?

[Shodan]

If I may summarize the discussion so far:

1. The bible says that humans have no way of knowing if God, knowing what he knows, will ultimately condem someone to hell, or save him in heaven. Anything a priest or anyone would say about that is idle speculation. (True, IMHO)True, also IMHO. Even expressing an opinion on the subject is explicitly forbidden.
2. In general, a true Christian should abstain from morally judging anyone.Morally judging a person. It is OK, again IMHO, to judge actions.

"Murder is wrong" - OK.

"You committed murder, and are therefore going to hell." - Not OK.
The only way to warn any sinner off is to tell him that the Bible says that he should abstain from sinning. Just telling him. No legal action, no persecuting, just free speech. It doesn't matter if the sin is against the very Ten Commandments themselves (killing, stealing, working or shopping on Sunday), or if some lesser command is violated, for instance any one of the Leviticus commandments, including the bans on homosexuality and wearing clothes of mixed fibers.Not necessarily. Turning someone over to the cops because they beat up your son or something is legitimate. I think you can also take action against someone to prevent their committing a sin if it is against someone else, or if you are in some position of authority over them (like a parent).

The stuff about Leviticus is another matter entirely. Christians are not bound by Jewish ceremonial or civic law.
3. The Bible (along with common decency) tells us all, in John, and expecially priests, that comforting grieving relatives is more important then trying to teach them, or the attending congregation, a lesson. If a skilled speaker can do both, all the better; if he can't he should choose comfort over teaching. Teaching can best be done another time. I don't think it is as hard-and-fast as that. I don't think the passage in John's Gospel necessarily establishes a Christian duty of not speaking ill of the dead at a funeral.

I think a funeral sermon of "the dear departed is burning in the fires of hell at this moment, so take a lesson, you sinners" is a violation of the "judge not" clause. But the message that "God loves you more than you can imagine, and has done everything to bring you life everlasting" is more or less the only thing the Church has to offer. Thus it is nearly always more appropriate than fire and brimstone, even at the funeral of a notorious sinner.

None of this should be construed as a claim that I have never done as bad or worse. And it might be entirely appropriate for a minister to insist that some gang-banger not be buried wearing his colors, or the like. I know of at least one instance where a pastor refused to preside over a funeral, because the family wanted to include some non-Christian ritual in the burial service. Which strikes me as OK.

Regards,
Shodan

[smiling bandit]

2. In general, a true Christian should abstain from morally judging anyone. The only way to warn any sinner off is to tell him that the Bible says that he should abstain from sinning. Just telling him. No legal action, no persecuting, just free speech.

I would add shunning. Christians have no obligation to deal with people they feel are not living a properly moral life. Consider it a form of encouragment. Secondly, people do have the right to defend themselves against evil.

[Polycarp]

Shodan has a pretty good summary of the proper procedure. Also remember that according to traditional Christian understanding, nobody is "good enough" to warrant Heaven on his own merits; we're all sinners, from Francis of Assisi to Mussolini and all in between, saved by God's grace and mercy through the work of Christ. The scene with the departed confronting Peter at the Pearly Gates for judgment is fun for jokes, but it's not good theology. God reads the heart, and the intent, and He is both just and merciful. In fact, Jesus was quicker to forgive "sinners" by the social code of the time than "the righteous" who were in the business of judging the "sinners" while believing themselves sinless (and sinning in the process of doing so).

I would add shunning. Christians have no obligation to deal with people they feel are not living a properly moral life. Consider it a form of encouragment. Secondly, people do have the right to defend themselves against evil.

This is supported strongly by some comments of Paul's. But it gives rise to a self-righteousness among the self-appointed "moral Christians" as to what sins are excusable (e.g., divorce) and what are not (e.g., homosexual desires). Jesus's own example was quite otherwise. He sought out the immoral, not for judgment and repentance, but to grant them forgiveness and healing.

In short, you're reporting a quite valid traditional stance, Smiling Bandit, but I'm disagreeing (with the premise, not your reporting it) and offering reasons I believe it to be wrong.

[Triskadecamus]

Have mercy, oh Lord, upon thy servant Adolph. Though his life was bereft of mercy. Lift him up with Thy love, perfect, and greater than the love of man. Give unto him the grace You have promised unto thy children, though he does not deserve it. For it is not by Adolph's righteousness that his soul is made anew, but by thy overcoming love.

And let me live by thy word, oh Lord, not because it earns for me the divine gift of everlasting life, but because it is right and good. Let me speak out when evil is being done, and forgive the sinners who have done evil, even as you have forgiven Adolph. And so also as you have forgiven me.

Tris

[gum]

Thanks, Tris.

I knew Irishgirl was onto something when she said Man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart.

Adolph couldn't help his outward appearance, right?
He sure must have had a good heart.
Bless him.

[Triskadecamus]

Thanks, Tris Adolph couldn't help his outward appearance, right?

He sure must have had a good heart.
Bless him.I said nothing about what Adolph could help, nor did I say that his acts were in any way less than heinous.

But however black his heart might have been, it was not beyond the love of God.

I despise the acts of evil.

Tris

[gum]

I'm so sorry, Triskadecamus. I thought you were being sarcastic. Mea Culpa.

[Triskadecamus]

I'm so sorry, Triskadecamus. I thought you were being sarcastic. Mea Culpa.You are forgiven.

Of course. ;)

[FriarTed]

He sought out the immoral, not for judgment and repentance, but to grant them forgiveness and healing.



