Sin and Self

[bhsmte]

The million dollar complicated question is whether this is because of the religions themselves, or tribal theism, which hijacks any religion for gain of the group.

What then, is your personal interpretation of scripture regarding the question of who would be granted eternal life and who is doomed?

-Is the serial killer who truly repents and finds Jesus on death row granted eternal life?

-Is the Hindu, who lives a life of helping others and doing good, granted eternal life?

-Is the non believer who lives a life of helping others and doing good, granted eternal life?

 

[Received]

Do you think religions are objective things aside from the groups of people that make them up and their thoughts?

As objective as you and me, sure.

 

[Received]

What then, is your personal interpretation of scripture regarding the question of who would be granted eternal life and who is doomed?

-Is the serial killer who truly repents and finds Jesus on death row granted eternal life?

-Is the Hindu, who lives a life of helping others and doing good, granted eternal life?

-Is the non believer who lives a life of helping others and doing good, granted eternal life?

Presupposing all these questions, I think, is the idea that eternal life is heaven when you die rather than hell when you die. I don't buy this.

Eternal life is here and now; hence "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21), and "this is eternal life: to know God" (John 17:3). To repent means "metanoia", to think about your thinking. And ultimately to join this relationship with God, which starts here and now, and through entering this life you by definition change your will to God in proportion to how much you're in this kingdom, which has started being on this earth (God's kingdom is where his will is yielded to, as with any other kingdom).

The Hindu is in eternal life or kingdom of God insofar as they are following their conscience and doing the will of God. Likewise with the nonbeliever. But with a key distinction: eternal life, in order for it to exist as a continuity, you need to know how it works and ultimately "who" is at the basis of this life: Jesus Christ, not in historical form (that would be the means by which he revealed what I'm about to say) but rather than incorporeal form, the Word or Logos of God.

"So why become Christian?" Because a Christian is one who unveils how conscience and the will and kingdom of God work and labels them correctly as such, allowing them like the person trying to swim to know all the right moves needed to sustain himself and move across the water.

Make sense?

 

[bhsmte]

Presupposing all these questions, I think, is the idea that eternal life is heaven when you die rather than hell when you die. I don't buy this.

Eternal life is here and now; hence "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21), and "this is eternal life: to know God" (John 17:3). To repent means "metanoia", to think about your thinking. And ultimately to join this relationship with God, which starts here and now, and through entering this life you by definition change your will to God in proportion to how much you're in this kingdom, which has started being on this earth (God's kingdom is where his will is yielded to, as with any other kingdom).

The Hindu is in eternal life or kingdom of God insofar as they are following their conscience and doing the will of God. Likewise with the nonbeliever. But with a key distinction: eternal life, in order for it to exist as a continuity, you need to know how it works and ultimately "who" is at the basis of this life: Jesus Christ, not in historical form (that would be the means by which he revealed what I'm about to say) but rather than incorporeal form, the Word or Logos of God.

"So why become Christian?" Because a Christian is one who unveils how conscience and the will and kingdom of God work and labels them correctly as such, allowing them like the person trying to swim to know all the right moves needed to sustain himself and move across the water.

Make sense?

Lets back up a second for further clarification.

Do you believe there is a heaven where certain people are granted entrance to after death?

Do you believe there is a hell (or whatever you want to call it) that is not a pleasant place, where people who are not granted entrance to heaven go?

 

[Received]

Lets back up a second for further clarification.

Do you believe there is a heaven where certain people are granted entrance to after death?

Do you believe there is a hell (or whatever you want to call it) that is not a pleasant place, where people who are not granted entrance to heaven go?

I believe in heaven and hell, but think they're not antithetical because (surprise surprise) they're mistranslated. There is no mention of "going to heaven when you die" in scripture. None of it. There's mention of the kingdom of heaven, and of heaven in general, but that's all a mistranslation which omits a single derivational morpheme "s". It's not "heaven" but "heavens" plural, which refers not to "after you die" but instead what we basically consider empty space, which is actually the domain (or even body) of God.

Hell is also very rarely mentioned as we've mythologized it. You have Sheol in the OT, not at all the place we think of as flames and such, which is the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek Hades in the NT, and also the very precious and fascinating Gehenna, which Jesus pretty much exclusively referred to, and is interesting because Gehenna (not "hell") is a literal physical place, an everburning trash heap southwest of Jerusalem, which Jesus in his brilliance used to compare to the life that is lived without God.

The real Biblical picture is that we need bodies to be selves. Okay then, so how are we when we die? Not sure about the transitional period between death and resurrection (maybe we're united again with God for a bit), but we need a physical resurrection so we can have physical bodies. So what houses these physical bodies? A new regenerated (and probably much huger) earth.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe in heaven and hell, but think they're not antithetical because (surprise surprise) they're mistranslated. There is no mention of "going to heaven when you die" in scripture. None of it. There's mention of the kingdom of heaven, and of heaven in general, but that's all a mistranslation which omits a single derivational morpheme "s". It's not "heaven" but "heavens" plural, which refers not to "after you die" but instead what we basically consider empty space, which is actually the domain (or even body) of God.

