Question 2

[TimMorgan]

No more contradictory than other views of the afterlife:
"The dead do not praise Yahweh, nor do any that go down into silence."
"When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his thoughts perish."
"so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be aroused out of his sleep."
"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust; again."

Of course, this is just the verses that reflect one of the understandings of death. I could come up with a similar list that would support eternal life only for the saved and complete nothingness for the unsaved. Likewise I could show a list supporting the current mainstream view of heaven and hell.

The issue of what warrants salvation is similarly sticky with lists of verses that support various views.

I view the insistence on one particular view to the exclusion of others to be theologically troublesome. Whatever lengths we go to judging others on their understanding of these matters we will surely be held to ourselves. Do we wish to stake so much on interpretations that require us to discount or explain away so many contradictory passages? Should anyone be so sure of their own interpretations that they set such a measuring stick for themselves?

So is any part of the bible except the bits with Jesus worth reading. I mean some of the supernatural things I have trouble believing talking snake, raining frogs and i guess most of the old testament.

 

[TimMorgan]

It's kinda busy. Things are kinda complicated at home so I might not respond for a while.

 

[ebia]

So is any part of the bible except the bits with Jesus worth reading. I mean some of the supernatural things I have trouble believing talking snake, raining frogs and i guess most of the old testament.

Two things. If you only read the bits of the bible with Jesus, you are pretty much certain to completely misunderstand him and the people who wrote up his story because it operates in terms of the symbols, promises, etc from the Old Testament. It would be like reading the punchline to a joke without the build up - nonsensical. If you haven't read Exodus and Genesis, how can you connnect with John chapter 20 that is set up to say "Jesus resurrection is the New Genesis and the New Exodus"?

But that doesn't mean that you have to take all of the OT perfectly literally. Genesis 1-11 is a prologue in a selection of mythical genres to explain what creation is supposed to be (1-2), what is wrong (3-5) and why God cannot simply wipe out the evil by force (6-9) that sets things up for the call of Abraham and his family to be the means by which God will work with humanity to sort out the problem. One needs to know that story and understand it's truths, but one does not need to take it as a factual historical account.

One needs to know the story of Exodus. One needs to know the promises in Isaiah and what they represent. One needs to know the story of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon and understand how the idea of Kingship is supposed to work (and how each of the kings falls short of that). One needs to understand the Temple. And so on. But one doesn't necessarly have to think every phrase in those stories is meant to be historically precise - their authors are much more concerned with symbol and meaning than precise 'facts'.

To understand the gospels you need access to those stories because the gospel writers quote from them - not as proof texts but with the intention that a whole set of images and concepts will spring to mind. When the risen Jesus calls Mary Magdalane "Miriam" instead of "Mary" the whole story of Miriam leading the celebration of the Exodus with timbles is supposed to spring to mind (turning upsidedown at the same time some assumptions about male leadership in that story, perhaps). When the same story says twice "It was the first day of the week" and emphasises the garden setting one is supposed to realise that this - Easter morning - is the first day of New Creation. You can't do that unless you have access to the OT stories.

 

[[serious]]

As I have said many a time: should I drop down dead in 20 minutes, and "wake" to find myself staring into the face of Thor -- what am I going to be able to do about it?

In the meantime, there are many beliefs that we can't verify and that nevertheless have consequences for the way we perceive the world and live in it. On that basis, beliefs matter: some actions flow more smoothly from some beliefs than from others.

If I believe a Hindu is on God's watch list for her hindu convictions, and I also believe "time is short," then I'll orient myself to her in a certain way in the time we have together. I might spend a lot of energy trying to scratch at her convictions in the hope that she'll get off God's watch list, I might assume that she's a lost cause and completely ignore her, or I might assume that she has no hope in the next round so I might as well be nice to her in this round.

If those are my premises, it's highly highly unlikely that I'll even think about asking what her convictions might be able to teach me. After all -- why would I want to learn from someone God will have no time for?

So... beliefs are not assured. But they are nevertheless important.

To clarify, I'm not objecting to the current mainstream christian view of salvation, I'm objecting to the idea that holding the current mainstream christian view of salvation is in some way a salvation issue.

There is a pretty silly fear of universalism in many denominations. I shudder to think that all that keeps christians from immorality would be the threat of damnation. I personally began viewing the afterlife as irrelevant to my actions in this world long before even hearing about universalism. I do not espouse any particular view of the afterlife. It is irrelevant to my faith.

 

[AzA]

To clarify, I'm not objecting to the current mainstream christian view of salvation, I'm objecting to the idea that holding the current mainstream christian view of salvation is in some way a salvation issue.

There is a pretty silly fear of universalism in many denominations. I shudder to think that all that keeps christians from immorality would be the threat of damnation. I personally began viewing the afterlife as irrelevant to my actions in this world long before even hearing about universalism. I do not espouse any particular view of the afterlife. It is irrelevant to my faith.

I understand you.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Hello I have several questions I was recently at the conservative christians forum and was under the impression that nonchristians go to hell. I was informed that not all christians believe this. Is this true? What are your thoughts on other things abortion homosexuality etc

Before I begin, let me note that I'm not especially a liberal Christian. I'm just used to hanging out here. I'm more of a C.S. Lewis/N.T. Wright kind of Anglican conservative blended with Emergent Pentecostal. Politics is going to figure into this too, so look at my party icon, which will explain a lot.