IIRC correctly. "Repent/change your mind/turn around for the Kingdom of God is at hand" was the initial theme of JC's preaching, and He did tell the adulterous woman He rescued "Go, and sin no more". Judgment, repentance, forgiveness & healing are all part of JC's ministry.

RE Shunning- Paul only recommended that when Church-members were in blatant sin & being a bad example inside & a cause for discredit outside the Church- then the Church had to publically distance itself from the offender, but
still work for reconciliation. (I Corinthians 5). Jesus did set up a proper order beginning with personal caring confrontation & ending with church-expulsion, in which the offender is no longer considered within the community of faith, but as
a subject for outreach (a tax-collector or Gentile).


Re Hitler's eventual reconciliation- if it occurs, it's not because of any goodness within him that God is desperate to salvage, but because of the sheer goodness of God. We're not too good to be eternally condemned. but MAYBE God is too good to eternally condemn us. However, God could still eternally condemn us all & His goodness remain complete.

[Maastricht]

....RE Shunning- Paul only recommended that when Church-members were in blatant sin & being a bad example inside & a cause for discredit outside the Church- then the Church had to publically distance itself from the offender...

This has been done, in the past. Pregnant brides: "No big wedding with a big white dress for you, keep it subdued!". People who took their own life: "No burial in the churchyard for you! We'll give you a small hasty burial somewhere else".
As far as I know, however, it has never been regular practice for churches to refuse the burial of a known murderer, as long as the family kept up some form of decorum. Shodan spoke of a pastor who refused a burial flaunting gang-colors, but I can't recall a priest asking for a subdued burial for a know murderer. Bottom line, being violent in the USA is, culturally if not religiously, not something to be ashamed about.

[Maastricht]

Triskademus, that's a good example. A speech like that at least mentions the sins of the sinner, and that was what I wanted a church official to do. However, I prefer gangmembers and mobsters as modern everyday examples of sinners, because the problem of what to say at their funerals will still come up.

That Tris's speech contrasts the sin of the sinner with the depth of Gods love and forgiveness is in accordance with how Christians have explained the concept in this thread.

Does anyone know if burial-speeches like that are common? Even mild references to the sinfullness of the departed's violent life, contrasted by God's infinite capability of understanding?

Tupac led a hard life. He tried to do his best, as God knows. Tupac led a violent life. He is now with God, and bathed in Gods love, we are sure that Tupac regrets the violence and the suffering it caused.

Not even that?

[tmarcl]

do believers not try and lead their lives acording to the the rules they are taught at church because of the end reward of heaven?

if the answers yes then surely the suggestions in this thread show that they are doing so needlessly as your actions on earth do not necesarily translate into your reward/punishment in death.

if the answers no then err... my query is kind of meaningless, beyond suggesting i dont have enough faith in mankinds natural goodness :P

This is actually a tricky area, and, as others have suggested, one of the reasons Christians have so many denominations.

Paul teaches that Christians are saved through faith, not works. His two requirements for salvation are that you confess with your mouth the Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God rose him from the dead. Per one of John's epistles, no one can do the first (and arguably the second) except through the Holy Spirit.

However, Paul, James and Jesus all teach that once you are saved, that's not the end of it. Paul states that a Christian is saved specifically to do good works, James says that faith without works is meaningless, and Jesus on numerous occasions says that Christians are to do good in the world (let your light shine before men, for example, or a tree is known by it's fruit). The most famous example I remember from when I was a Christian is the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus berates those on his left (the goats) who claimed to have prophesied and cast out demons in his name, but didn't do anything to help the least of his brethren (the poor, the sick, etc). It's even suggested that he revokes their salvation at that point. Those that did do these things were welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven with open arms.

As paradoxical as it sounds, Christians aren't to do good works in order to be saved, but because they are saved.

As for Tupac, he was a rapper. Rappers, in my opinion, belong in the circle of Hell reserved for people who drink decaf.

Marc

[Czarcasm]

The poster you are conversing with hasn't been here since July, 1976.

[John Mace]

He had an internet connection in 1976? Talk about being ahead of his time!

[Maastricht]

Oops, this zombie has come to life because I referenced this thread in a recent one with a similar topic. Still, tmarcl, that is an interesting take on it. I have heard some Christians say before that people can't be really good unless they are Christians. That is a slap in the face of the 70% of mankind who are atheist or of another faith and try to be good and moral persons, but... <shrug>.

Anyway, Jesus revokes their salvation at that point. taht is interesting. That could be a peice of scripture to cite at such burials. But, again...that isn't done.

[kanicbird]

How come no-one, ever, at such gatherings, gatherings that are otherwise big on the religious talk, states it as an obvious truth that the guy who died is a sinner, and by their very own beliefs, can be nowhere other then burning Hell?

Part of it is because God is the judge, another part of it is we are judged how we judge others, and part of it is the great unknown that death represents to us.

Jesus saved the guy dieing on the cross, it is possible that that could happen to anyone dieing.

[Czarcasm]

The poster you are conversing with hasn't been here since July, 1976.Sorry-I meant 2006.

[j666]

One last question:
If a priest or pastor says: "Tupac is with God"; will the congregation understand that as:
a. "Tupac is enjoying Heaven" or
b. "Tupac is in God's hand to be dealt with as God sees fit, and that includes being judged and severly punished?"
They will understand it exactly as they wish to. The ambiguity is deliberate.

Every one but Momma will understand it the second way.

Another point that I haven't seen mentioned is that in some denominations one can pray for the soul of the dead to bring them forgiveness for sins.