Jump to content

The Afterlife


spiritseeker

Recommended Posts

Dear Mike,

Thanks for the comment. May I say:

I think you've responded, not to what I actually said, but to what you think you read.

The killing and the feeding were obvious as examples of knowing good v evil. Congratulations you knew the difference.

But the question is not that you did, but on what basis did you?

 

If finally there is no heaven, then there is no distinction of consequence between cruelty and non-cruelty. So to be right would finally be just as meaningless as to be wrong. You can word it any way you like, but it would only be relative; morals as morals disappear. It wouldn't matter finally what you do; it would simply become the little guy against the big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is Heaven and Hell for this reason.

 

To me, the notions of heaven and hell don't really fix the problem. If one believes in a literal heaven and a literal hell, then, just as now, good and evil are forevermore part of the universe, side by side. According to the contemporary understanding of heaven and hell, most people will be forevermore in rebellion against God. And even the ones who are "saved" in heaven have the knowledge that their loved ones are suffering everlasting torment. That certainly wouldn't be heaven for me!

 

On the other hand, I think it was Augustine who said that the saints in heaven could see the souls being tormented in hell and it would bring the saints even more joy. What a horrendous doctrine!

 

Contemporary Christianity says that the only way to escape this neverending torment is to trust in the person of Jesus. When we consider that there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies, and how many of those other life forms out there know nothing of Jesus, then the number of creatures in hell would so dwarf the number of Christians in heaven that heaven wouldn't even show up on the map of final destinations. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On the other hand, I think it was Augustine who said that the saints in heaven could see the souls being tormented in hell and it would bring the saints even more joy. What a horrendous doctrine!

 

 

 

Billmc,

 

You have your Saints mixed up, St Augustine was the authority on the eternal fate of unbaptised infants. It was St Thomas Aquinas who believed that the "beatitude" of the "saved" would be enjoyed more by being able to see the fate of the dammed. In mitigation, St Thomas did have an experience of the divine close to his own demise taht made him declare that all he had written - in comparison - was "straw".

 

However, I must say I am in general sympathy with the main points of your post. And it does seem to me that a fixed correspondence between our morality and any "reward" would compromise the ultimacy of "grace". Well, it certainly does, given the slant given on such things within the Pure Land way. Maybe Christianity is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

Forgive me if I was rather brisk in my last post. I usually try not to be confrontational in my responses, and I realize that I came across that way.

Anyway, what I get out of your argument is not so much a question of what the ‘basis’ of good and evil is. Are good and evil established and defined merely by what can be gotten out of them? How could an afterlife form a basis for what is good or evil? Is there nothing inherently good in feeding the hungry that exists independently of any concept of reward? Does the concept of reward and punishment exhaust the reality of good and evil? After all, you said that without heaven and hell, ‘neither good nor evil would exist.’ According to this, then, without divine reward and punishment, the good is not good, and evil is not evil.

I think what your argument really gets at is the question of 'what is the point' of doing good if death spells the end of life. That is a big question, because we all like to see goodness vindicated. Yet I think the question extends to the whole sphere of life and existence. Why stop with good and evil? What is the point of anything at all if it one day ends? By this reasoning it can be argued, and often is, that without an afterlife, life itself is meaningless. If life ends in death, then of what value is life? Would life, then, have no basis, if not finalized by eternity? Is life not life unless it lasts forever and everything ultimately, eternally matters?

I'm not sure we really tend to know what we want. In the wake of death we want to live forever. There's no doubt about that: most of us at some point or another would like not to have to die. Yet, when I really think about it, the prospect of living forever can seem just as dismal, especially when combined with the idea that every single thing we do in this life 'ultimately and finally matters'. Is it really any more encouraging to have an infinite weight on one's shoulders?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Please, pardon my using the space for quote boxes, but it just seemed more efficient to address point by point.

Forgive me ...

Done. Likewise, forgive me If I had seemed untoward.

 

To answer:

Are good and evil established and defined merely by what can be gotten out of them? How could an afterlife form a basis for what is good or evil?

No and no. The concept of the afterlife in not the basis for good and evil, but neither can it be ignored.

 

Is there nothing inherently good in feeding the hungry that exists independently of any concept of reward?

Not in or of itself, but by and how God defines it.

 

Does the concept of reward and punishment exhaust the reality of good and evil? After all, you said that without heaven and hell, ‘neither good nor evil would exist.’ According to this, then, without divine reward and punishment, the good is not good, and evil is not evil.

