Lunch was kind of late today.
But the identity of these choices seems to be the distinguishing factor between varieties of Christianity (and I’m speaking as an outsider.) We seem to have some that feel that all are sinners, and that accepting Jesus honestly gets salvation, and the only really important choice is this free acceptance. I’d guess that some think that continued sinning (whatever they consider that to be) would indicate a lack of desire for salvation.
Then there are some who feel that life choices by themselves are what is important, and that those who don’t make the wrong ones get salvation anyway. Orthogonal to this is where the Red Zone on the SinnoMeter ™ is. The first set has the entire dial red. The second set has some dividing line between virtue and sin.
Is this a reasonable way of looking at it? Poly, are you in the second class? I’d guess you are since you mention choices, and for those in the first class accepting Jesus seems like the only choice that matters.
That is deep. Very deep. I honest to God wonder if we as humans ever really have choices. I feel like I’m kind of on a ballance. If it starts to tip, I’m gone. That is why if I’m going to accept the God that has been written of in the period of 2000 years ago, I better start with believing on Him first. Now I understand (whether correctly or not) from Polycarp that accepting Jesus means accepting his word. Not " Oh Jesus, I believe, really I do, that you are the Son of God!", but to believe that we are commanded to have the attitude namely “love the neighbour as myself, butr above all love God first”
Okay, I’ll buy that, it works for me, but explain to me that if you were God and followed Jesus’s commandments, would you create a situation where your neighbour just delivered a child with severe spina bifida?
(grienspace is currrently seriously questioning his faith in his God)
In the story of the Prodigal Son, all the son had to do was come home. Frankly, I don’t even think the son showed much remorse. He just needed his father’s help. And his father was filled with joy because he loved him so much and he was home. The son “qualified” just because he was loved. That’s what that story teaches me.
Maybe heaven will be very different from the way we have come to think of it. Maybe it will be a place of perfect euphoria because all of our confusion and selfishness and grumbling will cease. Maybe we will feel centered and truly ourselves and discover that we are boundless.
I’m just thinking of how heaven might be. Meanwhile, back on earth:
The most important rule is “Thou shalt love.”
Mods, oops! Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I forgot your earthy rules!
Uh…make that earthly rules – except for SamClem who can be a little earthy at times.
It’s a lovely sentiment, but it kind of diverges from orthodoxy. And I’m not really sure how Jesus fits into such a cosmology.
For all I know, everything you just said is true. I like to think of God working this way. But I don’t see any particularly good reason to believe that it’s true. And if it is, it doesn’t clarify to me what in particular God would prefer for me to do or not do. I’m pretty sure that this is not the God portrayed in either of the testaments of the Christian Bible.
In other words, sounds like you’re inventing your own religion–which I don’t have a problem with at all, by the way. And it’s seems to be a really nice one. But I don’t see what it has to do with my complaints about more standard Christian notions of Heaven and Hell.
-VM
Polycarp, you speak of lifestyles and life choices but as smartass* says " it kind of diverges from orthodoxy". Despite the fact that James 2:17 says “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”, most protestant churches believe that works do not get you to heaven. Most churches preach that you must accept Jesus as your savior. The argument is that we are all sinners and so the only thing that will save us is God’s Grace, which is freely given but which cannot be earned.
There was an English minister of the London Methodist Church named Leslie Weatherhead, who wrote many books. After he retired he wrote probably his most famous book, “The Christian Agnostic”. The following is from the linked site:
Weatherhead’s idea of heaven is very unique. He argues that God will not give up on anyone. He cites the parable of “The Lost Sheep” as proof, since even though 99 of the sheep were safe, the shepard still went looking for the one lost sheep. When Jesus says he is going to prepare many mansions, Weatherhead says this represents “stations”, each a little closer to God. Some of us will go to the fartherest stations, while others will start off at stations closer to God. When the last soul has gone thru all of the stations that will be the final atonement (at one with God). So this means he has at least four very different religious concepts about life after death.
[ul][li] There is no hell.[/li][li] Works do count because they determine which station the soul starts at.[/li][li] There is more to learn in the next world.[/li] No souls are lost, all eventually become “one with God”[/ul]
Polycarp, you speak of lifestyles and life choices but as smartass* says " it kind of diverges from orthodoxy". Despite the fact that James 2:17 says “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”, most protestant churches believe that works do not get you to heaven. Most churches preach that you must accept Jesus as your savior. The argument is that we are all sinners and so the only thing that will save us is God’s Grace, which is freely given but which cannot be earned.