I don't know what happens to non-Christians in the afterlife. That would be up to God, who knows all hearts. I know that resurrection with a new glorified body like Jesus had is promised to those who follow him... but not necessarily to those who merely claim to. I'm thinking we'll have some surprises as to who'll be there and who won't.

And I know what I'm called to do, which is to follow Jesus the Messiah from Nazareth. Not because of the consequences, positive or negative, but because once you know about him and the New Creation, it seems right to want to take part in it, natural to try to help bring it about.

Now, you asked about abortion and homosexuality. I'll have to give two part answers, since those have both a theological and a political side, which aren't necessarily in sync.

Abortion

Theologically I'm against it, but I don't necessarily take the position that life begins at conception. I don't actually know when it begins. Sometime between conception and birth, a fetus becomes a baby with God-given inalienable rights, but deciding exactly when is somewhat arbitrary.

But politically, I'm a very strict constitutionalist, and I find nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to have any role in abortion, pro or con. So I think it needs to be kicked back to the states for resolution, according to whatever political consensus each state can muster. In my state, I'd vote for it to be legal with few restrictions during the first trimester, restricted during the second, and prohibited during the third except for dire medical necessity. In my state, we passed such a law by referendum, just in time for it to be wiped out by Roe v. Wade.

Homosexuality

Theologically, I don't think homosexuality is part of God's best for humanity -- ideally we should all find the perfect mate and family that God may have in mind for us -- but I don't think it's a heinous sin either, and I don't find the "clobber passages" convincing. God made some of us that way (including me - I'm naturally bisexual), and I don't think He hates us or rejects us for it.

Politically, I think gays have the same rights as anyone else, and should have the right to marry under the civil authority. But I don't think that's politically possible at the present time, and I'm against it being imposed by judges. So I support civil union/domestic partnership laws that have everything but the name of marriage. That can't change federal law of course, but if most states go that way, the feds will have to follow along. And I'm absolutely against any church ever being compelled to recognize same-sex marriages if that's against their doctrine.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

On the contrary this forum seems like a very rational group of individuals and I very much intend to have more conversations. I also have several more questions. Do you believe in the bible. Well of course you don't take an absoulutly set in stone definition but which parts do you agree with if any? Also do you accept with evolution?

I believe in all of the Bible (with the possible exception of the non-canonical Apocrypha -- the extra 7 books included in Catholic and Orthodox bibles may be inspired, but I wouldn't swear to it). I believe it's all inspired by God and free from doctrinal error, but in the original texts only. There may be historical or scientific error, but I'm not aware of any. Translations can be and often are faulty, since translation is as much art as science. Nor do I believe it's all intended as literal, historical narrative. It contains "true myths" (check out C.S. Lewis and J.R.R Tolkien for more on that concept), parables, poetry and mystical visions couched in dream-like symbolism. I think in understanding the Bible, it's important to understand the historical and cultural context, and to know the intent of the author. Scholarship can help with that, as can direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

I'm partial to the Framework Interpretation variant of Old Earth Creation. That allows for, but doesn't require, Theistic Evolution.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Also if there is no hell where do bad men go or are there bad men?

Yes, there are bad men... but whether there are any so bad as to be ultimately irredeemable, only God knows.

I conceive of hell as being the eternal state of separation from God, not something you're cast into, but something you've chosen by who you made yourself into. It'd be like there's a big party going on, and you can't bear to go inside because all the happy people and the bright lights are just too painful for you. Essentially, I think it's more like C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce than anything else I've come across.

 

[Im_A]

Hello I have several questions I was recently at the conservative christians forum and was under the impression that nonchristians go to hell. I was informed that not all christians believe this. Is this true? What are your thoughts on other things abortion homosexuality etc

I wouldn't call myself a Christian but I have a hard time calling myself any of the popular "non-believer" terms. I just consider myself a human beings. That's the easiest to figure out. I would call myself conservative politically.

Hell: If there is a hell, then that means the believer and the unbeliever has an equal shot at going there. The final judgment has not happened yet so if all that the Bible teaches about the final judgment, Sheol and if hell and heaven are two places that after the time in Sheol is passed and after the final judgment happens, then it is just simply wise to not say who goes where.

Homosexuality-I make no judgment on a sexuality that I am not of. I am a flaming hetero so I have no basis to understand homosexuality without a heterosexual biased, so I just choose not to judge good or bad on that which I will never know. I support homosexual marriage on the premise that if the government thinks it has to define marriage it has to define all 2 person only, human marriage. I would prefer to see the government take away the benefits in regards to taxes for the simple fact to stop trying to define marriage in any way. Let the churches, and the individual use their subjective reasons, creeds etc. to judge what marriage is.

Abortion-I really don't know anymore. I say that for several reasons:
When one says that the baby's rights have to be thought of first, that alienates the woman's rights. When one says that woman's rights have to be thought of first, that alienates the infant's rights. I have no ability to say which one I am because I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. Plus I am biased. My sister's father wanted my mom to abort her. I cannot be 100 percent pro-choice because that means I would have to be ok for her father to say that, and that I will never be. Thankfully my mother made the choice to have her.

Anymore questions just ask.