We all seem to have agreed that good and evil do, in fact, exist. But, from where do we get our concepts and our definitions of good and evil? It is of and by God. The One who has communicated to man what is good and what is evil. It is He that defines good as good and evil as evil.

We have, because He has told us of, our freedom to choose between the goods and the evils. But freedom doesn't exist if we do not know the consequences for those choices. We only have freedom because God has made the consequences of our choices known to us. If there are no seperate consequences, we have no freedom; because the results would all be the same regardless of the choices made. If all the consequences are ultimately the same, then we cannot rightly speak of right or wrong. If grace gathers all of man together in the end, regardless of our choices, God has robbed man of his freedom by blurring any differences between good and evil.

 

I think what your argument really gets at is the question of 'what is the point' of doing good if death spells the end of life. That is a big question, because we all like to see goodness vindicated. Yet I think the question extends to the whole sphere of life and existence. Why stop with good and evil? What is the point of anything at all if it one day ends? By this reasoning it can be argued, and often is, that without an afterlife, life itself is meaningless. If life ends in death, then of what value is life? Would life, then, have no basis, if not finalized by eternity? Is life not life unless it lasts forever and everything ultimately, eternally matters?

I believe these are precisely the right and well reasoned questions to ask.

 

I'm not sure we really tend to know what we want. In the wake of death we want to live forever. There's no doubt about that: most of us at some point or another would like not to have to die. Yet, when I really think about it, the prospect of living forever can seem just as dismal, especially when combined with the idea that every single thing we do in this life 'ultimately and finally matters'. Is it really any more encouraging to have an infinite weight on one's shoulders?

Again, this is the right direction. You've just exposed why God provides us with a choice to carry the burden of "every single thing we do in this life" into a dismal eternity; aka- Hell; or choose in favor of accepting His offer and method by which to have everything that was not good forgiven and be with Him, where there are no weighty regrets to carry; aka-Heaven. Our freedom to choose between His way and our own is His gift to us; and He will not choose for us. And, He has enunciated the consequences.

 

davidk

Edited by davidk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello David. Thank you for your explanations.

 

Firstly I would not agree that what is good and evil are defined or arbitrated by God. I would think that even God has to recognize the good as good and evil as evil, independently of himself. Of course, we may say that God by nature is predisposed to perfectly align himself with the good, but there is a philosophical difference. It goes back to the old question: does God love what is good because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? I would say the former, otherwise any immoral action can be justified by the decree that 'God wills it'. To me 'the good' can roughly be defined as that which benefits, or negatively as doing no harm. It is not centrally about consequences in terms of rewards and punishment.

 

Now, you seem to take to the idea that life without eternity is meaningless, while at the same time agreeing with my sentiment that a world in which what we do 'finally matters' is, in fact, dismal (no doubt by such standards the vast majority of people who ever lived are on this way to dismal eternity, if not already there). Now, how can one agree that it is dismal and still think it good and necessary?

 

I would say that if that is the what life is about, and God is weighing infinite consequences on our finite choices in this finite life, then he has in fact robbed us of choice. We have no choice in fact except to do what he says - or else. Unreasonable demands and unreasonable consequences for crimes are outlawed in all civilized countries - I hate to think that the Creator of the universe isn't at least as good as our constitutions.

 

Additionally, one might wonder why, if eternity is what makes life meaningful, why God didn’t just put us all there in the first place, instead of us being here, living this life on earth. I would say that contrary to making life meaningful, this concept of eternity in heaven/hell can actually be seen to negate any real meaning that this life may have for us now, because it is all about the next life, not this one. What is a few dozen years compared with eternity? Why is there life at all? The way I see it, this belief can imply that nothing in life is meaningful in and of itself but in a way is a symbol - and a predicate - for eternity. Would not one be justified in finding such a view potentially maddening? Would that not get in the way of enjoying simple and good pleasures because there is an utmost serious 'ought' that we all need to be paying attention to? How might one enjoy being in the moment with a cup of tea with infinity on his back?