There was an English minister of the London Methodist Church named Leslie Weatherhead, who wrote many books. After he retired he wrote probably his most famous book, “The Christian Agnostic”. The following is from the linked site:
Weatherhead’s idea of heaven is very unique. He argues that God will not give up on anyone. He cites the parable of “The Lost Sheep” as proof, since even though 99 of the sheep were safe, the shepard still went looking for the one lost sheep. When Jesus says he is going to prepare many mansions, Weatherhead says this represents “stations”, each a little closer to God. Some of us will go to the fartherest stations, while others will start off at stations closer to God. When the last soul has gone thru all of the stations that will be the final atonement (at one with God). So this means he has at least four very different religious concepts about life after death.
[ul][li] There is no hell.[/li][li] Works do count because they determine which station the soul starts at.[/li][li] There is more to learn in the next world.[/li] No souls are lost, all eventually become “one with God”[/ul]
[QUOTE=kniz]
Polycarp, you speak of lifestyles and life choices but as smartass* says " it kind of diverges from orthodoxy". Despite the fact that James 2:17 says “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”, most protestant churches believe that works do not get you to heaven. Most churches preach that you must accept Jesus as your savior. The argument is that we are all sinners and so the only thing that will save us is God’s Grace, which is freely given but which cannot be earned.
The reason James 2 preaches works salvation is because he was preaching to “The twelve tribes (of Israel) scattered abroad” (James 1:1).
Peter told the same people in his first epistle to… “gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”(1:13)
Jesus told them, in Matthew 10:22, that they must “endure unto the end to be saved.”
All these passages clearly teach that the believer must show his faith through his works to be saved or receive grace (“receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” 1 Peter 1:9). This is salvation by works, not grace.
The “grace” message was given to Paul within a mystery he called “the dispensation of the grace of God.” (Eph. 3:2,3)
By the way, I’ve never been able to find any mandate in the Bible for dividing the church of the present dispensation into religious institutions (e.g. Catholic and Protestant), as has been done for the last 19 centuries.
][li] There is no hell.[/li][li] Works do count because they determine which station the soul starts at.[/li][li] There is more to learn in the next world.[/li][li] No souls are lost, all eventually become “one with God”[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
These are the tenets of Easter Mysticism, not Christianity.
Well, I profess to be an orthodox Episcopalian, insofar as that isn’t an oxymoron ;), but my self-imposed obligation is to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah and Lord, just as He taught. I should have great respect for the Fathers of the Church who defined orthodox belief, but if it should say anything that contradicts His teachings, it is incumbent on me to follow Him and not them. And sola fidei teachings are most emphatically contradictory to what He taught about one’s obligation towards one’s fellow man, and how God will judge in accordance to how well one essays to fulfill that obligation. It’s all there in pretty clear if sometimes figurative language, right in the Gospels.
It’s quite possible to cite Paul in a manner that would oblige me to shun and ostracize JayJay – but when Jesus teaches me that he is my beloved brother, to judge whom would be to cast away the grace given me in the forgiveness of my own sins, to whom I owe brotherly love, friendship, compassion, and warmheartedness of spirit, what Paul might have had to say cannot reasonably be construed to the contrary.
“There is none righteous; no, not one.” The evil in my own heart, which I combat, keeps me from seeing evil in another, except insofar as he calls attention to it by self-righteously condemning another.
I grant that sola Scriptura/sola fidei belief is what I was raised in – but whatever you may choose to call it, it’s not the doctrine that was taught by Jesus Christ. Read the Gospels with honest, open eyes. Then come to your fellow men and ask forgiveness for esteeming yourself more holy than them.
So, I take it you’re not much interested in debating the topic at hand? Oh, well. It seems to be petering out anyway, so you may as well climb on up there and give us the full treatment. Here… [SCRAPE]…I’ll loan you my soapbox.
Before you get going, I just want to point out that I’m not crazy about being accused of “esteeming” myself holy, or anyone else for that matter.
-VM