I see no contradiction here with Universalism or Jesus’ words.
The reason you do is because you believe God arbitrarily cuts off any chance of reconciliation at the moment He decides that you’ve taken your last breath. Why some people would get a hundred years to repent or some teenagers/young adults in their most “sinful” years are cut off without any chance to mature would suggest a truly unfeeling father towards some of his children. Call it dysfunctional.
Furthermore, if physical death was the cutoff, you have to explain what happens to the millions of people including Noah who never heard that there was a special Son of God who one had to believe on in order to be saved, or the billions of people who have never heard of Jesus since His resurection.
I simply don’t buy it, and I challenge you to find a scripture that puts the cut off at that point.
There are several passages in the bible however that do claim that all men will “kneel” before Him, and you do know that the omnipotent God sent Jesus to be the saviour of all men.
Pleonast said, “It’s not clear to me that a miracle must have really happened in order to be a miracle. A miracle is a event that inspires wonder and awe in the power of God (in a Christian context). I think the wonder and awe of God are the important parts. A miracle can be inspiring even if it’s “just” a story.” And badchad replied, “You are using a different definition of the term miracle than I am using and what I think others in this thread are using. …” Defining a miracle as an “event that inspires wonder and awe in the power of God” seems pretty standard to me. What do you (or others) mean when you use the term miracle? Maybe you’re refering to my “a miracle can be inspiring even if it’s ‘just’ a story”. That’s a statement of my opinion of I what take from descriptions of miracles.
Guinastasia said, “It isn’t about salvation–it’s about loving your neighbor as yourself and doing unto others as you would have done unto you.” And RexDart replied, “OK, then if it’s not about salvation, you Christians have nothing to offer, and we can all just move along. … If loving one’s neighbor as much as oneself doesn’t give a reward in the afterlife, there’s clearly no reason to adopt that way of life.” Salvation is a part of being Christian, but isn’t the main point for me. One does good works because that is Christ’s path. The act of doing good works is its own reward, because by emulating Christ, one becomes closer to him. Any future rewards, in this life or the afterlife, are simply icing on the cake.
“When you disregard the necessity that miracles actually be, well, miraculous and true”–but miracles do not necessarily have to be “true” (meaning the event really happened). You yourself have implicitly made a distinction between “miraculous” and “true” in your response. (Perhaps you really meant inspirational instead of miraculous.) In any case, truth exists on many levels. A miracle can be “true” (in the sense that it describes a universal truth about God) even if the event did not occur exactly as described.
“Believe that man (read: science) has determined how creation began”–I believe this universe is God’s creation. Studying the world around us is thus studying God’s handiwork. Science, which is man’s best understanding of God’s creation, can be as worshipful as prayer is. I believe that to reject science is to reject God’s creation.
“Thus giving science the upper hand when reading and accepting scripture”–I give science and scripture equal footing when trying to understand God. (And understanding God, to be closer to him, is my goal.) I believe scripture is true. The truth may not be in a literal interpretation, but in the deeper meaning of the words (because God is limitless and any human description is limited). I believe science is true. It’s God’s creation after all that science is interpreting (even though our scientific theories are incomplete). Scripture and science are thus two, separate and limited, descriptions of God. Since part of being a Christian is loving God with all of one’s mind, I feel obligated to study them both.
“He’d have been ever so open-minded and tolerant and non-judgmental”–Christ is open-minded, tolerant, non-judgemental. And the Father reserves the priviledge of judgement for himself alone.
“Completely disregarding inconvenient scripture because God perhaps, just perhaps, has a different concept of the purpose of His creation than we do.”–I agree with this. Scripture is God’s handiwork (but not his Word), and some of it is difficult to understand and accept. That is why I believe a good Christian must study all of the Bible. And likewise, creation is God’s handiwork and some of it is difficult to understand. And that is why I believe a good Christian must study all of creation (which includes those parts of science that are difficult to understand and accept).
Spoken like a true cherry-picking proof-texter. If I may continue the quotation:
So, yes, those who do not belive are “condemned”, but Christ specifically spells out what this “condemnation” is in this particular use. It is to live in the world surrounded by darkness and have to grope towards the light with far less help than offered by the ekklesia. Christ is the Mediator, but we cannot say with utmost certainty who He has not led, only who we can be fairly sure that He has led. It is not for us to say beforehand who God has damned forever and who He has not, for that a grave sin, indeed. It is the sin of pride. It is a pride that claims that we are authorized sit on God’s Throne and act in His place.
And, of course, if rational consent is the litmus test, that would mean that you are of the opinion that babies killed in abortions are all damned and rightly so. After all, where in Scripture does it state, specifically and by quote, that there is any sort of “age of consent” or “age of reason”. Thus, we can have a “fuzzy” standard that admits to love and mercy or a hard-and-fast standard that rejects love and mercy.