 

Moreover, if heaven is simply the result of having our bad deeds forgotten or forgiven, then heaven isn't exactly a reward for doing good, and hence is not a consequence of our actions, is it? Why must we 'carry all our deeds with us' except those whom God decides don't have to face the consequences? And this question follows: why can't God just all-out forgive us all if he can do it for some people? Or at least deal restorative measures or punishments for those who need correction? Why must everything be so either/or, us-vs-them, eternal life vs eternal damnation? Why must he demand that one profess the correct formula (doesn't that negate the importance of actually being good)? Why place eternal weight on one finite life (does that not negate the meaningfulness of this life?).

 

Note that I'm not totally against an idea of reward or punishment for our deeds in some metaphysical sense, but I have very big problems with traditional Christian ideas about it. I obviously cannot know whether there is or is not an afterlife or what that afterlife might be like. What I do know is that if it is fair, it would have to actually be in line with, and do justice to, life as it is lived.

I simply do the best with what I've got and leave the rest to powers greater than myself. That is all I can do. I would think that God, who is credited with creating this life, would of all persons (if not him, then who?) understand this, and not 'tempt us beyond what we are able to bear'. And contrary to something you said, if hell is what awaits most of us, then I say God has done all but nothing in the way of warning the world. I don't think he would make demands that contradict our reason, sensibilities, appearances, and experiences of reality. Giving us this life and then in the end drawing the curtain back and showing us that none of it was truly real - would that not be lying, and grievously at that?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be out of order here as I fortunately live in a parallel universe where a reasonably coherent Buddhist Pure Land "apologetics" results in ultimate felicity for all. Nevertheless, I would like to make a couple of points while allowing and apologising for the fact that logic has never been my strongest attribute............(In my experience logical arguments never ultimately determine our beliefs, more our total life experience which is unique to ourselves)

 

I see no reason why the consequence of our choices should - or need be - eternal for them to have significance, or to give meaning to "good" and "evil". And I always find it difficult to understand why, if "free will" is so important, it should be given for just one short sharp ambiguous life and then taken from us to suffer its apparent misuse forever. I also agree with Thomas Talbott that, given that God wills for us the very thing we really want, the idea of any human being making a fully informed choice against such a will is finnaly incoherent. ( See Talbotts book "The Inescapble Love of God")

 

God is infinite and again, I see no reason why any form of time limit should be set for "redemption". I've written elsewhere concerning the words of St Augustine who said that we were made for God and therefore we find no rest until we rest in God (or words to that effect) so will not repeat myself, but these words do form the basis for a reasoned argument for Universal Salvation.

 

In the words of Julian of Norwich.........on Easter Sunday......

 

He is Risen!

 

The worst conceivable thing has happened,

and it has been mended......

So that the end of everything shall be well.

I say again, all manner of things shall end well.

 

Amen

 

 

 

Just popped back as I decided to look up my previous post regarding the words of St Augustine......

 

Freud came to this conclusion about human beings, that.......it is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestation of their aggressiveness. ("Civilization and Its Discontents")

 

The main argument against Universalism seems to revolve around "free will". For me, the key comes with the words of St Augustine...."You made us for thee, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee". Within Time, duration, Divinity will always be seeking the "salvation" of all. And each will remain "restless" until they become aware of the infinite Love of Reality-as-is. "Eternity" , as duration, IS a long time, as you say! My hope and trust is that all will eventually find such "rest" (though I understand it more as "infinite creativity" than "rest"!)

 

It seems to me that if "acceptance" of God's love is required, and a time limit set to such acceptance, then "hell" as eternal suffering can be a conclusion. Yet if we think more in terms of becoming aware of a Love that is eternally "given", and set no limits in time, then the Universalist conclusion seems a genuine hope.

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tariki,

 

Beautifully put - my belief is universal salvation (or restoration) also, and Ive never seen it better expressed.

 

Luther said we cant know any more about life beyond death than a fetus does about the world it's going to enter. But universalism is the only view of eschatology that reconciles a loving God with a suffering world.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

 

If finally there is no heaven, then there is no distinction of consequence between cruelty and non-cruelty. So to be right would finally be just as meaningless as to be wrong. You can word it any way you like, but it would only be relative; morals as morals disappear. It wouldn't matter finally what you do; it would simply become the little guy against the big.

 

It would seem to me both reasonable and obvious that there are indeed consequences from what you refer to as cruelty and non-cruelty. It seems to me that One cannot be at internal peace and rest and do harm to another. In my experience, the two are spiritually not compatible. One who is at rest and peace inside has no desire to harm another as it in effect harming his/her own present well being. The one is a consequence of the other. Perhaps if one looks at internal peace and rest as heaven, then your statement, to me, has significance as long as it doesn't refer to a physical place called 'heaven' nor is limited to an afterlife.