Hell is also very rarely mentioned as we've mythologized it. You have Sheol in the OT, not at all the place we think of as flames and such, which is the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek Hades in the NT, and also the very precious and fascinating Gehenna, which Jesus pretty much exclusively referred to, and is interesting because Gehenna (not "hell") is a literal physical place, an everburning trash heap southwest of Jerusalem, which Jesus in his brilliance used to compare to the life that is lived without God.

The real Biblical picture is that we need bodies to be selves. Okay then, so how are we when we die? Not sure about the transitional period between death and resurrection (maybe we're united again with God for a bit), but we need a physical resurrection so we can have physical bodies. So what houses these physical bodies? A new regenerated (and probably much huger) earth.

Let me simplify it further.

What do you believe happens to a good Christian when they die?

What do you believe happens to a good atheist when they die?

 

[Received]

They both are judged, and ultimately redeemed by the "fire" of God's love (note the quotes, which imply a metaphor), leading to reconciliation and salvation.

 

[bhsmte]

They both are judged, and ultimately redeemed by the "fire" of God's love (note the quotes, which imply a metaphor), leading to reconciliation and salvation.

Can an atheist then be in God's good graces when they die if they led a good life?

 

[Received]

Can an atheist then be in God's good graces when they die if they led a good life?

Everyone is in God's good graces no matter what the hell they do. That's why it's called grace. Bad atheists and bad Christians will both be redeemed after death. That's how God's love works. It's sorta inexorable.

 

[bhsmte]

Everyone is in God's good graces no matter what the hell they do. That's why it's called grace. Bad atheists and bad Christians will both be redeemed after death. That's how God's love works. It's sorta inexorable.

Seems you have a different view than many other Christians.

 

[Received]

Seems you have a different view than many other Christians.

Yeah, here's the difference: most other Christians talk about God's grace and how great it is, but only apply it to them and the people who agree with them.

I sorta just read the Bible and take it extra seriously.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, here's the difference: most other Christians talk about God's grace and how great it is, but only apply it to them and the people who agree with them.

I sorta just read the Bible and take it extra seriously.

Well, I think people who think like you are clearly the minority of Christians, but likely growing.

Even Billy Graham, had clear ethical and moral issues towards the end of his life, when he ticked off many Christians by basically saying non-believers could make it to heaven.

 

[Received]

Well, I think people who think like you are clearly the minority of Christians, but likely growing.

Even Billy Graham, had clear ethical and moral issues towards the end of his life, when he ticked off many Christians by basically saying non-believers could make it to heaven.

Yeah, and to me this summarizes the "problem" of having actual faith in God's love, which tends to break through crappy theology and so tick people off.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ask some of the Christians, a few will try to dodge it but besides Catholicism, and a handful of other denominations, you can murder all the people you want and still get into heaven if you are a believer. Protestant? You can kill people. Methodist? You can kill people. Universalist? You can kill people.

Methodism doesn't teach this (I should know, as I was raised Methodist). There is freedom from the consequences of the Law, but the freedom is not license. Murder is still wrong, and someone who is regenerate recognizes that.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Received. You say that to live by faith is seldom understood, and you give us a quotation by Tolstoy: "without faith, it is impossible to live."
May I propose therefore, to change " by faith," to " by Love." It is more easily understood, and also more easily to do and adhere to. When we advice,
or tell people: " Without Love, it is impossible to live a full and happy life, then
mention the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets:
" Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds.
Also: Love our neighbour as we love ourselves." That is straightforward and easily understood, And it is also what Jesus told us in Matthew 22: 35-40:

 

[variant]

As objective as you and me, sure.

What I meant is, is a religion separable from it's adherents?

 

[Received]

What I meant is, is a religion separable from it's adherents?

That's the big question. I really don't know how you separate a religion from its adherents. It's an easily ascertainable fact that people can use religion or anything instrumentally in their own preferred ways. So there's no doubt that lots of people do that. The question becomes: at what point is a religion just a religion, rather than misused by its adherents?

I think the answer is: what its principles and commands are. That's what a religion is.

 

[bhsmte]

That's the big question. I really don't know how you separate a religion from its adherents. It's an easily ascertainable fact that people can use religion or anything instrumentally in their own preferred ways. So there's no doubt that lots of people do that. The question becomes: at what point is a religion just a religion, rather than misused by its adherents?

I think the answer is: what its principles and commands are. That's what a religion is.

Here is where the problems come in. Who determines what a religion's principles and commands are? Who has final say on what they are or are not?

 

[Received]

Here is where the problems come in. Who determines what a religion's principles and commands are? Who has final say on what they are or are not?

A religion determines its principles and commands. I think they're very clearly at face value here. Don't kill, covet, steal, etc. Love your enemies. Things like that.

Of course, the very micromoment you do this, you realize how the vast majority of Christians really aren't living their religion. They're living something else. What is this? Their culturally conditioned, warped versions of religion.

So maybe it's safe to say that Christ has rarely been preached, in the sense that who he really is and what his message really is hasn't truly been heard, given all this cultural noise twisting the real basic meaning of the principles and commands of religion.

And what becomes most interesting to me is how many nonbelievers seem discontented with religion when it's revealed *not* to be this culturally warped stuff. They tend to leave alone the really good (and hard) stuff. Just like the so-called Christians do.

Which adds a whole new meaning to: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[Received]

And a lot of theology is just clever attempts to cover up the really basic stuff a child could see in order to make the message easier and more fitting with the theologian's herd group.