My Church teaches and has always taught (for roughly 2000 years) a “fuzzy” standard, and we leave it to God to define the borders, not us.
On the contrary, selflessness is better for a social species like ours. If some people need a bribe, like a one-way trip to Heaven, to do what is best for all of us then so be it.
As a fellow Orthodox Christian, Dogface , I must second the “Well played” sentiment. (To be clear, I second the sentiment b/c it was well-stated, not necessarily b/c you’re Orthodox . . .)
How so? Selflessness clearly isn’t better for me, nor is it better for any other person I know. What’s best for me is to help out only those people who are likely to reciprocate, people with both the means and the desire to give me something of value in exchange for what I gave them, if not immediately then eventually. There is no natural incentive that I can see for rational individuals to act selflessly.
I doubt it’s better for the “species”, but suppose it is. Is there really such a thing as the “species”, or “society” at all? Not in any relevant way, since only an individual has a will and the ability to act on it. So even if selflessness were better for all people in the aggregate, “the species” can’t act to further that goal because it can’t act at all. It can only call on individuals to do so, but those individuals have no reason to comply.
This is not to say that all the actions generally considered “good” require a bribe. There are pretty good rational reasons for an individual to adopt any number of behaviours commonly considered to be morally good. But selflessness, I think, requires such a bribe because otherwise it provides no reward, no trade-off, no benefit to the individual who is actually faced with the decision whether to act.
This thread is bringing out my BS detector for some reason…
Which is, of course, a straw man, since the message to which you respond never said anything about “the species” acting. It talked about individuals acting in a way that promotes survival of the species.
Arguing about biblical literalism is just entirely too tedious for me. I don’t do “dueling verses.” But it strikes me as pretty hard to defend a view that forces you to either admit that some of the bible is metaphoric, or that Jesus promised a bunch of sheep that they could come to heaven because the had been kind to Him, and told a bunch of goats that they never really knew Him at all.
So, were they really sheep and goats?
Read the Bible. But open your heart, and hear the Word there. Your mind is not the proper receptacle for the apprehension of divinity. If your “understanding” of salvation is based on authoritarian scriptural dogma, then your mind might be saved, but your spirit is still lost. Only love can reach you. Jesus loves you. He really doesn’t need for you to lead the unwashed to glory and salvation. He does that just fine, on His own. Your part, and mine, in this passion play is that of the saved soul. It’s a small part, and generally doesn’t have many lines.
But when you walk into the great hall of Eternity, Jesus, Himself, the Lord of all things, will raise His own voice in joyous song, out of His joy at your Salvation.
I agree Polycarp, that to a first century Greek or Jew, survival after death was a given. Which is why anything Paul had to say really didn’t raise that many eyebrows. There were plenty of other gods and miracle workers to choose from.
I’m equally convinced that nothing happened, but what exactly are your referring to that is without precedent? Also in that same chapter, doesn’t this give credence that at least Paul thought Adam was a very real person, and not some myth? In verse 45: Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.(NRS) Is there anything Paul says to suggest otherwise? I did a concordance search, and elsewhere, passages in I Timothy, and Romans, Paul has more to say about Adam which in line with much of the conservative position stated in the OP.
Siege, this is a subject area deserving of much more depth than I feel can provide at this time, for two specific reasons: first, I have many demands on my time including an ailing elderly father and three teenagers at home. Second, this darn board is mostly inaccessible to me except during the later evening hours. Is this an AOL problem, 'cause all too often when I try to load, I get error messages. I could handle even excrutiatingly slow loads, if the darn site would ever do so, but, again, all I get are error messages.
Having said that, I cannot dictate who will or will not go to heaven, and would not care to make that judgment were the power entrusted to me. What I can and will do is to declare the truth as uttered by Jesus and the other inspired authors of the Bible. In other words, if Jesus says that there is no way to the Father except through Him, I believe Him. Do I then think that no one, other than the special Christian with the special mark and the secret handshake and the memorized secret password will get into heaven? No. The Bible is equally clear that those who do not hear the word will be judged accordingly: see Romans 2:14-16 as an indication of that. But, I believe that the person who hears the word of God yet deliberately avoids making the choice of life in Jesus Christ is indeed risking his soul. It is the height of human arrogance to expect God to “fiddle while Rome burns”.
Regarding your site and request, once I respond to the several points made here, I will move there and see if any response is appropriate.
Polycarp, you and I will, I truly hope, have all eternity to reconcile our thoughts and hearts, but I once again ask you to consider that your use of the term “fundie”, for whatever legitimate reasons you might have, furthers the disrespect by making it the “coin of the realm” in religious discussions on this board. You may be right, I may be wrong, on this or any other subject we care to pass time analyzing, but you do me no honor when you take an accurate term and coarsen it.
grienspace, how about Hebrews 9:27:
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…
The rest of your post is an argument from outrage. The Bible clearly points out that men have the truth of God in their heart (Rom 2:15), that they will be judged on their use of the truth given them (passage noted above). While we’re mentioning all those who live and die without the direct word of God, you might as well include all those living pre-Christ. Again, the argument falls, because God knows all hearts and minds. In the final analysis, you can help no one by drowning if you refuse the assistance of the only one who can save you out of some false rage on behalf of those who refuse to be saved. You can only help them once you yourself are on safe ground.