 

Just a view to consider concerning your comment.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tariki,

 

Beautifully put - my belief is universal salvation (or restoration) also, and Ive never seen it better expressed.

 

Luther said we cant know any more about life beyond death than a fetus does about the world it's going to enter. But universalism is the only view of eschatology that reconciles a loving God with a suffering world.

 

rivanna,

 

The words of Luther you speak of jogged my brain cells and brought to mind a poem by Philip Larkin, "First Sight".You may already be familiar with it.

 

Lambs that learn to walk in snow

When their bleating clouds the air

Meet a vast unwelcome, know

Nothing but a sunless glare.

Newly stumbling to and fro

All they find, outside the fold,

Is a wretched width of cold.

 

As they wait beside the ewe,

Her fleeces wetly caked, there lies

Hidden round them, waiting too,

Earth's immeasureable surprise.

They could not grasp it if they knew,

What so soon will wake and grow

Utterly unlike the snow.

 

It seems in some ways to reconcile the "this world" "next world" distinction that JosephM points to in his last post.

 

Soon after any series of posts of my own my mind seems to settle upon certain ideas as being particularly relevant to the current moment.............this time it was the words of St Thomas Aquinas concerning all he had written being "straw" in comparison to an experience of the divine. How far ranging this is...............

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you, I believe in an afterlife.

I believe there is Heaven and Hell for this reason: If there were neither, if heaven were attainable regardless the individual's faith, if everyone has their own path, or if only oblivion of the individual soul is at the end, then likewise, neither good nor evil would exist. It just wouldn't really matter whether we set ourselves off with explosives killing a diner full of people, or fed the hungry.

But since it is observed by man that some behavior is good and some bad, the belief in Heaven and Hell is by reason- inescapable.

 

 

 

But does the bible say that you can only tell good apart from evil if you believe in heaven and hell? I don't recall scripture saying this. In fact, in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus uses a Samaritan, a non-Jew, as an example of someone who was a good neighbor who's example we should follow even though the Good Samaritan was not a follower of the "true" religion of Jesus' time. Jesus did not believe in all the "orthodox" doctrines that were accepted by Jews in his time yet Christians praise him as the messiah. And if there was a connection between morality and a belief in hell, why is it that according to surveys, the nations which are the most violent are the ones which are most religious, the states which are most religious have the highest crime rates, and there are more Christians in prison than non-Christians? I'm not using this as an anti-religious argument and I'm not saying all Christians who believe in heaven and hell are bad people. There are many conservative Christians who are wonderful and kind people but my point is that if there was a connection between belief in hell and morality, wouldn't we see this in the fruit of the Spirit of the Christian? Wouldn't you agree there's more to Christianity and behaving morally than simply beliefs? Doesn't James say faith without works is dead and that even the devil believes? Is it not more what you do with your faith that matters moreso than what your faith is itself?

 

And I always find it difficult to understand why, if "free will" is so important, it should be given for just one short sharp ambiguous life and then taken from us to suffer its apparent misuse forever.
I also don't understand how having a heaven without hell takes away our free will anymore so than us having no choice to die at all takes away our free will. Interestingly, there is a verse in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 which says everyone is saved, both humans and even animals:
For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth?
I also love this one video of Bishop Spong where he talks about how hell is an invention of the church:
Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph, thank you for your perspective.

 

Billmc, thank you for yours, as well.

 

Tariki and Rivanna, your inputs on universalism are interesting. However, respectfully, in any form of universalism morals disappear, and we are just left with metaphysics, where there is nothing that has meaning in right or wrong. Freedom vanishes and the concept of morality cannot be sustained.

 

Mike, we seem to have a foundational difference in how to determine right from wrong. I believe God is infinite and personal, for otherwise, nothing would exist in the way it exists today. In that, I believe, as on these pages, we, and all of mankind, need an answer for man's dilemma of being just as capable of being evil as good. I believe we have hope of a solution. A vital part of which, is knowing God is good and He sets the rules. And they will thusly be good.

 

neon, I think you've lept to an astounding assumption in the Samaritan story. Jesus was not being critical of Jewish doctrine, but supportive. His being critical was of "Jewish" hypocrisy in regard to their doctrines. In a similar mis-assumption, good and evil do not exist because of a belief in Heaven and Hell. It is in the knowing there is good and evil that we know Heaven and Hell must likewise exist.

In reviewing Ecc 3:18ff, I believe another mistake has been made. Solomon is speaking of the "sons of men". In context, this is the vain and fallen man who does not have a faith in God. In these verses Solomon shows that power (there is nothing men are more ambitious of) and life itself (there is nothing men are more fond or jealous of) are nothing more than beasts without the fear of God. V.21 ( V.22 is one I think billmc would appreciate) explains the difference, the breath in this case being the life and spirit of.

By believing all men go to Heaven, it seems Spong has abandoned any real meaning of good or evil. Relying more on sociological ethics, Spong sees morality with no enforcing agent other than social pressures and some form an elite class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Tariki and Rivanna, your inputs on universalism are interesting. However, respectfully, in any form of universalism morals disappear, and we are just left with metaphysics, where there is nothing that has meaning in right or wrong. Freedom vanishes and the concept of morality cannot be sustained.

If morals disappear because of universalism, please explain why according to this survey, bible-believing evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture as being moral and just than any other group. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

 

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

 

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

Do you think Jesus, who taught to love your enemies, would support tortue? Please explain why the non-believers surveyed were behaving more "Christlike" than the evangelicals if a lack of belief in hell leads to immorality. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

A vital part of which, is knowing God is good and He sets the rules. And they will thusly be good.
So do you believe Judges 11:29-40 was divinely inspired by God if God would only command good things and the bible is intended to be read literally?

 

neon, I think you've lept to an astounding assumption in the Samaritan story. Jesus was not being critical of Jewish doctrine, but supportive. His being critical was of "Jewish" hypocrisy in regard to their doctrines.
But you claim that unless people believe in your "orthodox" version of Christianity, this will make them be immoral yet Jesus uses an example of someone who did not believe in the orthodox religion who was moral and that believing in the orthodox religion does not make you automatically good.

 

 

By believing all men go to Heaven, it seems Spong has abandoned any real meaning of good or evil. Relying more on sociological ethics, Spong sees morality with no enforcing agent other than social pressures and some form an elite class.[/size][/font]

Please define what you think the real meaning of good and evil is. Do you believe torture is always immoral?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tariki and Rivanna, your inputs on universalism are interesting. However, respectfully, in any form of universalism morals disappear, and we are just left with metaphysics, where there is nothing that has meaning in right or wrong. Freedom vanishes and the concept of morality cannot be sustained.

 

 

davidk,

 

Interesting? At least a little headway! As I said before, I'm not strong on logic, yet as far as I can see you only offer assertions and opinion rather than logical argument. Once again, I see no reason why the consequence of any act need be "eternal" for that act to be free or made in the face of a choice between "good" and "evil". Logic does seem a funny thing at times, whole self-contained systems can be created, each of the systems points being consistent with each other and supporting each other. Yet ultimately the whole system exists only like the grin of the Cheshire cat, having no relation to reality. As someone has said in another context.......Ho Hum!

 

Those whose grasp of logic is greater than my own have argued on both sides of the "universalist/non-universalist" dilemma. Again as I indicated before, for me it is experiences unique to ourselves that often lead to our beliefs and conclusions rather than any argument of others, the still small voice of the heart that whispers amid the tumult of life as lived each day.

 

Just as a by-the-way, there is an argument made by the French existentialist philosopher John Paul Sartre. He has claimed that if there is a creator God then no human being could ever possibly be inherently "free" as they would not have chosen their own essence. Not really sure what to make of that myself, and I lean toward the "eastern" Pure Land approach anyway. We have our own "self-contained" systems! Suffice to say, religion to me is not a means to an end (i.e to act in such a way as to gain salvation) but a response to an infinite compassion that has been recognised to have been given (grace) irrespective of anything I have been or done.(and given to all) An ethics of gratitude. And in my experience this transmutes in time into an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

 

Neither speak ill of others, nor well of yourself.

The moment you open

Your mouth to speak,

The autumn wind stirs

And chills your lips. (Buson)

 

Just a word concerning texts. They do seem open to multiple interpretations. I have always loved the way the Jewish people approach them. They draw from the most arid words of the OT the most wonderful insights into the wonder of Gods world and its ways. For me any text is an exchange between the words and ourselves; no text speaks purely for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of your read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce? What I like about it is that people can at any time (even after death) choose to give up past patterns of behavior that enslave them and move closer to God. I think M.Scott Peck's "In Heaven as on Earth" envisions a greeen room where people can take all the time they need to choose God. But I don't believe any human vision of the afterlife is perfect. I think whatever happens it will be much better and more clever than any of us could expect, just like many of the marvels of science that God created and has surprised us with.