Pleonast, a “good story” is not a miracle. It may be a fable, a fantasy, a sign of great imaginative skill. It is not a miracle. A miracle is an extraordinary occurrence. A so-called “god” who could merely tell wonderful stories would hardly inspire my love and dedication. Admiration, sure, happy to oblige.
Also, in regards to Christ being open-minded, tolerant and non-judgmental. I’m afraid you’re confusing me here. Jesus was compassionate, loving, generous. He was also righteous indignation and fury. And he also claimed the right of judgment as having been given him by God. (John 5:22) Perhaps you recall the jealous God of the OT? He was always mindful of the straying eyes of His people, worshipping gods and false idols. His justice is tempered by mercy, not excluded.
Dogface, attempting in my own rather limited way to get across difficult concepts in less than a page of type is hardly “cherry picking”. Thanks for your charitable concern, brother.
In response to your interpretation that “condemnation” means “to live in the world surrounded by darkness and have to grope towards the light with far less help”, read John 5:24;
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
Condemnation clearly means death. All men are offered through Jesus the opportunity to choose life.
In order to avoid having you continue to put words in my mouth, let me be absolutely clear about my understanding of Scripture. Christians (please, don’t make me define the words down to the nth degree, or we’ll never get anywhere) are promised heaven. Rewards are another matter, distinct from salvation. Non-Christians are not. They are subject to judgment at the end of the age. God will judge truly and fairly, and I have no doubt there will be many who will see heaven, having never heard the name of Jesus Christ in life.
No, I don’t believe babies are damned. Did not David say of his own son, having died due to David’s sin: I will go to him, but he will not return to me. (2Sam 12:23) I default to God’s perfect love, mercy and justice, and the repentant hearts of men who seek Him.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2Tim 3:16
I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season:correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. 2Tim 4:2
Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
I am sorry to hear that you consider the word of God to be “tedious”.
How, then, can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? Rom 10:14-15
Absurd statement. I will not understand at His level, but you cannot logically defend the position that He cannot come down to ours.
Riiiight. God didn’t mean what he inspired men to write. He meant something, oh, totally different. In which case, why are you even wasting bandwidth arguing with me? I have faith in a God who has the capacity to communicate with His creation, honestly, accurately, effectively.
Again, so even Jesus, sending His Apostles out to spread His message, didn’t really need their help. (Well, okay, He doesn’t, in the final analysis. But we are the means of spreading His message, and it is His command that we do so.)
Lovely. How about something to back this up, say, some scripture where Jesus tells the believers that they can sit on their butts, safe and slap-happy at home, ignoring the rest of the miserable world suffering without awareness of God’s love.
Based on your last comment, had the Apostles taken your advice and stayed home, heaven would have been nigh empty. Thanks, but no thanks.
No, that’s selfishness on a humongous level. “I’ve got mine, and I’m keeping it close to the vest. God’ll take care of things, no sweat.”
Yes,we are all destined to die once. Even the atheists believe that. And yes we all face judgement afterwards. All Christians believe that. But does the death of the physical body cut off any chance for future repentance? Why then did Christ preach to those ungodly people of Noah’s time as reported by Peter in his first epistle?
I don’t believe that Christ failed in his bid to save all men, and I don’t believe that Christ would preach to people who are irrevocably doomed.
You say my argument is based on outrage? My argument is based on the Golden Rule. I would never condemn anyone let alone my children to eternal torment.
My objection is not that you read the bible, it is that you pretend that all men have the same understanding, or that yours is somehow the only true understanding.
Thanks for your response, NaSultainne. The thing is, I know people in real life who were driven away from Christianity by the actions of Christians. I respect your right to stand where you do on your beliefs, but I cannot and will not believe in a God who would condemn the former and welcome the latter.
The Christ who reached me, whose words got through to me, was one who would reach out to the lonely, outcast, worthless and disrespectable. My faults were not insurmountable, and I was not irredeemable. This was not a judge who I could never satisfy like far too many people in my life, but someone who would accept me. I’ve come to realize there are people whose experience with God is one of judgement, and even something which borders on cruelty. My experience, and the one I am called to share with others is of profound accepting Love, Agape in its finest and highest sense. That love will not be stopped by a wall built of the cruelty of men who proclaim its name. I might easily have rejected Christ when I was a teenager; Christianity was about the only conventional thing I embraced, and even then I did it in unconventional form. The thing is, I never had the feeling that Christ rejected me. Others have not been so fortunate.