 

I love that there are multiple ways/layers of understanding God's relationship to humans. If the idea that God is a moral judge who will send people to everlasting torment causes some people to treat others in a more loving manner, it is helpful. When I was young, I behaved to avoid punishment by my parents. Now I behave because of my own integrity and I see that good behavior is its own reward. So for me, there is more meaning to a relationship with God than the fact that He is the standard for morals; an arbiter who will send some to hell for not confessing Jesus as Lord of their life. But that image works for many loving people, who are trying to make the world a better place, just as I am. I think that is why the Bible gives us the test of the Fruits of the Spirit to know who to follow and who not to follow.

 

Rather than Jesus providing us access to a God who is too pure to have evil near, I believe God delights in being near to evil so God can change it. God is merciful loves every one of his children. Jesus attempted to show us that God delights most in the finding of the lost sheep. I used to have problems with that, because I felt like maybe I needed to misbehave in order to get God's love an attention. Now I understand that things we are ashamed of make us want to hide from God, and that God's door of forgiveness is always open to everyone. Repentance leads to growth, which is what God desires for each of us. Fear is one way of motivating repentance, but desire for closeness with God is another way. Among healthy adults, I don't think compliance through fear is a way to promote good relations. Compliance through love and self-sacrifice is the way Jesus was teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neon,

The universalist arguement is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior. If that is true, it would finally make no difference if you tortured someone or not. Making moot any descrimination between right and wrong, making morality an empty word. There finally would be no difference in any behavior.

Now, by knowing there is a difference, that morality does exist, and by the shear weight of your reason, the concept of universalism proves false.

 

Judges: God had given to Jephthah a certain measure of valor and might to conquer the Ammomnites, but that did not imply God approved of such as human sacrifices.

 

My claim is that there is a right and wrong and Christianity is finally consistent with it. I have not in any way implied a claim that anyone who does not believe the same as I would be immoral.

 

Remember, only God is good. It is only by His power that we can do anything good. Good is obedience to God and His laws. Anything in disobedience to God is evil.

In the Samaritan story, he was doing good, albeit, unwittingly.

 

I believe taking sadistic pleasure in inflicting intense pain on others is considered evil. I believe in not inflicting any more pain on someone than I would expect to endure to save the life of someone else.

-

Tariki,

Sartre also said finite man can find no significance for his own existance without an infinite reference point(God). Even though he refuted the existance of God, he had no other answer to offer on the infinite source.

It is difficult to be free prior to becoming existant or having essence. There is no one there to make any choices.

Consequences are simply the results of our choices. Some are temporal, some eternal. We must also not neglect the concepts of repentence and forgiveness.

 

We must also consider the author of the texts. I offer for you to consider that the texts have but one interpretation, but may have many applications.

-

AITNOP,

I believe in the Christian concept of the relationship with God, not as threatening, but loving. In that relationship, I know who the dominant personality is. My love for God causes me to be obedient, not the threat of punishment. By His love for all man He has provided us a way to be with Him. The key is that I cannot discard the path He has lovingly made in order to make my own and still be able say I love Him. That demonstrates a distrust, not love. Because I love Him I follow His guidance. I agree love is what Jesus was teaching, but shall we not neglect what else Jesus said, it's only by abiding in Him can we do good, and only through Him can we be with the Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

You stated........

 

The universalist argument is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior

 

The universalist "argument" ends at the word Heaven. Thomas Talbots book "The Inescapable Love of God" is worth a read. He deals in depth with "behaviour" and its consequences within a Universalist perspective.

 

By the way, thanks for your words on Sartre. I never really spent much time on the atheist existentialists nor subsribed to their views, though I retain a deep respect for the sheer humanity of Albert Camus.

 

All the best.

Derek

 

P.S. I'll retire now to the relative safty of the "Other Wisdom Traditions" section, where I feel more at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neon,

The universalist arguement is that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their behavior. If that is true, it would finally make no difference if you tortured someone or not. Making moot any descrimination between right and wrong, making morality an empty word. There finally would be no difference in any behavior.

Now, by knowing there is a difference, that morality does exist, and by the shear weight of your reason, the concept of universalism proves false.

But I think the opposite is true, that if you believe your way is the one true way and anyone who doesn't agree deserves to be tortured by God for all eternity, then it's a harder temptation to resit putting yourself on God's throne and judging humanity in God's place. If you believe you and people who agree with you alone are God's elect, it's only a step away from believing everyone else is God's unchosen, which is a step away from believing everyone else is God's rejected. And if you believe everyone else that doesn't agree with you is God's rejected, what's to stop one from believing that their enemies are God's enemies and so anything that's done to them no matter how immoral it is is sanctified by God? Again, I don't mean to say all Christians who believe in hell are also immoral, but as I pointed out, all the evidence points to that there's no connection between your morality and a lack of belief in hell.

 

Judges: God had given to Jephthah a certain measure of valor and might to conquer the Ammomnites, but that did not imply God approved of such as human sacrifices.

Then why didn't God intervene and save Jepthah's daughter at the last minute like he did for Abraham's son if this is a literal story? If it was all Jephthah's fault, why didn't God just punish him instead of dragging his innocent daughter into it?

 

My claim is that there is a right and wrong and Christianity is finally consistent with it. I have not in any way implied a claim that anyone who does not believe the same as I would be immoral.

What was right about God's commandment in Numbers 31:16-18?
These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

I believe taking sadistic pleasure in inflicting intense pain on others is considered evil. I believe in not inflicting any more pain on someone than I would expect to endure to save the life of someone else.
So if you accept inflicting intense pain on others is evil, why is it moral for God to torture people in hell for eternity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I believe in the Christian concept of the relationship with God, not as threatening, but loving. In that relationship, I know who the dominant personality is. My love for God causes me to be obedient, not the threat of punishment."

We are right on the same page, here.

 

 

"By His love for all man He has provided us a way to be with Him. The key is that I cannot discard the path He has lovingly made in order to make my own and still be able say I love Him. That demonstrates a distrust, not love."

You're probably hearing a distrust in the limited human view of God we receive in the Bible, rather than a distrust of God.

 

"Because I love Him I follow His guidance. I agree love is what Jesus was teaching, but shall we not neglect what else Jesus said, it's only by abiding in Him can we do good, and only through Him can we be with the Father."

Well, I certainly know people that do much Good in the world that don't abide in Jesus. And, if Jesus is the embodiment of pure Love, then it is not a far leap to say "Love is the way, Love is the Truth, Love is the Life. No one comes to God without Love."

 

DavidK,

 

I'm not going to spend much more time on this, because I'm working on a project to help needy children in my town. I'll just say that it's fine with me if you believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that God would punish most of God's children in eternal torment. Neither of us know the full truth about God, so as long as your beliefs result in radical compassion, loving your enemy, love in action, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control I think your ideas about God are working for you. Just please, don't try to motivate others by fear of punishment. It gives Christianity a bad name.

 

Should we create another forum to talk about how our beliefs influence our actions? For example, if I believed God was going to send anyone who didn't believe in Jesus to Hell, I would spend every waking moment trying to get everyone to believe in Jesus. Instead, I see "Love God and Love Your Neighbor" as my mandate. I'm spending most of my time trying to help God's kingdom come on this earth. I'd be interested to hear how your faith influences your daily actions, because I'm guessing we'd come out much closer in the practice of our faith than we do in discussing the background theology.

 

Janet (AITNOP)

Edited by AllInTheNameOfProgress
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

neon,

Sartre also said finite man can find no significance for his own existance without an infinite reference point(God). Even though he refuted the existance of God, he had no other answer to offer on the infinite source.

 

I do think there is a lot of merit to this sentiment, as I see it in my life and in religions generally. That we need to identify with some greater or deeper than the individual self, in my experience, is true. I think that there is an inherent incompleteness in the self, which makes us seek that which is complete, and in this sense, infinite, eternal. I like 'undefined,' as in 'beyond definition or category'. But the fact is, there have been plenty of 'answers' or names given to the 'infinite source' other than 'God'. Buddha-nature, Tao, Brahman, and a myriad of others, are all 'other answers' to the question of the infinite. The Greeks sought a quintessence, the Buddhists negated an essence. But each sough the infinite.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

The universalist "argument" ends at the word Heaven. ...though I retain a deep respect for the sheer humanity of Albert Camus.

 

Derek

 

I'll admit to reporting that the concept of Heaven seemed to me implied by the universalist's belief that all men will ultimately be saved. If that subtly is in error, I regret the confusion.

 

 

Albert Camus wrote in similar vein to his predecessor Frenchman, Charles Baudelaire (poet and art historian, quoted saying; "If there is a God, he is the devil."). In the context of his writings, Camus argues that if there is a God, then we can't fight social evil, for if we do, we are fighting a God who made the world as it is. He recognized man's depravity, but he saw a noblity in man. That's why Camus was an aetheist. For if man were created by an all powerful-infinite-personal God, how could he escape the conclusion that the God who made cruelty in man is not himself also bad and cruel? I think their arguments are irrefutable. That's if the premise is that: man is as he has always been- that is there has been a continuity of intrinsic cruelty.

 

Just a note on a previous post.

I see no reason why the consequence of any act need be "eternal" for that act to be free or made in the face of a choice between "good" and "evil".

It should not be interpreted as any act. Just the ones made on purpose.

 

Our experiences are individually unique. I don't see my ever having refuted that. But, I'll also have to say I believe any argument that uses any unexplicable or undefinable personal experiences from their own "self-contained" system as a basis for their argument are at far greater risk of being seen as irrelevant.

 

Davidk

Edited by davidk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think the opposite is true, ... that if you believe your way is the one true way and anyone who doesn't agree deserves to be tortured by God for all eternity, ...

 

Then why didn't God intervene and save Jepthah's daughter at the last minute like he did for Abraham's son if this is a literal story? If it was all Jephthah's fault, why didn't God just punish him instead of dragging his innocent daughter into it?

I'm open to hearing what you may consider to be the universalist position on being "saved". If everyone ultimately gets saved, then how do you explain our need for individuality, diversity, seperate paths, or individual decisions? They'd all lose their meaning and need to exist.

 

There's nothing for you to consider about my way as the "one true" way. I'm only here to report why you are here, why you have such universal needs as all men, and why you can rest knowing the infinite-personal-creator God meets your individual needs. If you understand, then you will have the desire to do what God has prepared for you. We cannot save ourselves.

---

The sacrifices of Jepthah and Abraham are profoundly different. Most importantly Jepthah was offering a sacrifice of his own choosing and in so doing ended up offering one unsatisfatory to both him and to God. Try and review the Abrahamic story from that perpsective, and if it seems the meaning remains unclear to you, let me know and we can review it together.

 

 

 

What was right about God's commandment in Numbers 31:16-18?

 

So if you accept inflicting intense pain on others is evil, why is it moral for God to torture people in hell for eternity?

Speaking on Numbers could be lengthy and is not particulalry suited to this thread. At this point I can only advise you to read all of Numbers, cover to cover, finding additional references if you can, to find the answer. To 'cherry pick' verses only muddles the conversation.

--

If you believe God to be a sadist, I don't, perhaps it would be a better question for you to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are right on the same page, here.

I suspect we may have more in common. You did put a lot on the table for discussion, like 'Fear'. Which could be discussed more fully.

Suffice it to say, God gave us enough information, not so that He can be fully known by any man, but so enough about Him can be suffiently known to understand Him, His character, and His attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

You've seen, even with all of their God's, the Greeks system fell well short of a sufficient answer for unity. They were in constant conflict and therefore unable to answer the burning questions.

The Buddhists method, as with other eastern religions, fails to find meaning for the diversity in all that exists.

When we look at Christianity, we can see it is the only belief system that has the complete package.

 

davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

You've seen, even with all of their God's, the Greeks system fell well short of a sufficient answer for unity. They were in constant conflict and therefore unable to answer the burning questions.

The Buddhists method, as with other eastern religions, fails to find meaning for the diversity in all that exists.

When we look at Christianity, we can see it is the only belief system that has the complete package.

 

davidk

 

Hi David,

I'm afraid you must speak for yourself, because when I look at Christianity as a belief system, I see a system as rife with incompleteness and unanswered questions as any can be. And being someone who is interested in other religious and philosophical traditions, I'm also not impressed by your one-sentence dismissal of some of the most profound paths that have ever developed. Needless to say I do not agree with your assertions and sentiments regarding the Greeks and especially the Buddhists. But since they are only assertions, I need not elaborate any further.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service